CAIRO — Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton's tense exchanges with Pakistani civilians and Arab diplomats over a harrowing week of foreign stops exposed the confining limits of her office.
On her most ambitious and contentious overseas trip as secretary of state, Clinton had to resort to damage control after she appeared to mangle the Obama administration's message on frozen Mideast peace talks.
And while she scored points back home by standing up to angry Pakistanis who confronted her about drone-launched U.S. missile strikes, her blunt questioning of the resolve of Pakistan's government exposed American impatience with the country's incremental steps against terrorists.
In each case her extraordinarily public approach to diplomacy — for better or worse — reflected not only her personal style but also President Barack Obama's promise to reach out openly to friend as well as foe.
What remains less clear is whether Clinton's hot-button politician's persona works any better at producing international results — let alone clarity — than a more classic diplomat's cooler tact.
What's interesting about this is Hilary is following in the footsteps of the Bush Administration and Condoleeza Rice. There is little difference in the two approaches. And yet, the AP attempts to make it sound like Hilary is blazing some new trail.
Her tough talk is just an echo of what Bush and Condi had already been doing for the past eight years.
The problem is, tough talk does not work when it is not backed up by a real threat of force. It didn't work for Bush (see Iran), and it won't work for Hilary, who represents an Administration which has even less resolve then the Bush Administration.
No comments:
Post a Comment