THE PLANK JULY 15, 2009
-
Read Later
READ LATERAvailable only to subscribers. SUBSCRIBE TODAY
-
Listen
ARTICLE AUDIO
- Font Size
This afternoon, Hillary Clinton gave what I thought was an excellent speech laying out the Obama administration's approach to the world. A sizeable portion of the Washington foreign policy establishment packed the Council on Foreign Relations to hear her remarks, and the secretary was accompanied by a gaggle of lieutenants, including (from my view of the room) special envoys Richard Holbrooke and George Mitchell, Undersecretary of State Ellen Tauscher, and a number of assistant secretaries, including Rose Gottemoeller, Andrew Shapiro, and P.J. Crowley. Dennis Ross, who recently decamped to the National Security Council, was also there.
The key idea of the speech was that, because no nation can meet modern threats like proliferation and climate change on their own and because most nations worry about those threats, the United States should establish an "architecture of global cooperation." Clinton repeated the phrase several times and defined it as a way of enabling states to overcome obstacles that "stand in the way of turning commonality of interest into common action." A cooperative architecture would do that by reinvigorating relationships with allies; emphasizing ties to emerging global powers like Brazil, Russia, India, and China; transforming global and regional institutions; and speaking directly to foreign peoples, as President Obama did in Cairo.
Now, you'll find some of these tactics in almost any foreign policy speech, and obviously such an architecture is easier to establish in rhetoric than in actuality, but I like the connectivity inherent in the metaphor, the worldview it advances, and the diplomatic ambition it suggests. Clinton made clear that she was looking for something beyond containment, unilateralism, or balance-of-power realism. What's more, the administration is clearly not relaxing its emphasis on engagement with rogue regimes despite criticism over its handling of Iran's elections, because "[a]s long as engagement might advance our interests and our values, it is unwise to take it off the table." Finally, Clinton emphasized the essentiality of American leadership to global cooperation--"just as no nation can meet these challenges alone, no challenge can be met without America"--which I think is important both because it's true and because it represents a constructive interpretation of American exceptionalism that can be leveraged to our benefit.
The difference between this approach and the previous administration's is stark. As opposed to simple binaries, in which the United States squares off against its enemies, this framework represents an acknowledgment of the complexities we now face, in which threats are transnational and actors need not be entirely good nor irredeemably evil. In such a world, the "you're with us or against us" approach constitutes "global malpractice," as Clinton put it. If the speech was long, the key point was simple: Essentially, the secretary seemed to be saying that, despite the grave dangers we face--indeed, because of the very character of those threats--the emphasis in U.S. foreign policy today must be on cooperation rather than conflict. Not because the world is suddenly a friendlier place, but because meeting threats bluntly may be ineffective or even counterproductive.
As one of my colleagues complained yesterday, Clinton's every action is read less for what it is than for what it might indicate about her position within the administration. But this is a speech worth reading simply for what it says.
--Peter Scoblic
12 comments
Hallelujah! We have grown-ups running the government of the United States for the first time in eight years.
- roidubouloi
July 15, 2009 at 7:50pm
What could possibly be more innocuous than an organization called the "Council On Foreign Relations"?
One imagines a dowdy, dark-panelled conference room filled with stuffy policy wonks, pouring over stacks of books and reams of didactic academic papers; all in an effort to churn out the analysis folks in the White House might find of use when the time comes to translate words into worlds.
Of course, nothing could be farther from the truth. Below is a list of rather prominent American policy makers. You will recognize some of the names. Like, for example, Bill and Hillary Clinton, Dick Cheney, Donnald Rumsfeld. Practically the whole fucking gang of neo-conservatives are on board.
So, when Peter Scoblic notes how the Obama/Clinton administration is at odds with the foreign policy of BushWorld [most of whom are members of CFR] he is either misinformed or just another enabler in the MSM. At best, Obama and Clinton are tweaking the means. It's only a matter of degree, not kind.
On the other hand, it has rather effectively duped Roid, right?
