The Silence of Clinton
Katehon | 03.06.2016 | Original here
Hillary Clinton, the main contender for the position of US presidential candidate from the Democratic Party, made a keynote speech on foreign policy. Her rival, Donald Trump, has demonstrated that she adheres to the neoconservative ideology of American exceptionalism. Much of Clinton's speech was devoted to deliberately criticizing Donald Trump and praising herself. But she chose to remain silent on the most important issues.
Clinton strongly criticized the foreign policy positions of Donald Trump. Recall that on 27th April, Donald Trump, speaking at the Center for National Interests, demonstrated his support for foreign policy realism and understanding the United States not as a global hegemon, but as a nation-state, which decides together with other great powers how to tackle the problems of mankind. From the point of view of Clinton, this approach weakens the US. Nevertheless, Clinton, instead of elaborately criticizing Trump’s foreign policy, decided to play on emotions. In particular, she referenced Trump expressive and provocative rhetoric. In fact, rather than offering an alternative to Trump’s foreign policy program, Hillary spent most of her time emotionally “proving” the incompetence of her opponent in the sphere of foreign policy, and the justification of her actions as Secretary of State.
In order to attack Trump she deliberately presented his statements out of context. At the same time, most of them were taken from lots of places, but not the multi-billionaire’s speech at the Center for National Interests. Clinton managed to accuse Trump of two incongruous sins: possible US involvement in a nuclear war and in support of the countries and regimes hostile to the US (Russia, China, North Korea), and a lax approach to these "enemies of the United States." Also, the former Secretary of State criticized Trump for his attitude towards immigrants (Muslims and Mexicans).
However, Clinton has demonstrated that she cannot attack a number of important provisions of these Trump’s foreign policy, because she has simply no argument:
- The idea of Trump to replace “randomness with purpose, ideology with strategy, and chaos with peace”. In fact, Trump stated that Obama, Clinton, and Kerry’s failed foreign policy is based on the ideological approach, and proposed a realist approach instead of the fallen liberal one. Clinton's approach is namely ideological, but she tries not to overemphasize this fact - that this policy is becoming unpopular.
- Clinton will not touch Trump’s anti-globalization theme, as it is dangerous for her. Recall, speaking at the Center for the national interests, he said:
We will no longer surrender this country or its people to the false song of globalism. The nation-state remains the true foundation for happiness and harmony.
In fact, Clinton is silent on this thesis, because to offer an alternative would be to openly declare herself as a non-supporter of US’ interests as a nation-state, but a supporter of the interests of the global transnational elite.
- Clinton did not answer the questions that justify the position of Trump on NATO and interventionism: why does the US intervene in a conflict where the interests of the US as a nation-state are not obvious? What does NATO do for ordinary Americans? Why isn’t NATO fighting terrorism and migration, which is a real threat, unlike the mythical Russian aggression? Why does the US still need this structure today? If Europe also need sit - the Europeans should pay for it, and if they do not pay, why does the United States maintain its existence?
- Clinton overlooked the key to the future of the United States and the world - the issue of reformatting the international economy through the mechanisms of the Trans-Atlantic and Trans-Pacific Partnership. Trump reasonably notices that the furthering of this policy promotes free trade and the deindustrialization of the US, leading to deterioration of ordinary Americans. It is in the interests of American multinational corporations that, through new markets, cheap labor, and newly created legal mechanisms to promote their interests, contrary to the sovereignty of nation-states, will minimize costs and maximize profits by entering other countries. But this same policy is contrary to the interests of ordinary Americans as it contributes to the displacement of industries to other countries and thereby increases unemployment and facilitates the flow of migrants, who occupy the remaining jobs in America.
Conclusion: Clinton has nothing to fend off Trump’s arguments against the creation of the Trans-Atlantic and Trans-Pacific Partnership.
- Clinton does not dare criticize the revolutionary Donald Trump's refusal to use power to impose Western values as universal ones and his criticism of the policy of liberal interventionism
Instead of trying to spread universal values that not everybody shares or wants, we should understand that strengthening and promoting Western civilization and its accomplishments will do more to inspire positive reforms around the world than military interventions.
At the same time speaking about her foreign policy experience, Hillary forgets to mention that it includes the war in Libya, which Obama admitted to be a mistake, the subsequent murder of American diplomats who "knew too much" in Benghazi, the organization of the "Arab Spring" with Qatar, and the subsequent growth of Islamic extremism around the world.
The main idea of Clinton’s foreign policy speech: US must retain the status of global hegemon - it is "an exceptional country, a hope for humanity." In this case, the two main opponents are declared, Russia and China. Hillary intends to wage an uncompromising struggle against them. Clinton said that if the United States gives up its role as a global leader, the world would be plunged into chaos. Interestingly, that is exactly the same argument and definition of US adversaries contained in an April article by Zbigniew Brzezinski entitled “Global Realignment”, published in The American Interest. Brzezinski has always supported the Democrats, and in the case of Clinton, his choice is clear. Thus, in addition to the neocons, Clinton decided to rely on the ideas of an old odious Russophobe liberal hawk.