i also couldn't believe it when clinton stated that human rights issues will not affect US and China relations. sacrificing common humanity for economic expediency seems like a wrong way to go. this is a case where realists would exclaim "see? i told you..US will only act out of national interest...the hell with humanitarian issues, if they have no stakes in it, then they have no business in it".
to ignore the issues of humanitarian abuses ensured clinton's bad reputation among human rights activists. humanitarian cried foul to such narrow minded and self-interested outlook on international relations. what the secretary of state should have done was to assure China that US will continue to be its ally and an economic partner but at the same time gave China a stern warning that if they ever choose to jump over the fence towards humanitarian abuse, then US will do everything in its power to deter it. this seems to be a fair warning bereft of arrogance and condescension.
i still think that henry kissinger is the best secretary of state in the history of america. clinton should take a page from kissinger's book. kissinger strikes a balance between coercion and consensus, employing the former only during desperate times. if things could be remedied using soft diplomacy, why not? but if worse comes to worst, kissinger was not afraid to jolt down the other party from negotiations with an implied threat that seem to say " you will regret this". this has worked well for the former secretary of state and clinton should emulate this.
i do not disagree on clinton's new approach to diplomacy, soft power. however, she must be cautious on not being too soft as other state might misinterpret this as a sign of weakness. clinton should be given credit in capitalizing her celebrity status all around the world to garner a favoral opinion on US. the past 8 years have left american reputation scarred and tarnished. it is up to clinton and obama to heal america. the human rights gaffe was not a good supplement.
to ignore the issues of humanitarian abuses ensured clinton's bad reputation among human rights activists. humanitarian cried foul to such narrow minded and self-interested outlook on international relations. what the secretary of state should have done was to assure China that US will continue to be its ally and an economic partner but at the same time gave China a stern warning that if they ever choose to jump over the fence towards humanitarian abuse, then US will do everything in its power to deter it. this seems to be a fair warning bereft of arrogance and condescension.
i still think that henry kissinger is the best secretary of state in the history of america. clinton should take a page from kissinger's book. kissinger strikes a balance between coercion and consensus, employing the former only during desperate times. if things could be remedied using soft diplomacy, why not? but if worse comes to worst, kissinger was not afraid to jolt down the other party from negotiations with an implied threat that seem to say " you will regret this". this has worked well for the former secretary of state and clinton should emulate this.
i do not disagree on clinton's new approach to diplomacy, soft power. however, she must be cautious on not being too soft as other state might misinterpret this as a sign of weakness. clinton should be given credit in capitalizing her celebrity status all around the world to garner a favoral opinion on US. the past 8 years have left american reputation scarred and tarnished. it is up to clinton and obama to heal america. the human rights gaffe was not a good supplement.
No comments:
Post a Comment