To wit:
Legend:
CFR: Council on Foreign Relations
JINSA: Jewish Institute for National Security
PNAC: Project For a New American Century [the neo-cons]
Dick Cheney, CFR, Bilderberg, Trilateral Comission, PNAC F
ounding Member, JINSA, Neo-Con, Aspen Strategy Group,
David Rockefeller, CFR, Bilderberg, CFR Honorary Chairman of the Board, CFR Chairman 1970-1985, CFR Directorate 1949-1985, CFR Director Emeritus,
George Herbert Walker Bush, Skull n' Bones, Order Of The Rose, Carlyle Group, CFR, Trilateral Comission, CFR Directorate, 33rd Degree Mason,
Bill Clinton, Rhodes Scholar, Order Of DeMolay, 33rd Degree Mason, Order Of The Rose, CFR, Trilateral Commission, Bilderberg,
Paul Wolfowitz, Bilderberg, World Bank, CFR, PNAC Founding Member, Trilateral Comission, JINSA, Neocon, Aspen Strategy Group, Weekly Standard Contributor,
Lewis Libby, CFR, Rand Corperation, PNAC Founding Member, Hudson Institute, Neo-con, Isreali Mossad,
James Wolfenson, CFR, Trilateral Commission, Bilderberg, Rockerfeller Foundation, Population Council,
Paul W Volcker, CFR, Trilateral Commission, Bilderberg, Federal Reserve Board,
Robert Zoellick, CFR, Trilateral Commission, Bilderberg, PNAC, Neo-Con,
Elliot Abrams, CFR, Neo-con, AJC (American Jewish Comitte), PNAC Founding Member, 'Media Research Centre',
John Bolton, CFR, Bilderberg, PNAC, JINSA, Neo-Con, AEI,
Richard Perle, CFR, Bilderberg, JINSA, PNAC Founding Member, AEI, Neo-Con, Autonomy Corp, Defence Policy Board, 'Clean break Paper', Weekly Standard Contributor,
Michael Ladeen, Bilderberg, Opus Dei, P2,
Zalmay Khalilzad, CFR, PNAC, Rand Corporation, Weekly Standard Contributor,
George Shultz, CFR, PNAC (Unnoficial), Vulcan, Bechtel Corporation, Bohemian Club, CFR Directorate,
Donald Rumsfeld, CFR, Bilderberg, PNAC, Neo-Con,
Robert Kagan, Skull n' Bones, CFR, PNAC, Neo-Con,
Hillary Rodham Clinton
- iambiguous
July 15, 2009 at 10:32pm
Well, George, we can pretty much always count on you to miss the point of just about anything in favor of your various conspiracy theories or philosophical mash-ups. Here is why we have grown-ups in charge:
"In such a world, the "you're with us or against us" approach constitutes "global malpractice," as Clinton put it. If the speech was long, the key point was simple: Essentially, the secretary seemed to be saying that, despite the grave dangers we face--indeed, because of the very character of those threats--the emphasis in U.S. foreign policy today must be on cooperation rather than conflict. Not because the world is suddenly a friendlier place, but because meeting threats bluntly may be ineffective or even counterproductive."
The venue is of no importance, except to you. Beam up, why don't you.
- roidubouloi
July 15, 2009 at 10:47pm
Roid,
Conspiracy theory?
My point above [and the relationships it highlights] is on par with the 9/11 Truthers? Oh, please.
Why do you allow yourself to be reduced to the sort of knee jerk crap one would expect from talk radio or Fox News?
This doesn't embarass you?
Here, try again:
Suggesting something is a manifestation of the "ruling class" does not mean that once a month...literally...the folks from CNBC and its Wall Street advertisers sit down with the relevant committee chairmen in Congress, Obama's economic team in the White House, the K Street lobbyists, Noam Scheiber, Larry Kudlow, Henry Kissinger and his "colleagues" from Bilderberg, the Trilateral Commision, the CFR etc. etc. to meticulously plan the next month's economic agenda. It doesn't work that way because it doesn't have to.
Rather than a bunch of subterranean CIA type spooks exchanging skulls and bones, secret handshakes and pass words...while plotting to carve up the world in Dr Evil's secret location under Dick Cheney's den....it is merely a group of very powerful men and women aound the globe making sure that, economic crisis or not, the pie is still carved up as it always has been.
It is just commonsense to point out that those who own and operate the political and economic instruments that sustain the global economy, are going to want to stay in touch with others like them around the world. They have shared political and economic interests that evolve from and center around transactions that need to be debated behind the curtains all over the world. Or do you actually believe their power pales in comparison to "power to the people" elections that go back and forth between the Democrats and the Republicans here at home?
You know damn well the points I make here are not reducible to a cartoon character sketch of Us vs. Them. In fact, your reaction is so over the top...."The venue is of no importance, except to you"....it reveals much more about you than it does me.
