AMERICAN POLITICAL PERSPECTIVES ON MIDDLE EAST PEACE (LCI)

Last evening, July 11, I was a guest on Le 17/20 on French news channel, LCI. The panel was intended to focus on yesterday's meeting of the Middle East Quartet in Washington DC, but evolved into a discussion primarily about Israeli and Palestinian internal politics.

I contributed an analysis of the American political landscape with the following reflections:

--How strong is Obama's political will to press this issue? Currently on his plate: consuming debt negotiations and the early stages of the 2012 electoral cycle. Israel's defense and security is a US domestic electoral issue. Even if Obama were willing to take a harder line to transform his May 2011 speech into action, this would necessarily involve increased pressure on Israel and opening himself (and his campaign) to avid criticism from across the two-party spectrum, including from representatives protecting their own seats in their home districts.

--A closer look at US domestic opposition to the Palestinian vote this September: I signaled the resolution proposed by Reps. Cantor (R-VA) and Hoyer (D-MD), which passed the House almost unanimously (407-6), and threatens to suspend aid to Palestine if they proceed with the UN vote this September and advance toward a deal with Hamas.

--The US's inability to translate words to action: Again, no progress to speak of following Obama's speech; the loss of a widely-respected envoy (Mitchell) who failed to invest the two parties in productive dialogue; a replacement for Mitchell, David Hale, who has barely been visible on the issue; and an American administration very reticent to convene the Quartet out of almost total disbelief that it could produce any effective course of action heading into the summer.

--I suggested that Washington's paradoxical objectives (protection of Israel while maintaining access to Arab oil supplies) can often create an obstacle to developing a coherent policy in the region.

- Amy Greene

EMERGING CLINTON DOCTRINE? EARLY LOOK OF HILLARY CLINTON AT STATE

After more than one year into her self-declared one-term tenure, the place Hillary Clinton occupies in US diplomacy is unclear – and questions remain as to how she hopes to shape the office. Is it her goal to mark the American diplomatic heritage with a so-called Clinton Doctrine? Or is she exercising her functions such as to coalesce her abundant international popularity to become a transcendent figure?

Sticking to the job she currently holds, we have some indications of Clinton’s foreign policy style. Early on, she embraced “smart power” as a key to revitalizing US diplomacy, and her foreign trips reflect such a policy – she often holds both high-level meetings and town-hall style events especially targeting young people and students, and namely women and girls. Obama has made this type of outreach a hallmark of his own style, too, so the grassroots approach is not strictly a Clinton innovation (though her celebrity is easily instrumentalized for this purpose). And indeed, the excitement Clinton incites during her travels proves that this approach can be successful.

Speaking of substance, there is disappointingly little to evaluate. Her colleagues at State appreciate her dedication to their internal concerns, from improving the nuts-and-bolts of agency functioning to fighting for increased funding and resources in a way past secretaries have not. Otherwise, and looking outward, Clinton is increasingly assuming the mantle of women's/girls’ rights (a lifelong commitment and political passion), advocating for gender equality grounded on an efficiency-based argument rather than rooted in a moral-imperative. It would be no surprise if Clinton dedicated her post-administration, and post-political, work to advancing progress on this front.

Additionally, appointing envoys was Clinton’s idea. After seeing how little SecStates achieve when spread too thin over too many issues, Clinton was determined assign heavyweights to manage the most demanding issue areas. But with Mitchell coming up short in the Middle East and Holbrooke’s tense relations with Afghan principals including Karzai, there are few concrete successes here to mention.

Until now, Clinton has succeeded in reinvigorating the world's perception of American power via an unrelenting global “hearts and minds” campaign. But she has neither made her mark on any one dossier nor delivered a resounding policy success (cf. failure to secure Brazilian support on Iran sanctions; the Jerusalem gaffe). Much of this is a mere question of time. But the Clinton/Obama dynamic itself may also be at play. The two former rivals will never share the seamless mutual confidence, allowing the secretary to act as proxy for the president, that made other President/Secretary pairs so successful (think Bush/Baker; Nixon/Kissinger). And by sending Biden around the world to problem-solve instead of Clinton, Obama may be signaling the limits of her power. Certainly, Obama gave Clinton full control of Foggy Bottom (including hiring decisions) – but in doing so, did he also marginalize the agency by placing it apart, making it a Clinton sphere that operates at a distance from other key power centers?

Time will tell how Clinton works to define her mandate as Secretary of State, where she will seek to score big wins, and ultimately, how her decisions will translate into imperatives for American action abroad.

- Amy Greene
(photo credit: US State Department)