On HRC's foreign policy

[ehrnst]

Not my writing - but this was posted on a Hillary group FB page, and reposted here with permission of the author. Long but very worth the read. It was written prior to Hillary's primary win, and does include comparisons to Bernie Sanders's policies as well as Trump's (in the iteration they were in at that point), but this is **not** about "refighting" the primary. The thorough, thoughtful deep dive, cited analysis of Hillary's foreign policies is still relevant now, and is a good source of information for discussions with non-supporters on her track record, her approach, and its implications for her presidency.

I've been wanting to write something on HRC's foreign policy for some time and a discussion on this page forced me to do so. It's long, but I hope others find it helpful in discussions with others and that it vindicates their decision to vote for HRC in the first place.

Let me start off by saying that I study comparative politics which the study of the internal politics of other countries rather than international relations, which is the study of relationships between established political systems. Within comparative politics I study political violence, specifically insurgencies and civil wars and my geographic focus is East and Southeast Asia.

I: Priors and Foundations

This is a good quote that, to me, summarizes HRC's foreign policy doctrine:

"Clintonism properly understood, [Harold Koh, Clinton's former legal advisor] asserts, is "nesting a hard-power approach into a broader smart-power strategy, development, diplomacy, public-private partnerships, rule of law." ¹

The source of that quote is this very good article that I highly recommend: http://foreignpolicy.com/2015/11/06/hillary-clinton-doctrine-obama-interventionist-tough-minded-president/.

I begin with that quote because what HRC realizes that Trump and Sanders (and many of her detractors) haven't made clear that they understand that the United States, for better or worse, is the linchpin of the post-WWII global rules-based international order. That is a really critical aspect of individual understandings of foreign relations that is often ignored by the media. Sanders (and to some extent Trump) represent "America-first" isolationists who would allow the existing order to crumble because they feel that it doesn't do enough for the United States. Trump would, of course, also undertake some forms of military intervention that included killing lots of civilians and colonizing oil-producing areas of other countries.

HRC, on the other hand, understands that US power is an indispensable part of the global order. That does not mean invading other countries and overthrowing regimes unfriendly to the United States. It does mean, however, that the US acts, when there are few other alternatives, as a security guard to ensure that the global order is largely respected. But beyond that, she (and others like her, including to a lesser extent Obama) seeks to establish global institutions that shape the behavior of other countries (such as Obama's rhetoric of using TPP as a means to "write the rules" so that China does not).

There is another issue that needs to be discussed before moving forward: the inherently limited ability of the United States to change, in part or in whole, the domestic politics of other countries. This is an important observation under any circumstance, but when discussing diplomacy it is particularly relevant because all too often candidates on the right (and sometimes the left) make it sound as if all the US needs to do in order solve some other country's problem is 'try harder' or apply more firepower or sanctions.

II. Examples and Records

One of the most common charges against HRC is that she supported "regime change" in Honduras. I've addressed that at length elsewhere but I'm just going to go ahead and copy and paste the entire thing in the following paragraphs. There will be some issues of quotes being out of context here, but I feel that's a small price to pay for enumerating these issues.

II.A. Honduras

First, the facts:

"In November 2008, then-Honduran President Manuel Zelaya called for for a poll on a nonbinding national referendum to draft a new constitution, drawing the ire of the military, the Supreme Court and the opposition, which alleged that Zelaya wanted to end the term limits that prevented him from running again. In June 2009, Zelaya was overthrown by the military, held at gunpoint, and was forced to fly to a U.S military base in his pajamas.
[...]
Instead of condemning the figures behind the uprising, suspending support to the illegitimate government of Zelaya¡'s successor, Roberto Micheletti, and demanding a restoration of the democratically elected Zelaya, Secretary Clinton decided to move on. In her memoir "Hard Choices," Clinton wrote that after the coup, she went about hatching a plan with other leaders in the region "to restore order in Honduras and ensure that free and fair elections could be held quickly and legitimately, which would render the question of Zelaya moot." The United States pushed for elections, and in November 2009, despite a boycott by opposition leaders and international observers, elections were orchestrated by the same figures behind Zelaya¡'s ouster.
(Source: https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-partisan/wp/2016/03/10/hillary-clinton-needs-to-answer-for-her-actions-in-honduras-and-haiti/)

