New Foreign Affairs article penned by Hillary

Just wanted to give a heads up about a new Foreign Affairs article, "Security and Opportunity for the Twenty-first Century" written by HRC, that was released today.

http://www.foreignaffairs.org/20071101fa essay86601-p0/hillary-rodham-clinton/sec urity-and-opportunity-for-the-twenty-fir st-century.html

I believe that all the major candidates are writing an essay for the magazine. John McCain and HRC are featured in the November/December edition.

Hillary Clinton writes a comprehensive piece that outlines her foreign policy vision, principles that she would like her administration to follow as well as how to deal with the challenges presented by certain hotspots of the world. Here's how she describes the challenges that the next president must face:

--
We must face up to an unprecedented array of challenges in the twenty-first century, threats from states, nonstate actors, and nature itself. The next president will be the first to inherit two wars, a long-term campaign against global terrorist networks, and growing tension with Iran as it seeks to acquire nuclear weapons. The United States will face a resurgent Russia whose future orientation is uncertain and a rapidly growing China that must be integrated into the international system. Moreover, the next administration will have to confront an unpredictable and dangerous situation in the Middle East that threatens Israel and could potentially bring down the global economy by disrupting oil supplies. Finally, the next president will have to address the looming long-term threats of climate change and a new wave of global health epidemics.
--
Page 1

She argues that in order to meet these challenges, the next president must adhere to certain principles in order to gain the respect of the world. These principles include the following:

1. Avoid the false choices presented by the Bush admin's ideology, ie multilateralism vs unilateralism. Instead, she believes that the next president should be guided by:

--
U.S. foreign policy must be guided by a preference for multilateralism, with unilateralism as an option when absolutely necessary to protect our security or avert an avoidable tragedy.
--
Page 2

2. Use our military not as the solution to every problem but as one element in a comprehensive strategy.

3. Make international institutions work, and work through them when possible.

4. Ensure that democracy delivers on its promises. With this principle, HRC discusses the growing economic inequities b/w rich and poor countries:

--
 Calls for expanding civil and political rights in countries plagued by mass poverty and ruled by tiny wealthy elites will fall on deaf ears unless democracy actually delivers enough material benefits to improve people's lives. The Bush administration's policy in Iraq has temporarily given democracy a bad name, but over the long term the value of democracy will continue to inspire the world.
--
Page 2

5. Stand for and live up to our values. In other words, don't torture.

Hillary then describes the steps that will need to be taken in order for the US to restore its leadership around the world. She says the first step needs to be ending the war in Iraq. She then describes measures for withdrawing from Iraq and implementing the diplomatic means to spur stabilization of the region. Finally, she also talks about the need to get our allies to help us with the growing refugee problem in Iraq and in that neighborhood.

HRC then describes the methods she would employ to combat terrorism. She then talks about Afghanistan, the importance of building up intelligence infrastructure and strengthening our alliances around the world. She calls for engaging in robust diplomacy in dealing with Iran. She also talks about the establishment of an int'l fuel bank to discourage nations from acquiring nuclear weapons. She also discusses the removal of nuclear material from nuclear sites in order to keep them out of the hands of terrorists.

Hillary also states that diplomacy will be required to deal with Russia and China. She believes that we have common interests with both countries but we also need to deal with the challenges that they present to us.

HRC also believes that we need to strengthen our alliances, including our alliances with Europe, India, Brazil, Mexico as well as provide economic support to Africa. She suggests one project to expand the opportunties in the continent of Africa:

--
As president, I will press for quick passage of the Education for All Act, which would provide $10 billion over a five-year period to train teachers and build schools in the developing world. This program would channel funds to those countries that provide the best plans for how to use them and rigorously measure performance to ensure that our dollars deliver results for children.
--
Page 7

Hillary then discusses a desire for the US to lead in the fight against global warming. She then ends the article by discussing the importance of the US in standing up for human rights:

--
Human rights will never truly be realized as long as a majority of the world's population is still treated as second-class citizens. Twelve years ago, the UN convened a historic conference on women in Beijing, where I was proud to represent our country and to proclaim that women's rights are human rights. Since then, women have been elected heads of state in countries on nearly every continent. Thanks to the United States, many, but not yet all, Afghan women have been liberated from one of the most tyrannical and repressive regimes of our day and are now in schools, in the work force, and in parliament.
--
Page 7

Anyway, just wanted to make people aware that she had written this article as well as provide a brief summary of the issues she discussed within it. I'm sure that her opponents and the chattering classes will discuss the content of the article at great lengths!! Enjoy....



