U.S.: Clinton Seeks 'Multi-Partner World', Warns Iran on Time

• by Jim Lobe* (washington)
• Wednesday, July 15, 2009
• Inter Press Service

But she also warned Tehran that time is growing short for it to decide whether to take up Washington's offer of direct negotiations on its nuclear programme and asserted that its repression of opposition forces that have protested last month's disputed elections has 'certainly shifted' the prospects for success of any engagement policy.

'Iran can become a constructive actor in the region if it stops threatening its neighbours and supporting terrorism,' she said. 'It can assume a responsible position in the international community if it fulfills its obligations on human rights.'

'The choice is clear. We remain ready to engage with Iran, but the time for action is now. The opportunity will not remain open indefinitely,' she warned.

Speaking before the Washington office of the Council on Foreign Relations, Clinton also called on Arab states to go beyond their 2002 peace proposal with Israel and take additional steps demonstrating their acceptance of the Jewish state in the region, as the U.S. works to halt Israeli settlements and establish conditions for a two-state solution to the Israel-Palestinian conflict.

'(Egyptian President) Anwar Sadat and (Jordan's) King Hussein crossed important thresholds, and their boldness and vision mobilised peace constituencies in Israel and paved the way for lasting agreements,' she said. 'By providing support to the Palestinians and offering an opening, however modest, to the Israelis, the Arab states could have the same impact.'

Clinton's speech, which preceded her departure Friday for a five-day trip to India and Thailand, appeared designed both to offer a comprehensive framework for U.S. policy under Obama and to highlight the State Department's importance in carrying it out.

Clinton's foreign policy role has in many ways been almost completely overshadowed by Obama, whose speeches over the last three months – each one devoted to a specific major foreign policy issue - in Prague, Cairo, Moscow and Accra have dominated the headlines.

His appointment of special envoys to deal with Arab-Israeli peace and Afghanistan and Pakistan - George Mitchell and Richard Holbrooke, respectively - has also reduced the State Department's profile on the administration's two top regional priorities.

Finally, the fact that Clinton did not accompany Obama on his trip to last week's G8 Summit, Russia, and Ghana - explained by the secretary's recovery from a broken elbow - as well as reports that she was not informed in advance about the administration's decision to send an ambassador to Syria after a four-year hiatus, fed speculation that Foggy Bottom was being marginalised.

Thus, Clinton's address Wednesday, which was more comprehensive in scope than Obama's speeches overseas, was seen in part as a re-assertion of her role as a key part of the foreign policy team.

Describing a 'new era of engagement' in U.S. policy, she described the 'heart of America's mission in the world today' as 'American leadership to solve problems in concert with others'.

While she stressed that none of the world's common problems – 'from non-proliferation to fighting diseases to counter-terrorism' - can be addressed by one country alone, Clinton, in an echo of former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright's insistence that the U.S. was the 'indispensable nation', insisted that 'no challenge can be met without America.'

'(W)e will lead by inducing greater cooperation among a greater number of actors and reducing competition, tilting the balance away from a multi-polar world and toward a multi-partner world,' she declared, adding, 'Our partnerships can become power coalitions to constrain or deter those' who 'actively seek to undermine our efforts'.

Washington's 'smart power', as she called it, is based on five specific policy approaches.

First, Washington is reinvigorating 'bedrock alliances', especially in Europe and Asia, while putting 'special emphasis on encouraging major and emerging global powers – China, India, Russia and Brazil, as well as Turkey, Indonesia, and South Africa – to be full partners in tackling the global agenda.'

A necessary aspect of this approach will be to transform and reform, where necessary, global and regional institutions to ensure their 'legitimacy and representativeness, and the ability of their members to act swiftly and responsibly when problems arise.'

At the same time, she said, Washington will be 'more flexible and pragmatic' in dealing with its partners. 'So we will not tell our partners to take it or leave it, nor will we insist that they're either with us or against us. In today's world, that's global malpractice,' she said in one of a number of implicit rebukes of the administration of former President George W. Bush.

The second approach 'is to lead with diplomacy, even in cases of adversaries or nations with whom we disagree', she said in defence of Obama's engagement policy.

The third and fourth approaches will be to 'elevate and integrate development as a core pillar of American power' and 'ensure that civilian and military efforts operate in a coordinated and complementary fashion where we are engaged in conflict', as in Iraq and Afghanistan.

The last approach will be to 'shore up traditional sources of our influence, including economic strength and the power of our example', by, among other things, banning torture and closing the Guantanamo detention facility and joining global negotiations on climate change and arms control that Bush administration had disdained or abandoned.

Her defence of engaging Iran also constituted an implicit critique of Bush. 'We know that refusing to deal with the Islamic Republic has not succeeded in altering the Iranian march toward a nuclear weapon, reducing Iranian support for terror, or improving Iran's treatment of its citizens,' she said.

'Neither the president nor I have any illusions that dialogue with the Islamic Republic will guarantee success of any kind, and the prospects have certainly shifted in the weeks following the election. But we also understand the importance of offering to engage Iran and giving its clear choice: whether to join the international community as a responsible member or to continue down a path to further isolation,' she said, adding that '(d)irect talks provide the best vehicle for presenting and explaining that choice.'

Moreover, '(e)xhausting the option for dialogue is also more likely to make our partners more willing to exert pressure should persuasion fail,' she noted.

Obama indicated last week that he will wait until September to see whether Tehran takes up his offer of direct talks – sent in a secret message to Ayatollah Ali Khameini in May, according to the Washington Times – before deciding whether to tighten existing sanctions against Iran or seek new ones. If talks get underway, he has said that he would defer a sanctions decision until early next year.

On another government that Bush refused to engage, Clinton said Washington considered Syria 'a critical player in whatever we do in the Middle East', but that it expected the renewed relationship to be 'reciprocal'.

'I'm hoping that the Syrian calculation of where they should be positionally with respect to their relationship with Iran and their support for extremist and terrorist activities will be changing so that we can pursue a two-way engagement that will benefit both us and the larger region,' Clinton told one questioner.

Mitchell is currently trying to re-open peace talks between Israel and Syria that were suspended last year, according to reports.

*Jim Lobe's blog on U.S. foreign policy can be read at http://www.ips.org/blog/jimlobe/.

© Inter Press Service (2009) — All Rights ReservedOriginal source: Inter Press Service