How "stark" can the gap between Obama's and Bush's approach to U.S. foreign policy be given the roster above? Didn't you ever have "connect the dots" coloring books as a kid? The dots couldn't be more deeply embedded in the world we live in.
george walton
- iambiguous
July 16, 2009 at 12:35am
George,
"Didn't you ever have "connect the dots" coloring books as a kid?"
Those books certainly embody the world view you vent here on this forum. Moreover, they do so without all the excess verbiage you employ to pad your posts, digressing erratically and vainly name-dropping, in in order to make it seem like there's more to them than the logic of a toddler's reading. Maybe next time you can just post the dots? I promise we'll connect them in the most lurid forms all by ourselves!
- jobeek2
July 16, 2009 at 5:11am
Job,
Are you new here?
Over and again I have tried to explain how my bark and my bite are of the same cloth here in TNR. I am a polemist, a satirist, an ironist.
Some people can appreciate that, but most can't. This is true. But the wonderful thing about the policies of those who own and operate these blogs is that they respect a rather broad rendering of that rarest of rare human rights: "freedom of speech".
Do you have any idea how many folks around the globe....hundreds and hundreds of millions...do not enjoy what we take for granted here?
And concomitant with free speech here is the freedom in turn to ignore the speech of others. Think about that. Around the globe...from Iran and Saudi Arabia to Russia and China...you are not only restricted in what you say, but also in what you hear. Even more horrifically, you are expected to listen to and then parrot "the party line" of one or another "Dear Leader". I'd rather be dead than to endure that.
Anyway, here's my best guess: You don't, uh, "get" me?
So, what I suggest then is that you exercise your option not to be saddled ever again with this burden.
On the other hand, however, I do get you.
Would you be willing to be burdened just one more time to find out who you really are?
You know, polemmically, satirically and ironically. ; o )
george
- iambiguous
July 16, 2009 at 6:20am
George says:
"I am a polemi[ci]st, a satirist, an ironist."
A college friend of mine who is a well-known film director says, "Anyone can be a producer. You just print business cards that say 'producer.'" Et voilá.
The Mother Ship is waiting, George.
- roidubouloi
July 16, 2009 at 7:38am
I "get" you, George .. it's fairly easy, since despite your delusions of being a "polemist, satirist and ironist", your shtick is mindnumbingly shallow. The bombastic pretension in which you cloth your bromides and repetitive, run-of-the-mill rants does not fool anyone here - or elsewhere, I am guessing, other than what I hope is an admiring partner or maybe a young son, student or lover.
In truth, who considers you a keen and insightful polemist, satirist and ironist, other than yourself? Or is this one of those cases where all the unwashed masses of fellow readers and posters you encounter just can not grasp the genius of your work?
Yes, of course I appreciate the freedom we all enjoy here to post whatever we feel like expressing. Right now, for example, I am indulging in venting trivial disdain that I usually keep to myself, so as not to bore fellow posters needlessly ... It's nice, occasionally, to indulge in vain and pointless digression, that much I identify with - if not the incontinence with which you drivel without restraint over each and every blog post in such a manner.
Of course, freedom of speech is much more important when something truly substantive and provocative is posted, but I don't think that applies here. In this case, as you point out, it's the freedom to ignore things that's the more blessed one. Having long since gotten the measure of The Plank's own Ignatius J. Reilly, I will happily return to scrolling past your musings other than at moments of acute boredom or procrastination like these.
- jobeek2
July 16, 2009 at 8:32am
jobeek, I never, ever read George. It saves so much time. I am with roid in post one.
- blackton
July 16, 2009 at 11:49am
roid,
It truly pains me to see you reduced to a business card. Though I'm sure your card is the creme de la creme.
I can already see you in the conference room with Patrick Bateman and the other Wall Street zombies passing around their cards as though they were passing around their dicks.
And it doesn't get any more deriviative than that, right?
Stay thirsty, my friend. Only this time take the cap off. ; o )
gw
- iambiguous
July 16, 2009 at 9:45pm
blackton:
jobeek, I never, ever read George. It saves so much time. I am with roid in post one.
george:
This is true. He never does read my posts. But, like Roid, he does occasionally write them.
Go figure, eh?
gw
- iambiguous
July 16, 2009 at 9:48pm
This week, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton gave a major speech outlining the Obama administration's
- Anonymous
July 17, 2009 at 8:14pm