Display:


Re: New Foreign Affairs article penned by Hillary (none / 0)

I read the foreign policy speech and It was interesting.

It is a muscular progressive foreign policy , it akins back a lot to Harry Truman's liberal internationalism foreign policy.

Respect for international institutions and multi lateralism .

Democrats need to have a coherent foreign policy position , democrats are not isolationist on foreign policy despite the isolationist strain in some of the party because of the Bush war.


Educated in a small town Taught to fear Jesus in a small town Used to daydream in that small town Another born romantic that's me.
by lori on Mon Oct 15, 2007 at 02:37:38 PM EST

Re: New Foreign Affairs article penned by Hillary (2.00 / 1)


Let's get something clear.
The anti-violence, anti-Empire advocates, whether we are talking about Dennis Kucinich, Mike Gravel, or Ron Paul, are not in any way "isolationists".

What Isolationism means is that you do not want to trade with other nations, and you do not participate actively in diplomacy, and you impose high tariffs on imports. Nobody here is suggssting that! No candidate in the race is promoting that view or qualifies here as"an isolationist".

The alternative to all this bankrupt Military bombast, violence, and reckless interference with Sovereign Nations, is not "isolationism".  This is just another false argument Another false NeoCon spoonfed argument that claims: anti-World Empire = "isolation". It does not.

The proper and honorable course to take is the pursuit of peace.
And that means the pursuit of peace and human rights led by example (of the United States), not by the barrel of a gun or bombs.
Read John Kennedy's speech at American Univerity in June 1963, where he laid out: "Our primary objective in Geneva is total disarmament, designed to take place in stages, as the new instruments of peace take the place of the instruments of War."

We have candidates here (Dennis Kucinich, Ron Paul, Mike Gravel) of higher moral purpose and Kennedy-esque respect for human life, that do not want the U.S. Military to be thrust upon foreign nations in violent, destructive operations at great harm to both American Taxpayers and American servicemen.

This phony idea that the United States has to have 750 Military Bases littered all over the planet is truthfully insane.  We spend more than all other Countries on the planet combined on Defense. About 75% of this taxpayer drain just goes to the profiteering interests of private corporations.

We have to stop all this phony, dishonest War-Propaganda.
Our Country is over $60 Trillion dollars bankrupt (in debt) - and then we have Saudi Arabia and China keeping our feeble and weak monetary system afloat.  It is this debt that constitutes our real national secruity problem here and not some poor, destititute Nation with no Navy/Airforce/Army with OIL underneath their sand.

Harry Truman was a bad President.
He created a whole permament, unconstitutional, CIA criminal apparatus infrastructure, and the Military-Industrial-Complex.
He got us involved in an unnecessary and counterproductive Military adventure in Korea that set a precedent for the Vietnam War and all the many other proxy Wars waged by the United States ever since.

We should not be endorsing the War-profiteers, War-apologists, the Warfare-State, and Military option-on-the-table fools.

The fact is that all Empires end because they eventually go bankrupt.
They self destruct.
We cannot afford to rule the World.
We have no moral authority to rule the World.
A Nation $60 Trillion dollars in debt is not itself even free anymore.




For a "surge" in Truth:  Say NO to NeoCons!!!
by DerekLarsson on Mon Oct 15, 2007 at 03:57:38 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Thanks for the link (none / 0)

Two key parts

  1.  She says she will convene a commission to determine how to get out of Iraq.  There is no timline given.  And she commits to continuing to attack AQ in Iraq even after the troops have left.
  2.  She says all actions are on the table with Iran.

If you trust Hillary's judgement, neither of the above will bother you.

If you simply don't trust her judgement based on her support of the AUMF, then each of those passages WILL bother you.

