The Clintonian Foreign Policy Legacy

The Nation: The Clinton Record On Which Hillary Is Running Is Anything But Stellar

(The Nation)  This column was written by Barbara Crossette

---

That Hillary Clinton has apparently found success in talking tough about foreigners and sinking to Bush-like "politics of fear" only illuminates how little American foreign policy has been seriously debated in the Democratic presidential nominee race, and how little voters know or remember about Bill Clinton's international legacy.

Against the background of Hillary Clinton's repeated claims to cosmopolitan experience, her scores of foreign stopovers (not unlike the travels of Laura Bush) and her meetings with a lot of world figures, the record of the 1992-2000 period bears more scrutiny than it is getting, beyond the NAFTA flip-flop. This is nowhere more urgent than in the discussion about how the United States goes about getting back into the world after years of offending friends and enemies alike, and whether the Clintons failed at grasping coming threats to America.

The Clinton record on which Hillary is running is anything but stellar in global or even US security terms. What would become the hallmark political timidity of the Administration was first demonstrated after eighteen American troops were killed in Mogadishu in October 1993 in an ill-fated assault on a Somali warlord. Though that operation was entirely American-planned and led, the Clintons let stand (if not promoted) the isolationist falsehood that the tragedy was the fault of the United Nations, which also had a peacekeeping mission in Mogadishu.

Worse, the Somalia syndrome led to frantic efforts by the Clinton team to prevent any action by the Security Council on Rwanda six months later, action that may have prevented or at least mitigated a looming genocide. Bill Clinton later "apologized" to the Rwandans, but long after hundreds of thousands of people had been slaughtered.

In many ways the 1990s were a wasted decade in international relations. Despite the vice presidency of Al Gore, the United States did not take a lead in global environment policy, and internationalists such as Timothy Wirth, a former Senator and environmentalist who became undersecretary of state for global affairs, were ultimately driven out of the Administration by its unwillingness to take on the blinkered provincials in Congress, epitomized by Senator Jesse Helms.

There were breakthroughs on the Israel-Palestine front, thanks to the steady work of Dennis Ross and others, including Johan Holst, the Norwegian foreign minister who was a driving force in the Oslo accords that led to the 1993 Rose Garden handshake between Yasser Arafat and Yitzhak Rabin. But then the Clinton Administration stepped back and allowed the Israelis to go on building settlements while heaping the blame for the breakdown of progress on Arafat, who had balked at a later agreement with Ehud Barak.

Policies on Iraq were largely on hold through the '90s, with the UN expected to continue sanctions against Saddam Hussein into perpetuity. Secretary of State Madeleine Albright spoke of "regime change" and Bill Clinton signed the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 that essentially invited the overthrow of Saddam. But as far as actions went, the United States did little but undermine UN inspectors, hem in Secretary General Kofi Annan in his dealing with Iraq and, unfortunately, leave to George W. Bush the job of ridding the Mideast of the Saddam regime. Now Hillary Clinton talks of bringing troops home from Iraq from day one while at the same time (pandering to Israel and sounding like Ahmadinejad in reverse), threatens to wipe Iran off the map.

And where are her ringing endorsements of women's rights around the world, the subject of a speech at the United Nations Fourth World Conference on Women in Beijing in 1995? Many women who applauded her then are very disappointed now.

The Clintonian record on Osama bin Laden, Afghanistan and the defense of the United States itself is both bleak and tragic in the light of what happened after the Clintons had gone from the White House. The trial of Ramzi Yousef, implicated in the first attack on the World Trade Center in 1993, had revealed an Al Qaeda blueprint for strikes against high-value American targets, but the Administration did not act expeditiously to shore up policies and tools at home for dealing with this possibility - or inevitability.

Instead, the Clinton Administration focused on Khartoum, where bin Laden had established a base. He was ultimately chased out of Sudan under US pressure, only to find in a welcome haven in battered, bankrupt Afghanistan, first under the mujahedeen and then the Taliban. One useless US missile attack on an Al Qaeda camp there in 1998 after the bombings of two American embassies in Africa failed to do him any harm. (The United States also hit a pharmaceutical factory in Khartoum, possibly the wrong target, in an effort to destroy what was believed to be a chemical weapons facility.)

