The Clintonian Foreign Policy Legacy

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

(The Nation) 
In the Balkans, where the Clinton Administration inherited a collection of nasty ethnic wars marked by hugely destructive attacks on towns, mass killing of civilian men and boys and the systematic abuse of women, the United States turned its back on a Bosnian peace agreement negotiated in 1992 by Cyrus Vance and Lord David Owen, saying it rewarded aggression, and opted for its own process, the Dayton accords of 1995 - after the Srebrenica massacre. In hindsight, historians judge Dayton as at best a partial success that probably left Bosnia weaker.

In 1999, the Clinton Administration did go to war for what was portrayed as a humanitarian cause, over Kosovo. This involved the bombing of Serbia, which was fighting to retain the restive province. Knowing that Russia, as a friend of Serbia, would surely block Security Council action against Belgrade, the US bombing raids on the Serbian capital began without formal international backing, and in the face of the fears of human rights organizations.

This adventure, and the earlier Iraqi Liberation Act, laid much of the groundwork for the 2003 invasion of Iraq, another unilateral war without Security Council backing and therefore without significant international support.

In relations with the United Nations generally, both its member countries and two secretaries general, the Clinton Administration, particularly in its second term, balked at putting into force international agreements that it at least tepidly supported in public. The United States remains the only country apart from Somalia that has not ratified the Convention on the Rights of the Child, though it was signed by Hillary herself in a photo-op moment.

No political muscle was expended on saving the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty, which was ultimately shot down in the Senate. The treaty establishing the International Criminal Court, which David Scheffer, as US ambassador-at-large for war crimes, worked long and hard at getting right, was signed at the very last minute with no intention of trying to ratify it, and the Bush Administration, only a few months later, was effectively able to "unsign" it and toss it into the dustbin.

Administratively, the Clintons (we are now asked to assume that it was both of them) signed off on a reform that took away the independence of the Arms Control and Disarmament Agency, merging it, as well as the United State Information Agency, into the State Department. Arms control lost an important voice in policymaking. Crucial information services took a hit worldwide, and the United States could not have abandoned an effective public relations tool at a worse time.

In diplomacy, even a veneer of decency and statesmanship can matter. Neither Richard Holbrooke, the author of Dayton, who lost no opportunity to refer to the UN as "deeply flawed" or Secretary of State Warren Christopher, who disposed of Boutros Boutros-Ghali in the most high-handed and thoughtless manner, can lay claim to glory as statesmen. Albright, responding to critics at the UN, reminded everyone that we are the "indispensable nation," so get over it.

Could there be a subliminal message now in talking tough to foreigners? Is Barack Obama somehow one of them? Patriotic lapel pins are in and substantive discussions about America and the world are not.

[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