Reshaping policies and change

US President-elect Barack Obama started announcing candidates for his administration positions, yet the job of the Top Diplomat is still being guessed.

Strong rumours that Hillary Clinton is tipped for the job has generated reactions in America, and should also be of concern to the world as well. Though Obama's choice of Joe Biden as Vice-President meant that the Delaware senator will be the main foreign policy architect of the new administration, he'd still need just an 'executive' Secretary of State.

But the ex-First Lady won't be satisfied of a clipped job, and would definitely want to be part of shaping policies.

During her campaign against Obama to win the Democratic Party's nomination to the Presidential election, Hillary Clinton boasted about her foreign policy experience. But real check of her political career does not prove this true, except for the ambiguous notion that she is known internationally and has got some international contacts.

That's mainly from the period she was beside her 'celebrity' President Bill Clinton as First lady visiting foreign countries and hosting foreign leaders in the White House - is that foreign policy experience!

Looking at her voting record, and declared positions on foreign policy issues, since she became New York senator in 2001, one comes out with inconsistent track. First, she voted for the war on Iraq, earlier in 2002 when she said yes to authorise George W. Bush to launch preemptive wars - regardless of any legacy; then she tried to speak against the war for electoral purposes in 2006 without saying that her vote was wrong.

She opposed a timeline for the withdrawal of US forces from Iraq, and suggested at some point that they might stay on indefinitely in Kurdistan. So, how would she execute the President's promise to withdraw troops?

Terrorist attacks

Another example of inconsistency is the Palestinian state, when she once said that she is for a Palestinian state and as this brought Jewish anger, she retreated. As for the core issue in the Middle East, Palestinian problem, no change in US policy is expected if Clinton became Secretary of State and most likely more obstacles to any just and fair settlement would arise.

Hillary Clinton supports a move of the US embassy in Israel from Tel Aviv to occupied Jerusalem. She also supported the wall in Israel, working closely with Jewish leaders to oppose the International Court of Justice passing judgment on the legality of Israel's security fence. Clinton released a statement supporting the wall as a "legitimate response" to terrorist attacks.

Her campaign rhetoric in Democratic primaries about Iran is almost like the stand of the Bush administration. She strongly attacked Obama's early remark that he will be willing to negotiate directly with Iran, describing the Iranian leadership as "mad men...".

Though Obama hardened his position later, not ruling out any means to stop Iran's nuclear ambition, he's still for a diplomatic approach. But how would Clinton, who is more hawkish on Iran and closer to the Israeli position on the matter, carry out the policy of the new President as his top diplomat?

Her stands on other foreign policy issues, from relations with Russia or China to the American policy in Latin America, are not much different. There is no single foreign policy issue one might think that Hillary Clinton would take a pro-peace, anti-interventionist, approach. From Iraq to Iran to the renewed threat of a cold war with Russia, let alone the Palestinian-Israeli conflict, she might not be the best choice to lead a "new and changed" American foreign policy.

Regaining America's credibility in the world as promoter of great values that advocates justice, fairness and impartiality needs new faces. Going back to early nineties, by bringing more Clintonian faces like AIPAC guy, Rahm Emanuel, Hillary Clinton and others might not convince the world, especially our region that America is not the same.

If the differentiation is true in American partisan politics that Democrats are more liberal and Republicans are conservatives, Hillary Clinton would be an example of the 'neo-lib' among Democrats like neo-cons are among Republicans. She would be almost a continuity of American foreign policy of previous administration or at least not much different from it. Putting a 'New Clinton' on the helm of American foreign policy contradicts the promise of change Obama vowed.

Dr Ahmad Mustafa is a London-based Arab writer.