Now, a discussion:

If you read the (clearly critical) article from which these quotes came or any other critical work on this (such as this piece in The Nation: http://www.thenation.com/article/how-hillary-clinton-militarized-us-policy-in-honduras/), you will see that there is focus on two analytically distinct events: the coup itself and the response to the coup. No critical article I've seen has actually said that the State Department voiced support for the coup, let alone provided resources to those who carried the thing out. Furthermore, the State Department can't decide stuff like this unilaterally. Even if it did support the coup, the decision would have been made in the White House, not in the State Department.

With regards to the post-coup attribution of blame and labeling the coup a coup (which the State Department manifestly failed to do), that is, again, administration policy. Secondly, the decision to not label the coup a coup was a calculation based on the administration's perception that the ouster of a Chavez-supported left-wing populist who was eroding Honduran democracy was, on balance, in the interests of the United States. As far as calling coups coups, that touches on how US interests are best served abroad. If domestic opposition forces topple governments hostile to the US ("hostile" in the broad sense), is that a good thing? How important is it for us to uphold democracy when the forces that are elected are actively undermining democratic states? This is one of those areas where there is simply no right answer because *SHOCK* the world is a complicated place.

Regarding the Nation article I posed above, you'll see that it conflates a number of issues. The State Department was funding what in the Cold War would be called a psywar operation designed to shift public opinion. It didn't work during the Cold War and it didn't work in Honduras and the US government just got conned out of money by people claiming to be able to win hearts and minds. The militarization aspect is more a consequence of larger US policy designed to address the symptoms rather than the causes of violence in Latin America; the latter would require the legalization of drugs as its first step. So when the article concludes with the stuff about the condemnation of US policy that actually has nothing to do with Hillary Clinton. With regards to the murder of political activists, the US State Department, the DoD, and quite frankly any foreign country does not have the power to control what other governments do. That the government kills political activists is horrible, but it is not HRC's fault and to blame her for it is absurd.

To the claim that "Honduras has a long history of US intervention especially in coups to protect economic interests. She is part of a continuing legacy of instability in that region," guilt for such a thing goes far beyond one candidate and really stands as an indictment of the entire US foreign policy establishment and political leadership, both current and former, actual and aspiring.

I am not Latin Americanist, but I have devoted a huge amount of time to studying regime stability (it's directly related to what I'm writing my dissertation on), and your friend should consider the fact that most of these countries inherited at independence domestic political economies structured by Spanish colonial rule which usually meant labor-repressive latafundia economies dominated in the countryside by rural elites who exercised absolute control over local politics and in the cities by urban commercial elites who relied upon aforementioned rural elites for monetary and manpower support to keep the regimes in existence. There are deep-seated reasons for Latin American instability, but if we're going to attribute blame, let's go to the source, shall we? Not that it's constructive for anything other than comparative political scientists and historians. What options does that leave us? Boycotting paella?

II.B. The Arab Spring and Libya

I'm not going to devote as much time to this as the section on Honduras because I actually have work to do, but let me include a few words on it.

First off, let's be very clear in stating that the Arab Spring started *independent* of any US influence. We were not behind that any assertions to the contrary and simply absurd.

Secondly, when people blame HRC or Obama for the Arab Spring or its aftermath I am literally without words because I don't understand what the blame is for. Is it for ousting Mubarak (which is what people in Egypt wanted) or is it for not supporting Mubarak (which is what some people, including HRC wanted)?

HRC, for her part, is sufficiently well-versed in Egyptian history and politics that she thought the removal of Mubarak was a bad idea. Does that make her a bad person? No. Does it call into question her devotion to democratic ideals? Sure, but this isn't a perfect world. And that gets to a wider problem with these critiques of HRC: foreign policy is complicated and there never 'good' choices in that situation. HRC advocated for the decision she thought would bring the least amount of death and destruction to Egypt. Obama went another way. In any event, Egypt today and the pre-Arab Spring Egypt are still have strong men in charge, just different ones.