US policy in Afghanistan itself consisted largely of calling the Taliban names because of their treatment of women and refusing to negotiate with even a breakaway faction until the regime turned over bin Laden, a nonstarter. Meanwhile, the UN was able essentially to end opium poppy production for a period, but calls for help in aiding Afghan farmers find alternative livelihoods went unheard until, surprisingly, the new Bush Administration began to consider this early in 2001. Then came 9/11.

[elsylee28]

Please check out "The Truth vs Barack Obama"

http://savagepolitics.com/?p=317

I saw this today, and HAD to share it with everyone. It is just a brilliantly researched and written list of inconsistencies with several of Obama''s stories. I think it should be done for ALL three candidates, but I guess this is a good way to start at finally looking at the candidates with some honesty.

http://savagepolitics.com/?p=317

[closethippy1]

This is what I remember about the Clintons: Bill gets into power and one of the first thing he does is call for *** to be left alone in the US armed forces.
Great, but then instead of standing their ground they reach a horrible compromise about with the Republicans that ends up being called "Don''t ask, don''t tell" responsible for the desmissal of over 11,000 service men and women who could have been very useful today.
I remember how for the longest time they said the nastiest things about Saddam and Iraq setting the stage for the invasion of that country by Bush Jr.
They embraced the Palestinians and then turned their backs on them and try to forced them to work with Israel outside of international law allowing Israel to do get away with more land confiscations and more settlements.
They turned their back on welfare people in the same way Bush Jr. did with the Katrina victims: If you cannot afford to pay for a meeting with the President to lobby him, or her, you''re not worth anyone''s attention.
The Clintons completely ignored Rwanda, too.
In other words, the Clintons will deal and wheel with the Devil himself to stay in power, rather than stand by the principles they say they believe in.
I see them as sell-outs and power hungry.

[ladyesq1]

OH..poo poo! Is this journalist a Republican or is she one of the ones that have fallen head-over-heels with Alfred E.Newman-looking-Obama.

lol... She must have been in a coma during the Clinton adminstration, for she left out allllllllll the many wonderful things that happened there!

[pongo151]

The republicans typically fare better on foreign policy and the democrats are better on domestic policy, yet the popularity of Bush''s foreign policy is near all time lows. One of the first warnings of an air attack by al-queda was 5 years prior to the actual attack in 2001 during the Bush presidency. Bill Clinton''s administration spent alot of time and effort on this and passed this national security info along to Gore and Bush in advance of his completing his presidential term.

[creeper00]

The Nation continues to trash Hillary and Bill Clinton in order to support their candidate-of-air, Barack Obama.

This has cost them more than one subscription, including mine.

[destardi]

When are we ever going to be able to look back on the Clinton Presidency with a critical eye and not play cheerleader? There were good things, but.....


----------------------------------
----------------------------------------
------

Posted by Nearl4511 at 06:09 AM : Apr 29, 2008

The funny part is how you attack Clinton (and that''s what you''re doing, however subtlely), I''m assuming you buy the idea that Reagan ended the cold war, when in fact, the USSR was failing, and conditions were ripe...they brought about glasnost all on their own.

[destardi]

When are we ever going to be able to look back on the Clinton Presidency with a critical eye and not play cheerleader? There were good things, but.....


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Posted by Nearl4511 at 06:09 AM : Apr 29, 2008
+ report abuse


When are we going to find the Perfect President?

Oh, wait..I guess, NEVER. Your post is ridiculous; attacking the only successful Democratic President in recent history is not the way to go.

Duh.

[destardi]

This would be a good article, if it were true.

Opponents of Clinton, including Senator Obama and his Obama bloggers, like to point to NAFTA saying that Hillary was for it when her husband was pushing for ratification in January 1994. When was the last time a first lady openly opposed an important policy of her president husband? This, evidently, is what Hillary Clinton was expected to do. It''s nonsense.