They bother me.


by fladem on Mon Oct 15, 2007 at 03:07:17 PM EST

Re: Thanks for the link (none / 0)

Why would it bother you that she wants to continue attacking al-Qaeda?  That is who we should have been fighting in the first place.  Unfortunately, because of Bush, they have moved over there.


by reasonwarrior on Mon Oct 15, 2007 at 03:50:00 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Because of the tone (none / 0)

and her general approach to the whole question of residual forces.  That statement, coupled with the lack of a timeline on Iraq, makes me thinks if she is elected we will still be there in 2012.  


by fladem on Mon Oct 15, 2007 at 05:02:51 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Thanks for the link (none / 0)

I trust her judgment, and on these two points I don't see any difference between her and Obama or Edwards. They have both explicitly kept their options open on Iran, and they both intend to purse AQ in Iraq.

It is odd that Obama's 2002 position makes all of his subsequent positions better than Clinton's even when her positions are identical. I prefer Clinton's liberal internationalist base for foreign policy to Obama's American exceptionalist framework.


by souvarine on Mon Oct 15, 2007 at 03:55:50 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Thanks for the link (none / 0)

Not just that, but in addition to pursuing AQ in Iraq Obama also stated that he intends to go after AQ (if necessary without ally Pakistan's agreement beforehand) in Pakistan or the Pakistan-border areas.  He intends to expand the battlefield to that region, which I have not seen any other candidate do.


by georgep on Mon Oct 15, 2007 at 04:04:09 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Thanks for the link (none / 0)

Obama never says that we should "expand the battlefield" to the northwest border of Pakistan. His call
is to get off the wrong battlefield -- Iraq -- and onto the right one -- Waziristan.

It is your candidate who appears to want to stay in Iraq and use that -- Kyl-Lieberman -- as a miltary
staging ground for expanding into Iran.

 


by horizonr on Mon Oct 15, 2007 at 06:50:59 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Thanks for the link (none / 0)

I have yet to see Obama state that he would remove all residual forces from Iraq.  He has clearly made embassy protection, training and counter-terrorism efforts in Iraq a staple of his Iraq policy (like Clinton.)  He added Pakistan-border to go after Bin-Ladin in addition to keeping a sizeable residual force in Iraq.


by georgep on Tue Oct 16, 2007 at 12:40:58 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Foriegn Policy (none / 0)

is about judgement in the end.  You always are acting with imperfect information, so the question is whose judgement do you trust?

For me the AUMF was a defining moment that makes me think twice about supporting anyone who voted for it.


by fladem on Mon Oct 15, 2007 at 05:04:36 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: New Foreign Affairs article penned by Hillary (none / 0)

I just heard Hillary Clinton's 2 radio ads in South Carolina and they are the best of her ads so far , while the one for Iowa , " Invisible " is in a class of its own , i regard that as a masterpiece . (snark)

However check them out , they are pretty good . It will work in South Carolina , She should do more of these.

http://www.hillaryclinton.com/files/audi o/HRCscinv.mp3

http://www.hillaryclinton.com/files/audi o/HRC08R_002_The%20Children_stereo.mp3  


Educated in a small town Taught to fear Jesus in a small town Used to daydream in that small town Another born romantic that's me.
by lori on Mon Oct 15, 2007 at 03:08:24 PM EST

The invisible ad was great. (none / 0)

I don't know what you are talking about.


by bookgrl on Mon Oct 15, 2007 at 03:15:26 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The invisible ad was great. (none / 0)

Yeah I agree book , it was the best ad I have seen in a long time , I truly believe its a masterpiece regardless of the snark.

But these two come close too , what did you think of the radio ads.


Educated in a small town Taught to fear Jesus in a small town Used to daydream in that small town Another born romantic that's me.
by lori on Mon Oct 15, 2007 at 03:20:26 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Oh, ok, you said snark so (none / 0)

I thought you were making fun.  I can't listen from where I am right now.  I will later, though.


by bookgrl on Mon Oct 15, 2007 at 03:38:17 PM EST
[ Parent ]

New Foreign Affairs article (2.00 / 1)

Thanks. I read the Foreign Affairs piece this morning and agree with virtually every word of it.