Libya and Syria are basically what intervention/non-intervention look like when it comes to civil wars in other countries (that, by the way, started without the US doing anything). The US and EU attacked Qaddafi's military infrastructure and made it easier for forces on the ground to topple him, but we were not involved in a state-building effort there because, as HRC has said, the Libyans did not want us on the ground. We share some moral culpability for Libya, of course, but the issues in Libya are down to the dynamics of Libya's internal politics.

What about HRC's desire to arm the Syrian rebels? To that I would say that it is, yet again, an example of damage control in a horrific situation. We cannot and will not invade Syria. But arming rebels provides a means of advancing the nationalist interest. Trying to find a group to arm and be influential means a lower probability of people we don't like coming to power. I think that's a sad state of affairs, but it is what it is.

And this right here highlights what I said above: we are limited in our ability to influence the internal affairs of other countries. What is the counterfactual for the Libya intervention? Let Qaddafi's military massacre his people? That seems bad. Take him out and let the people sort it out themselves? That seems okay, but turned out bad. Take him out, send in ground troops, occupy the country, and try our hand at building a new Libyan state? Didn't work out great in Iraq. There were no good options in Libya and Libya today is a testament to that. Being Secretary of State or President is not about making the best, most awesome, YUGE-est decisions, but choosing the 'best' from of a bevvy of bad options.

I want to pivot from here to something I've learned reading through thousands of pages of archival documents on the Vietnam War. When the US went into Vietnam it had what was to that point in time, the most advanced, most powerful, and best-supplied fighting force *in the history of mankind.* The same is true for the US forces in Afghanistan and Iraq. If we can't make shit happen elsewhere with the most powerful fighting force in world history, it is unreasonable to expect that everything would have been copacetic if we just tried a bit harder.

II.C Iraq, Afghanistan, and Insurgency

HRC's vote on the Iraq War was probably done of out of political expediency. That she voted for the Iraq War does not mean she endorsed the operational plans for it or the botched state-building and occupation that took place thereafter which, in the event, are not under the purview of the United States Congress. Should she have voted for it? No. But everyone can say that now - including Hillary. That is a valuable attribute in any foreign policy leader - the ability to look back with clarity on your decisions in the light of their consequences, intended or not.

It is important to review her speech that laid out her expectations that this resolution would be used as leverage to impel the UN to act, and that all diplomatic options be used prior to military force. Naive? Perhaps - she was a freshman Senator. War Hawk? no.

“Even though the resolution before the Senate is not as strong as I would like in requiring the diplomatic route first … I take the president at his word that he will try hard to pass a United Nations resolution and seek to avoid war, if possible. Because bipartisan support for this resolution makes success in the United Nations more likely and war less likely—and because a good faith effort by the United States, even if it fails, will bring more allies and legitimacy to our cause—I have concluded, after careful and serious consideration, that a vote for the resolution best serves the security of our nation. If we were to defeat this resolution or pass it with only a few Democrats, I am concerned that those who want to pretend this problem will go away with delay will oppose any United Nations resolution calling for unrestricted inspections.” (http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/war_stories/2016/02/hillary_clinton_told_the_truth_about_her_iraq_war_vote.html)


What is evident form the Foreign Policy article I post above (http://foreignpolicy.com/2015/11/06/hillary-clinton-doctrine-obama-interventionist-tough-minded-president/) is that HRC believes less in invading everywhere and killing everything and slaughtering civilians than in making sure that we execute war efforts in a specific, targeted way that achieve the goals (however broad or limited) we set for ourselves. I study insurgency for a living and I can tell you with absolutely zero question that, short of going back in time and not invading Iraq or Afghanistan, that HRC was on the right side of that debate. What she wanted was to push the Taliban as close to the breaking point as possible as a means of bringing them to the negotiating table for a settlement. Of course, a broader political solution, one that incorporated the Afgan Taliban into the government, would have been preferable, but again, I return to my point above about us not being able to influence the internal affairs of other countries. What were we going to say to Karzai? "Do what we say or we'll cut off aid?" No. In the real world you don't do that because the alternative of a Taliban-run Afghanistan is worse than dealing with a barely-functioning Afghan state.

