Washington: In a major speech on July 21, Donald Trump blamed Hillary Clinton for an array of global problems including chaos in Iraq, the Syrian civil war, the rise of Daesh, and the nuclear deal with Iran. As the general election kicks into gear, Clinton’s past roles in international affairs will provide both campaigns with lots of ammunition in the electoral battle.
Clinton has more than two decades of experience in international affairs, as First Lady during Bill Clinton’s presidency, as a US senator, and as secretary of state from 2009 to 2013. She believes that US leadership is essential to global stability, even while acknowledging that the US sometimes makes mistakes. “I believe the future holds far more opportunities than threats if we exercise creative and confident leadership that enables us to shape global events rather than be shaped by them,” she said in June 2015.
As secretary and now as a candidate, Clinton has embraced the concept of “smart power”, which she defines in her book Hard Choices as “choosing the right combination of tools — diplomatic, economic, military, political, legal, and cultural — for each situation.” In general, Clinton takes a pragmatic view of world affairs, emphasising the use of both “engagement and pressure” in dealing with other countries. “As secretary of state, she really learnt the power of diplomacy — she could feel it herself,” said Kim Ghattas, a BBC correspondent and author of The Secretary: A Journey with Hillary Clinton from Beirut to the Heart of American Power.
On most issues, Clinton as a candidate remains closely aligned with the Obama administration and her positions as secretary of state. Perhaps the two biggest areas of difference are trade and the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. In the past, Clinton has supported some free trade deals, including the proposed Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP). As a candidate, however, she has faced a wave of antitrade sentiment, clearly expressed in Trump’s campaign and by Bernie Sanders, who ran against Clinton in the Democratic primaries. Since 2015, she has opposed the TPP. “Trump’s and Sanders’ populism, antiglobalisation, anti-free trade rhetoric has infected American politics in such a way that it will be difficult for Clinton to be the pro-globalisation, pro-free trade person that she is,” Afshin Molavi, a Senior Fellow with the Johns Hopkins SAIS Foreign Policy Institute, said.
On the Israeli-Palestinian issue, Clinton’s campaign rhetoric is staunchly pro-Israel. “When she was secretary of state, she expressed America’s unequivocal support for Israel while, at the same time, highlighting the need to acknowledge the rights and needs of Palestinians. As a candidate, she has chosen to only focus on the unequivocal support for Israel,” said Ghattas.
On Iran and Syria, Clinton has much in common with Obama but with some significant difference in important details. Clinton supports the nuclear deal with Iran, but “she’s less indulgent toward Iran and more sympathetic to the view of America’s Gulf Arab allies that Iran is trying to be a regional hegemon,” said Molavi.
Clinton has long advocated for more US involvement in the Syrian conflict, today calling for “intensifying the coalition air campaign against Daesh” and increasing support for Arab and Kurdish forces fighting Daesh. She has also proposed creating no-fly zones. “There is still a difference between Clinton and Obama on Syria,” said Ghattas. “But she’s also very aware that, between now and the time she might be president, the situation on the ground might change.”
Over the next few months, Clinton is likely to emphasise her view that Trump lacks the character needed to make life-and-death decisions on complex global issues. In a June 2 speech, Clinton said, “Do we want him making those calls — someone thin-skinned and quick to anger, who lashes out at the smallest criticism? Do we want his finger anywhere near the [nuclear] button?”
— Kerry Boyd Anderson is a writer and political risk consultant