I think that Hillary is positioned to pull-off a stunning reversal of how the United States is viewed in the world. The international community will be so receptive to the United States behaving as a positive, cooperative force in the world.


by hwc on Mon Oct 15, 2007 at 04:06:34 PM EST

Re: New Foreign Affairs article (none / 0)

Yeah, if and when it happens.  So far we are about as credible as the teenager that wrecked the family car.  Is she promising not to do it again?


by Shaun Appleby on Mon Oct 15, 2007 at 06:26:15 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: New Foreign Affairs article (none / 0)

Shaun, I'm not clear on what you're asking.  Is she promising not to do what again?


No Way. No How. No McCain.
by Denny Crane on Mon Oct 15, 2007 at 10:35:20 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: New Foreign Affairs article (none / 0)

Enable another unjustified and unilateral war which plunges the Middle East into further violence.  I was thinking of Iran and all the options on the table.  But there are several other possibilities.


by Shaun Appleby on Mon Oct 15, 2007 at 10:53:06 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Did Hillary Clinton even write this? (2.00 / 1)

Seriously. When was the last time you ever heard Clinton talking about "an ideologically
blinkered vision of the world that denies America the tools and the flexibility it needs

to lead and succeed"? [emphasis mine]

This simply isn't the way Clinton expresses herself.

I decided to check this out, and -- with only a couple of quick Google clicks -- here's what I found:

1
Wes Clark, in his op-ed in yesterday's Manchester (N.H.) Union-Leader -- next to last paragraph --
wrote of Clinton that

[a]s President she will reject the Bush administration's ideologically blinkered flights of
fantasy. [emphasis mine]

2
And in Clark's 4 October HuffPost entry -- last paragraph -- the phrase itself, almost verbatim:

...as president she will reject the Bush administration's ideologically blinkered vision
of the world that denies America the tools and the flexibility necessary
to build
a more peaceful and secure world." [emphasis mine]

How much of the rest of this article was actually written by Wes Clark?

Obviously, Obama has his advisers too -- Power, Clarke, Brzezinski, etc. -- but at least Obama
writes most of his own material.


by horizonr on Mon Oct 15, 2007 at 07:12:47 PM EST

Re: Did Hillary Clinton even write this? (2.00 / 1)

It is likely that for this article to be ready for publication now, it would have been written long before Wes Clark's items appeared - most likely in early September, if not before.  Certainly it's not a coincidence that he used the same phrases, I imagine that was quite deliberate, but that does not mean that he wrote that part of it.  He may have been asked to use it, he may have contributed that to the article or may have simply liked it when he read it.  No way to tell.  The Clinton campaign is very good at staying on message, and the synergy is apparent.

I'm sure that Clark advised her on this article, and Madeleine Albright certainly did (her fingerprints are obvious). But to charge that Hillary didn't write the speech because Wes Clark used the same phrase in the past two weeks is dubious, it seems.

By the way, Jon Favreau is Barack's primary speechwriter, I believe.  Most of the candidates (especially those currently holding office) use a team of speechwriters, or at least one.  The ideas belong to the candidate, of course, and they work very closely with the speechwriter, but they don't typically sit down at the keyboard and write their own speeches.  Or articles, for that matter. They simply don't have the time, especially in the middle of a presidential campaign while still trying to perform senate duties.  Obama hired a full time speechwriter after he won the election, if memory serves.


No Way. No How. No McCain.
by Denny Crane on Mon Oct 15, 2007 at 10:34:08 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Did Hillary Clinton even write this? (none / 0)

No! Dude! Barack writes his own speeches, just like Lincoln!
</snark>

by souvarine on Mon Oct 15, 2007 at 10:51:47 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Did Hillary Clinton even write this? (none / 0)

And he's going to lead the establishment of a messianic Kingdom on Earth!


by hwc on Mon Oct 15, 2007 at 11:18:28 PM EST
[ Parent ]


You are not logged in.

In order to post a comment, you must be logged in. If you have a member account, please log in to comment.

If not, you can make an account right here. It's quick and free.