Secretary of State Clinton in Lahore, Pakistan
Veteran critics of Hillary Rodham Clinton (of which I am one) should be puzzled by her just-completed whirlwind visit to Pakistan. Two Hillarys were on display. At times she confirmed our deepest fears of her, with her flashes of aggressive and gratuitous partisanship. Yet, equally at times, she starred as a skilled, combative advocate and defender of America’s interests, prompting one longtime Hillary-basher to muse, after watching a TV clip of her sparring with a Pakistani student group, “Maybe she’d have made a good president.”
What to make of Hillary? Perhaps no degree of dissection and analysis can yield any satisfying diagnosis. Rather, we probably will remain perpetually puzzled by a persona that is surely the most complicated, enigmatic to perform on our political stage since Richard Nixon. (She even may be flattered by the comparison.) While any solid verdict on the substance of her fifth trip (her first as Secretary of State) to Pakistan is months away, it’s not too soon to ruminate on the trip’s atmospherics.
The first Hillary.
The first Hillary was dazzling, trooping from one un-staged event to another, giving interviews and fielding questions in ways that not only displayed charm (a quality that I never previously would have ascribed to her) but also impressive nuanced command of facts, history and issues. Her dexterity is a tribute to America’s oft-maligned marathon presidential election campaign process, which imposes on hopefuls seemingly endless debates, speeches and town hall meetings. It is certainly unlikely that anyone not a battle-scarred veteran of that process could have performed as seemingly effortlessly as did Hillary in Pakistan. If she failed to impress (and charm) her audiences and interlocutors, then it was their problem, not hers; no one else could have done better. Most Secretaries of State of recent memory would have done much worse – or not even tried.
What endears this first Hillary to a conservative is her tough, no nonsense advocacy of America’s position. When the finger of blame was pointed at us, she pointed it right back at the Pakistanis. And, most dramatically, she didn’t flinch at accusing Pakistan of knowingly harboring al-Qaida and Taliban. At her roundtable with Pakistani editors, she said: “Let me ask you something. Al-Qaida has had safe haven in Pakistan since 2002. I find it hard to believe that nobody in your government knows where they are and couldn’t get them if they really wanted to.” To radio journalists, she added: “Somebody, somewhere in Pakistan, must know where these people are. And we’d like to know.” It’s impossible to imagine Jimmy Carter’s or Bill Clinton’s emissaries saying anything like that.
And there was more.
Example: At almost every encounter, Pakistanis complained that the pending $7.5 billion in U.S. aid to Pakistan carries strings. Hillary’s response: (to radio journalists) “Well, Pakistan doesn’t have to take any aid. Absolutely; you don’t have to take any aid.” (to senior editors)” Nobody is making Pakistan take any aid. That is up to you. That is your decision… nobody is going to make you take the help. That’s your choice.”
Example: Students at Government College University accused the U.S. of forcing Pakistan to fight the Taliban and al Qaida entrenched on Pakistan territory. Hillary’s response: “It was the Pakistan Government…and the Pakistan military who decided that it was intolerable for terrorist organizations to be seizing large chunks of territory of your country. I mean, that’s a decision for Pakistan to make…But that’s up to Pakistan. If you want to see your territory shrink, that’s your choice. But I think that’s a very self-destructive choice…This is a fight that has to be won.”
Example: Women journalists accused the U.S. of violating international law by using drones to attack al Qaida and Taliban forces inside Pakistan. Hillary’s response: “There is a war going on and in a war you go after the people who are your enemies.”
Example: Pakistanis blamed America for the tensions in U.S.-Pakistan relations. Hillary’s response: (to women journalists) “There’s a trust deficit going both directions. “ (to Pakistani editors) “I am more than willing to hear every complaint about the United States…But this is a two-way street…I don’t believe in dancing around difficult issues…I ask in the pursuit of mutual respect that you take seriously our concerns so that it’s not just a one-sided argument.”
The second Hillary.
If the first Hillary was a pleasing surprise, the second Hillary exposed the fierce, nasty political partisanship that long has fueled her critics’ disdain and contempt. Too often, in Pakistan, she seemed to forget that last year’s U.S. presidential campaign is long over, gratuitously taking potshots at the Bush administration. Not only is this in foul taste, but it violates one of the most venerable and respected American diplomatic maxims: Partisanship stops at the American shore’s edge. What this has meant, over the decades, is that U.S. diplomats, officials and delegations traveling overseas behave not as Democrats or Republicans but as Americans, resisting all urges to score rhetorical points against their domestic political adversaries.
Alas, Hillary, true to her partisan form, forgot that.
Example: Students at Government College University asked, “What is the difference between the Bush and Obama administrations?” Hillary’s response: “Well, there is such a huge difference. I obviously was not a supporter of our former president and did not agree with his policies. [Applause.] And I spent my entire eight years in the Senate opposing him. So to me, it’s like daylight and dark. It could not be a more stark difference.” A few minutes later she added: “We regret that over the last eight years our relationship has been defined primarily by security and the war on terrorism.”
Example: At the roundtable with Pakistani editors, she said: The Obama Administration “inherited a lot of problems…When my husband left office, we were very close to an agreement…The next administration did not make it a priority and did not really do much until toward the end. And unfortunately, we are trying to make up for some lost time.”
Example: In her meeting with women journalists, she said: “Over the last eight years, we have not been as either understanding or as helpful in some of what you are facing.”
Example: In responding to a question from Pakistani editors about Afghanistan, she said:” We have to have a different set of expectations than were apparently presented by the prior administration to the Afghan leadership as to accountability, rule of law, transparency, corruption, and other building blocks of stability and security.”
The verdict on Hillary Clinton as Secretary of State, obviously, is years away. Still, her visit to Pakistan, as those to India and China, indicates that she can be a strong advocate of America’s interests. That, for a conservative, is a fine surprise. Too bad, then, that her seemingly uncontrollable sharp-edged partisanship may get in the way of her effectively representing America.
Click Here to Comment on This Post
Email This Post
RSS 2.0 Feed URL
Couldn’t an arguement be made that she is trying to say, “we’re different; this is a new time”? And she is saying that to get more cooperation? It’s just that her response is nasty (she’s a nasty person, basically)but how else to get past their whining and using it to remain combatative and belligerent? I’m NOT a Hillary fan but I think she comported herself well.
She did comport herself well — and I hope I made it clear that she did well In Pakistan. Except for her inability to rein-in her nasty political partisanship.
Instead of taking opportunities to bash Bush and make partisan domestic political points, she easily could have said, when asked, as she was, about the differences between the Bush and Obama Administrations: “I don’t want to dwell on the past. I and President Obama are looking to the future. And in this future this is what we see that’s different in U.S.-Pakistan relations.” It would have been a much better message. It would have signalled that things would be different now — and her audience would get it. The Bush and GOP bashing were just gratuitous.
In Pakistan, two Hillarys were on display. The more important one was the skilled advocate of America’s interests. The second Hillary, the perpetual political partisan, was not as important but did, nonetheless, detract from her otherwise commendable performance.