 |
| Photo Via Flickr/ Marc Nozell April 2007 |
When Hillary Clinton announced her entrance into the race for
Obama’s successor in April this year critiques were quick to point to her age,
gender and most significantly turbulent reputation as ex-secretary of state
following the Arab Spring and Benghazi controversies. Conversely, her
supporters herald Clinton as an expert in Foreign Policy given her
record-breaking tenure as secretary of state where she visited 112 states and
almost 100,000 miles of global travel. As the Middle East continues to be torn
apart and the situation becomes ever more complex we need to turn to the future
to ask, what would a Hilary Clinton administration look like for the Middle
East? Evidently, this analysis is based upon speculation from her previous
attitudes in specific policy areas.
Iraq and Syria
Clinton is famed and often criticised for her extremely hard-line
interventionist approach to Foreign Policy: she voted for boots on the ground
in both Libya and Iraq. Initially it seemed as though she would push for direct
US involvement in Syria following the discovery of chemical weapon usage.
Nonetheless, she takes a vastly different stance on the rampage of ISIL in the
region and has made it clear that she considers US infantry back on the ground
in Iraq a bad idea. That is not to say that she would not continue with
on-going air strikes in the region. Whilst Obama has arguably taken a step back
from the forcefully interventionist days of Bush’s War on Terror, Clinton’s
entrance to the oval office could see this doctrine revived as the ideological
threat of Islamic terrorism will be top of Clinton’s agenda.
Iran
Clinton has proved herself as a hard-liner towards Iran and there
is possibility that given her comments in the past the nuclear deal could be
jeopardised should it not be completed before Obama leaves office. She has been
heard on record recently denouncing Iran’s right to enrich Uranium and that she
would “obliterate” Iran should it go to war with Israel. That being said
Clinton did put the wheels in motion for Obama by initially sending a closer
advisor to Tehran and would be foolish to endanger her predecessor’s diplomatic
efforts. The dynamic of a sealing the deal with Iran whilst simultaneously
keeping up relations with Saudi Arabia and Israel would provide a challenging
diplomatic act for any forthcoming president, particularly given the situation
in Yemen. With opinions on Clinton polarised in the area it will be tough
balancing act should she be successful in 2016 and there are many who doubt
whether such a diplomatic feat is possible let alone achievable for the
ex-secretary.
Arab- Israel Relations
Here in lies a large problem for Clinton: whilst she has openly
recognised the oppression under which Palestinians live in during her time as
secretary of state yet she also supported Israeli attacks on Gaza in Summer
2013, conflating the conflict to Hamas’ involvement and denounced the UN’s
recognition of Palestine an ‘unfortunate and unhelpful.’ She has a close
relationship with Netanyahu and yet she recognises the legitimacy of the two
state solution. Like so many situations, these inconsistencies make it
difficult to understand where Clinton stands on Arab-Israeli relations. What
seems clear is that she has a strong rapport with Netanyahu and will be uneasy
to speak out against him like Obama has done recently.
Libya
The Arab Spring particularly in both Egypt and Libya characterised
Clinton’s time as secretary of state and arguably pushed her into resignation
following the Benghazi catastrophe in 2012. The enduring turmoil in Libya may
come back to haunt Clinton during the election race especially given the
migrant crisis currently being faced in Europe.
Saudi Arabia and the Gulf
Yet another bone of contention for Clinton’s critiques will be the
Clinton Foundation’s inflow of funds from Gulf States. Although she has now
resigned from the board of this foundation it is after all in her name and
although it has done some good work some would argue with very dirty money. Or
money that could have gone to other perhaps more legitimate non-governmental
organisations such as the Red Cross. As
for the ubiquitous Saudi Arabian hypocrisy it looks extremely unlikely that
Clinton will cross that bridge as it is a deep-rooted inconsistency in American
foreign policy towards the Middle East that continues to economically benefit
them and is politically silenced. Nevertheless, after Margret Wallstom spoke out against Saudi Arabia in her ‘feminist foreign policy’ there is a small possibility that
in launching a campaign to integrate women’s rights concerns into foreign
policy Clinton will be unable to brush over the outright hypocrisy here.
Women and Girls
Clinton has worked hard during her stint as secretary of state and
throughout her career to integrate women’s rights issues across the board of
American policy. She is committed to equality and emancipation for oppressed
women both within and outside of US borders and considers that the US should
lead the way on these issues. Not only would she be the first US president who
is a woman but she is also arguably running on a ‘feminist ticket’ given her
public support on these issues. She has made it extremely
clear over the years that she is not just Bill’s
wife and that her career is legitimate in its own right. In this way, just by
running for president she becomes an icon for progress. However, in her
dealings with the Middle East these issues must remain top of the agenda as
sexual violence remains a widespread weapon of war and women continue to suffer
disproportionately throughout the Middle East.
Overall, it looks unlikely that Clinton will provide anything new
to US foreign policy towards the Middle East. Indeed, she may set it back to
the Bush age with her hard-line interventionist agenda. She is arguably running
on the ‘experience ticket’ so despite the national focus in this election
hopefully we will see a proper debate about foreign policy in the lead up to
2016. Positives could come in other arenas where she will push for women’s
rights internationally and social justice nationally.
This post was originally written as one of my contributions to www.futureforeignpolicy.com an online think tank run by the foreign policy minds of the future.
More: Where does Hilliary Clinton stand on the Middle East? http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/right-turn/wp/2015/03/23/where-does-hillary-clinton-stand-on-the-middle-east/
No comments:
Post a Comment