It is something of a truism of United States politics that a president makes his own foreign policy. Yet instances arise that project American secretaries of state into a position of obvious influence that induce the citizens of that country, as well as of other countries, to make a distinction between the thinking of the president and that of the secretary of state.
Such would appear to have been the case of the relationship between Dwight Eisenhower and John Foster Dulles, even though that President’s experience had indicated a certain strength in strategic thinking that could sometimes mark his policies as his own. It was the case, too, of the relationship between Richard Nixon and Henry Kissinger, even though it was recognized that Nixon had certain clear ideas about operating in the Cold War period, which he had developed during his period of Vice-President under Eisenhower.
When Hillary Clinton was appointed Secretary of State by President Obama, she came into office with a certain experience born not only of proximity to Bill Clinton, but also as a recent member of the American Senate, well respected for her conduct during her tenure there.
On the other hand, Obama might have been considered by foreign policy professionals as something of a neophyte as compared with the former Senator Clinton, though her bruising electoral battle with him would have indicated that in terms of political strategy, not to talk of broad-based popularity at home and abroad, the new President was hardly one to be underestimated.
Barack Obama’s speech in Cairo, soon after his assumption of the presidency, seemed to hint at an understanding of the need to move to advance solutions to old problems like that of the Middle Eastern Arab-Israeli issue. And it appeared too that he was inclined to believe that changes in the balance between the dominant powers and others, in an age of globalization, could permit a deeper inclusion of non-Western powers like China into the business of global management.
From a Caribbean perspective, the combination of an Afro-American presidency and a Clinton as Secretary of State, suggested openings for our gaining some degree of empathy. It seemed to enthuse our leaders, even though they were well aware that Bill Clinton’s tenure at the presidency had done little to diminish the effects of WTO decision-making on the preferential arrangements, particularly in agriculture, that we had been surviving under.
Early on, however, even though flattered by the new President’s participation in the Summit of the Americas meeting in Port of Spain, it became obvious that, at least the anglophone Caribbean was not all that prominent in the his mind. And what became obvious too, as instanced in the case of Antigua and Barbuda in its dispute with the US on internet gambling, was that the assumed empathy of a President could have little effect on the machinery of government, on legislation, in causing a reversal of decisions which we palpably deemed to be unfair.
Obama-Clinton diplomacy as far as the Caribbean was concerned, seemed in fact to be more directed towards the non-anglophone Caribbean, and perhaps naturally so. The new administration had sensed the unpopularity, in Latin America generally, of Bush diplomacy towards Cuba. And on her way to the Port of Spain summit in April 2009, Mrs Clinton observed, in advancing the new policy of lifting restrictions on travel and financial transfers to Cuba, that the Bush policy “can be called a failure.” But policy towards Cuba has been stymied by the arrest of an American involved in non-governmental aid to that country, and the United States has been content, really until the advent of the presidential elections, to let matters evolve from the perspective of Cuban initiatives towards liberalization of their economy.
More importantly, in that period, as Mrs Clinton emphasized in the Dominican Republic on her way to the Summit, the important concern of the United States in the Caribbean was the prominence of the drug trade, and therefore American unwillingness to take new initiatives in that direction. The result has been an encompassing of the anglophone Caribbean within that frame of reference, and specifically within the framework of the Caribbean Basin Security Initiative.
In fact during Clinton’s tenure, the Obama administration has become embroiled in seeking to deal with two major issues. The first has been the President’s insistence on winding down the American presence in Afghanistan, and in coping with the unanticipated effects of the Arab Spring. Obama has been loathe to advance the American presence in conflicts relating to the Middle East and the Muslim world.
As the President’s re-election came nearer, an almost non-interventionist policy line became evident, as indicated in his determination to draw down the American military presence in Afghanistan, and then, as reported, to reject the advice of Clinton herself, General Petraeus and Secretary of Defence Panetta, that the US should aid the military rebels in the current Syrian civil war. Active interventionism along the Bush line, or the threat of it, has been replaced by what can be called the ‘drone policy’ of liquidating specific individuals or small groups deemed to be sophisticated advocates of diminishing or removing American influence by implementing plans for rebellion against American-supported regimes.
The President has obviously decided, in his country’s relations, whether in the Middle East, or in Asia, and as indicated in the present turmoil in Africa, to induce other major powers to take initiatives that do not depend on extensive overt American support. The new Secretary of State, John Kerry, would seem to be appointed to explore the possibilities for diplomatic negotiation in the resolution of both war and non-war engagements in which the US is not directly involved, while being recognized as instrumental in the resolution of issues.
In that regard, Hillary Clinton’s advocacy of human rights, and in particular women’s rights has not always been well received in some leading developing countries. She has too, been a leading advocate of the so-called ‘pivot to Asia’ which Obama has initiated, and which China seems to be somewhat resentful of.
Recent events suggest that Obama is determined to let other major powers play a more instrumental role in civil war pacification, and in playing a multilateral role in regional conflict resolution. In that regard, his appointment of former Senator Kerry, who has encouraged a focus on negotiation and mediation, would appear to indicate a change of methodology, indicating to allies that America does not wish to play the role of sole policeman of the world that his recent predecessor played.
