Thursday
Jul162009
The Clinton Speech: An Immediate Reaction
Thursday, July 16, 2009 at 8:38
Video and Transcript: Hillary Clinton Speech at Council on Foreign Relations (15 July)
Receive our latest updates by email or RSS- SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FEED
On 15 July, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton offered a context for U.S. foreign policy, at the outset of the Obama Administration, at a conference held by the Council on Foreign Relations. Two neo-liberal pillars of interdependence and transnationalism support an American soft power in which "the ideal values" of the US, such as democracy, transparency, liberty, and freedom, become basis for peaceful solution.
No need, therefore, to consider the prospect of a capitalism-led inequality. No reason to consider the issues that lay behind inter-state and intra-state disputes. No reference at all to the essence of today's problems, for there are God-given values of Americans which are "always appropriate" for others. Yes, if there are problems, it will clearly be because others --- from blindness or malice --- don't accept those values. As Clinton concluded:
Receive our latest updates by email or RSS- SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FEED
On 15 July, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton offered a context for U.S. foreign policy, at the outset of the Obama Administration, at a conference held by the Council on Foreign Relations. Two neo-liberal pillars of interdependence and transnationalism support an American soft power in which "the ideal values" of the US, such as democracy, transparency, liberty, and freedom, become basis for peaceful solution.No need, therefore, to consider the prospect of a capitalism-led inequality. No reason to consider the issues that lay behind inter-state and intra-state disputes. No reference at all to the essence of today's problems, for there are God-given values of Americans which are "always appropriate" for others. Yes, if there are problems, it will clearly be because others --- from blindness or malice --- don't accept those values. As Clinton concluded:
More than 230 years ago, Thomas Paine said, “We have it within our power to start the world over again.” Today, in a new and very different era, we are called upon to use that power. I believe we have the right strategy, the right priorities, the right policies, we have the right President, and we have the American people, diverse, committed, and open to the future... Now all we have to do is deliver.
Reader Comments (6)
So much insolence; such imperial hubris...Roll over, Tom Paine!
Ali,
I know of course that it was never intended this way at all, but really I'm not sure how this reaction could come off anymore anti-democratic and, arguably, anti-American. You couldn't really have been expecting Secretary Clinton, partner of President Clinton(!!!), to tear off into a rant about the inequalities of capitalism, right? I'd consider them among the most pro-business American leadership in history, not exactly a couple of pinko leftists.
And I must be mistaken that you're implying that some people, I don't know, Iraqis, Pakistanis, Palestinians, can't handle American values like democracy and liberty, right? I mean what else does "appropriate" mean in that sense, that there are some people who are "appropriately" oppressed and without freedom? I just don't see where you're going here.
Again, I know I'm the one actually in the red here and am absolutely certain that I'm misreading this, so...what am I missing?
Josh,
Of course, I would be shocked if I had seen any statement related to inequalities imposed by capitalism and the downside effects of boundary-producing institutions/structures from Hillary Clinton. I was not expecting that! Where I am going from here is to point out the continuation of hegemonic moves framed into a neo-liberal context which is shown compatible with the ideal world of Barack Obama as the leader United States needs right now! I am trying to show how political side of a hegemony-construction process is based on semi-fixed meanings such as democracy, freedom, liberty etc...
By "appropriate," I meant that it is how these "ideal" values - that have been continuously constructed through political manipulations - are shown as the best for others. It is not the pure meaning of freedom we are taught in our high school books I am pointing out. For instance, after the second World War, the meaning of "intervention" was limited with self-defense. Theoretically, attacking another country is illegal and illegitimate in international law. However, what happened with the formula of "humanitarian intervention" in 1990s? In the name of "humanity" it was possible to attack which would be bringing another institution - democracy - as if there is just one kind of pure democracy throughout the history! Or what happened in Iraq in 2003? How come is pre-emptive strike not questioned as it had been done in the first first months of the war?
It is the role and functions of wider structures strengthening capital in determining the identities and perceptions of agents. Isnt it the reason why the most cruel regimes have been claiming that they are democratic? It is better understood by Adorno's Negative Dialectics: It is Universalism (the structure) determining the interaction between an agent's identity (universal - what it is/can be) and its non-identity (particular - what it is not/cannot be).
Actually, I am sorry that the word "appropriate" should have been in quotation marks. Hope I gave the answers to your questions.
Ali,
Absolutely you've answered them. I'm now not only on the same page with you, but I'd also personally endorse your analysis. In fact, I think what threw me off the first time was not particularly your statement, but my own analytical biases.
1. While I readily acknowledge the effectiveness of attacking the Obama administration as socialist, Marxist, anti-capitalist or what have you, it's another thing entirely to actually believe it's true. At the point it is factored into analysis, the writer has immediately left reality and ventured into fantasy territory.
I assumed, incorrectly, that this was inferred by the statement on capitalism-led inequalities.
2. One of the unfortunate consequences of the US crimes in Iraq is the bipartisan sentiment that Iraq is not ready for democracy, or that for whatever reason, they're simple incapable of supporting basic human liberty. This is (cynically) carried over to other international affairs, such as the political situation in Pakistan.
I assumed, again incorrectly, that this was the reasoning behind the "appropriate" comments.
Thanks very much for clearing everything up, and keep up the fantastic work!
--UJ
Josh,
I am happy that my answers are satisfactory enough. Thank you!
As for your second point, I totally agree with you. Indeed, you emphasized a very significant point: the bi-partisan relationship! On one hand, there are people claiming that Iraqis need democracy yet they were not able to change the regime since they were simply incapable of supporting "ideal values" of the "modern" world. On the other hand, there are people alleging that Iraqis needed democracy yet they were not ready for it. Since they all agree that democracy is the sine qua non and Iraqis would be suffering under a tyranny, it places the "intervention" in a good sense as if every dead Iraqi would be sacrifying his/her life to grandchildren who would be living in a better world though it is sad to see them out of breath!
At the end of the day, it brings the close relationship between the institutions of maximization of capital, "universal values" and the remnants of the Orientalist perspective into question!
it is particularly those amateur attempts of recovering information that end up being your data’s worst enemy. dfhsjm dfhsjm - North Face Parka.