The economic team and other key advisors, including Mack McLarty, Mickey Kantor, and David Gergen, were likewise urging Bil to use his momentum to push for congressional ratification of the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA). ...had been negotiated by the Bush administration and was slated to expire if not ratified by January 1, 1994. Liberal Democrats, including Hillary, opposed it primarily because it could take jobs away from American workers. But as an advocate of global economic cooperation, Bill was drawn to its free-trade philosophy. ... ..

For Love of Politics, by Sally Bedell Smith (pg. 117)"


When was the last time YOU saw a First Lady oppose her Husband''s policies, publicly?

[nearl4511]

Hey, folks? This is an article in "The Nation", not the NRO. YOu know, it is a liberal magazine dedicated to progressive ideals.

I didn''t particularly think that Clinton''s foreign policy was stellar either....and I am liberal.

Just better than "W" is not good enough. I do not want to return to the impotent hawkish days of R. Holbrooke either.

When are we ever going to be able to look back on the Clinton Presidency with a critical eye and not play cheerleader? There were good things, but.....

[ubrew12]

Of course, for a true DISASTER in foreign policy, the current administration simply CANNOT be matched.

Compared to Bush, Clinton was a foreign policy genius. All indications are that his wife would be even BETTER. She''s smarter and has more education. She also benefits from his experience.

[ubrew12]

Article: "The Clintonian record on Osama bin Laden is...tragic in the light of what happened after the Clintons had gone from the White House."

Gosh, your hindsight is 20-20!!! Can you give me some investment advice for 1995?

In defense of Bill Clinton, he was, as good liberals should be, somewhat of an isolationist. He felt deeply, that people make their own destiny. That is, in fact, the hallmark of democratic thought. His ''timidity'' at Mogadishu was minor compared to Reagans at Lebanon. Somalia was a mess and Clinton knew better than to make it OUR mess. Likewise Rwanda, Afghanistan, etc. Clinton only acted when it was clear that ''ethnic cleansing'' was being imposed in Bosnia and, even then, his first priority was to keep American losses low. He missed Rwanda because it happened so quickly. Blaming Rwanda on Clinton is like blaming Auschwitz on Roosevelt. Unhappily, the primarly blame for Rwanda belongs to the Rwandans. And until Rwandans (or WHOMEVER) can be encouraged to step up to the plate and assign that responsibility in the right place, America will ever be blamed for these incidents. As for Al-Qaida, Clinton caught the World Trade Center bombers. He sent cruise missiles into OBL''s headquarters and warned the incoming administration of their number one target.

[tlobe]

Finally someone has set the record straight on the abysimal record of the Clinton administration in the international arena. Bosnia was, perhaps, the worst "achievement." Clinton acted only after the massacre at Szrebencia and he could no longer ignore the need the for action. Clinton did, indeed, emulate his idol, JFK. He had a disastrous foreign policy (JFK had the aborted Bay of Pigs invasion and Vietnam as his legacy) and his philandering with women (JFK had Marilyn Monroe et al). All we need is another Clinton in office--Hillary would more than likely bring back many of Bill Clinton''s ineffectual cabinet.

[Lai K W]

This is just great.

The senior Americans and the American seniors know best when they see articles and comments like that; just like spitting in their face. It really fires them up.

The OBAMA will never get their vote. Never OBAMA!!!

[glock4me]

The truth hurts. Too bad Bill Clinton was more interested in chasing fat interns than stopping Osama bin Laden.

The democrats last great foreign policy "event" was the Cuban missile crisis. Ever since then, the dems have been losers on foreign policy. They''ve lost thier JFK mojo... baby.

[joyous88]

what a load of BS;

after the last 12 years of the republiCon nightmare,

our country reduced to third world status,

recession, our military a wreck,

you clowns are still talking about Bill Clinton,

talk about takeing your eye OFF THE BALL,

we should be talking about the fact that we have a

criminal for a president and an illegal, immoral war

to

end