II.D Sudan

(This is in reaction to this article from The Intercept "Hillary Clinton’s State Department Gave South Sudan’s Military a Pass for Its Child Soldiers" https://theintercept.com/2016/06/09/hillary-clintons-state-department-gave-south-sudans-military-a-pass-for-its-child-soldiers/ )

At a minimum, the headline of the article is misreading. But more generally, the issue here is one that pervades foreign policy decision making, to wit, what are the national security interests of the United States and what is the best way to pursue them? The creation of South Sudan was less an American initiative (though it absolutely received our support) than it was a response to events on the ground in South Sudan. As the article rightly states, the war there had killed hundreds of thousands over decades.

A careful read of the article also shows that South Sudan, like Libya, fell apart of its own accord, not because of what we were doing. Here, however, is an interesting passage.

"The U.S. seems to make the same kind of mistake again and again," said Haken of the Fund for Peace. "We catalyze major change without understanding, or at least grappling with, the long-term implications whether it's Iraq or Libya or whether it's South Sudan. We definitely need to do better."

Would presidential Donald Trump and Bernie Sanders do better?

Warren Gunnels, a policy director for the Sanders campaign, told The Intercept that the senator "strongly supports" the CSPA and, as president, would 'follow both the spirit and the intent of this law.' Sanders, he says, also supports continuing humanitarian aid for the South Sudanese. The Trump campaign failed to respond.

This problem with this response because in the real world the US doesn't get to say to South Sudan, "Stop using child soldiers or we cut your aid" because in the real world cutting aid to South Sudan further destabilizes the place, results in the recruitment of even more child soldiers, and potentially a complete collapse of South Sudan. I don't think HRC has any love of child soldiers, but in the real world things are not black and white like many make it out to be. There are no good options in South Sudan, so you take the least bad one.

III. Power, Hard and Soft

To paint HRC as a 'war hawk' is way off base. To paint her as a proponent of invading places and overthrowing governments is flat-out wrong. The fact of the matter is that HRC's views on foreign policy are, like foreign policy itself, complicated. I like that. Her understanding of US power and influence are infinitely more sophisticated than her opponents and are as much as one could hope from a person who is not a complete dipshit or some ivory tower asshole who never has implement anything of the stuff s/he says. Clinton is a pragmatist that realizes that grand schemes are bound to fail and lofty rhetoric is either unhelpful or just plain dishonest.

Though it is easy to critique the idea of soft power, I think the quote I opened this rambling on does a great job of highlighting HRC's approach to foreign policy. She's not going to go bombing everything or invading everywhere. She will try her hand at diplomacy, but she is ready to use force when necessary.

I think there is also an important point to be made about HRC's temperament here considered both in isolation from other candidates and in comparison to them. HRC is a careful thinker. That means she doesn't act until she goes through the details. People condemn her for being scripted or "cold" because she actually takes a few moments to think about what she says. Think for a moment about how absurd a critique that is: a woman with a huge amount of experience and knowledge thinks before she speaks. HOW HORRIBLE!!! PERISH THE VERY THOUGHT!!

I watch just about every speech that Trump delivers and read what I can find on his policy proposals. That Trump would even *entertain* the prospect of allowing Japan, South Korea, or Saudi Arabia to acquire nuclear weapons is nothing short of insane. His idea that the solution to the Islamic State insurgency is the massive application of violence and firepower is disproved by more than five decades of unsuccessful attempts by the United States to quell insurgencies (not to mention countless other unsuccessful attempts by other governments the world over).

As I have said before, in an age where the US economy is transitioning from an industrial to a post-industrial economy, where skills are more important than labor, in an age where the population is aging, where our infrastructure is crumbling, where the international system is becoming multi-polar, where systemic and structural inequalities of race, gender, and economic class (to name but a few) are challenging the foundations of the post-WWII social, economic, and political order, we need a steady hand at the helm. Someone who thinks carefully and looks forward, not someone who tries to recreate the fundamentally irreplaceable conditions that produced post-WWII prosperity.

[elleng]

1. Thanks.