Who’s a Lightweight?

27 February 2008



Google
WWW Kensington Review

Clinton’s Foreign Policy Speech Ignores Major Issues

Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton made what her inner circle called a major foreign policy speech at George Washington University on Monday. She insists that Senator Barrack Obama is an international affairs lightweight at a time America cannot afford such as a leader. Yet, even a cursory review of her speech suggests that she herself really ought to spend some time reading something other than focus group results.

In listening to the speech she was her usual wooden and scripted self, but in reading it, one is appalled by the huge gaps in it. Nowhere in the speech does the word “Russia” appear. Ditto “Canada,” “Mexico” and naturally, “NAFTA.” The letters “NATO” only appear in the word “senator,” Latin America is almost entirely ignored save for a passing reference to Cuba and Venezuela (although no actual policy was attached). And the UN isn’t mentioned.

Since this clearly wasn’t a global speech, perhaps, her narrower focus brought out detailed policy. Alas, no. With regard to Africa, she stated,

I have been to Africa and have seen how disease —HIV, AIDS, Tuberculosis, Malaria — undermine progress across an entire continent. I pushed our government to start battling the global AIDS epidemic because this affects our security too. I’m very hopeful that we will make progress in Africa dealing with the multiplicity of challenges that the continent faces. It was my great honor to go to Africa in the mid 1990s as a precursor to my husband’s trip and I applaud President Bush and Mrs. Bush for going back. We need a consistent coherent strategy in dealing with Africa and that is something that I will promote.
So, what is that strategy that is coherent and that she will promote? She never said.

Her “policy” on China isn’t any better. “Today, China’s steel comes here and our jobs go there. We play by the rules and they manipulate their currency. We get tainted fish and lead-laced toys and poisoned pet food in return. That will change when I am in the White House because I know we have got to take a consistent approach towards China.” Her consistent approach amounts to co-sponsoring unpassed legislation that “would require any administration to begin reversing our trade deficit.” Yet, it isn’t the administration that can do it – it is the American consumer.

The list goes on: Iraq-Nam (start bringing troops home in 60 days, but not all of them are included), Darfur (“The peace keeping force has not been deployed for reasons many of you know— objections by members of the security counsel among others. The United States has to be pushing much more aggressively to get that done.” Meaning what exactly?), and Pakistan (“We need to be supporting those in Pakistan from the middle class,” or should America just butt out like most Pakistanis want?).

Yet, all is not lost. “Let’s close Guantanamo. Let’s make it clear that we will never sanction torture and we will stand for the rule of law.” Amen.

© Copyright 2008 by The Kensington Review, Jeff Myhre, PhD, Editor. No part of this publication may be reproduced without written consent. Produced using Fedora Linux.

Kensington Review Home