By Dr. Amelia Hadfield<\/p>\n
Hillary Rodham Clinton is one of the most iconic women in the world. Ranked fifth on the Forbes list of \u201cWorld\u2019s Most Powerful Women\u201d[1]<\/a>, the former US Secretary of State (the 67th<\/sup>\u00a0of that ilk) is on most occasions entirely capable of providing a crisp and detailed delivery of a given viewpoint. Her October 2013 Chatham House Prize acceptance speech however was not nearly as profound as it could have been, and rather too pithy. Brevity, in this instance, was not exactly the soul of wit. Optimists may suggest that Clinton was perhaps overwhelmed with the sheer import of the award, and accordingly less than coherent with her thoughts and ideas. Pessimists may argue that the award, and thus her attitude to it, was simply a less-than-notable feature on the \u2018legacy landscaping\u2019 undertaken by retiring prominent politicians. Foreign policy scholars should base their analysis on the totality of statements that emerged from the event, as well her high-profile \u00a0Accordingly,\u00a0comments at distinguished international gatherings can be deconstructed within the contours of an emergent and operative foreign policy spectrum. Awarded the prize \u201cin recognition of her significant and impressive contribution to international diplomacy as US Secretary of State and her work on behalf of gender equality and opportunities for women and girls\u201d<\/em>[2]<\/a>, Clinton\u2019s acceptance speech was quotidian at best and trivial at worst (or indeed trivialising)<\/em>. Nostalgic reminiscences of London took precedence over a clear response to the substance behind the receipt of the award itself. References to the \u201cspecial relationship\u201d[3]<\/a>\u00a0occured as a diplomatic afterthought (\u201cI think it\u2019s assumed\u201d) and rather\u00a0obliquely, in that \u201cwe should never assume anything that is so important.\u201d Clinton then attempted a swift\u00a0volte face<\/em>, stating in her final comments that \u201cthis special relationship is an indispensable foundation of our mutual peace and\u00a0 rosperity\u201d, and in need of \u201cnurturing and never to be taken for granted\u201d.[4]<\/a><\/p>\n While accepting an award from a long-standing political ally certainly contributes to nurturing their abiding connections, doing so with extreme brevity and in lacklustre language unfortunately gives precisely the impression of taking both the ally, and the relationship for granted. Foreign\u00a0 Secretary William Hague[5]<\/a>\u00a0by contrast, launched swiftly into an expos\u00e9 on the Special Relationship between the United States and the United Kingdom, which suggests that British diplomats continue to regard US-UK connections as a rather more substantive foreign policy structure than the symbolic nature bestowed on it by their American counterparts.<\/p>\n The Q&A session that followed the acceptance speech gives the sense that Clinton herself was not entirely\u00a0au fait<\/em>\u00a0with the proposed protocol on this occasion, and had perhaps assumed that Chatham House rules would rule: \u201cI thought everything Evidence for the calculated use of this spectrum is found most recently in Clinton\u2019s own Chatham House responses. Discussing the Libyan farrago, Clinton stated her belief that \u201cthere should be more shared responsibility and there should be more multilateral leading on a range of issues\u2026 But I don\u2019t think that means that we don\u2019t recognize and accept our primary responsibility in any of those settings.\u201d[7]<\/a>\u00a0Thus, whilst shared responsibility via multilateral structures emanates from The deft use of this IR-grounded foreign policy spectrum is compellingly brought to light in comments on the United Nations, in which Clinton argues that \u201c[w]e need that role that the United Nations plays, which is absolutely, critically important for all the obvious reasons. But it is difficult to get controversial action done quickly within the Security Council.\u201d[8]<\/a>\u00a0The tussle between virtuous values imparted over the long-term from slow-moving but laudable international organizations versus the requisite need for immediate, even expedient, state-driven action to tackle pressing issues highlights the IR 2.0 argument between neorealists and neoliberals; Clinton identifies both the tension between relative and absolute gains, and ideational influence versus material power.<\/p>\n Further and older evidence for the use of this IR-oriented foreign policy spectrum by Clinton herself emerges from her 2010 article\u00a0Foreign Affairs<\/em>, in which she emphasises the importance of civilian power in foreign relations principally because it More fruitfully however, the elision of realist and liberal values (and indeed classical and contemporary diplomatic history) emerges with her combination of new methods of individual-driven diplomacy (as opposed to traditional government-to-government mechanisms) with key axioms like a robust foreign security policy and resilient financial institutions.[9]<\/a>\u00a0The balance is again struck in the concluding lines, where Clinton states that \u201cwith the right balance of civilian and military power, the United States can advance its interests and values, lead and support nations in solving global problems, and forge strong diplomatic and development partnerships with traditional allies and newly emerging powers.\u201d[10]<\/a>\u00a0Both the \u2018diplomatic and development\u2019, and \u2018interests and values\u2019 two-step is positively European in tone (although Clinton was never hailed as a firm ally of EU foreign poli-gentsia). The reference to a \u2018civilian and military balance\u2019 suggests either an acknowledgment of the new strategic shopping list of the post-Cold War NATO, or an appropriation of the hard\/soft, realist\/liberal balancing act that must perforce be struck by artful politicians.<\/p>\n Clinton has emerged as an artful practitioner of diplomatic judiciousness, and frequently goes solo with this\u00a0leitmotif<\/em>. She has however had something of an administrative advantage in having this same foreign policy dyad being emphatically set for her from the earliest days of her role by President Obama, whose 2009 Nobel Peace Prize acceptance speech articulated most explicitly the need to calibrate US foreign policy along an operative realist-liberal spectrum. Receiving the most prestigious acknowledgment for peace-making as \u201cCommander-in-Chief of the military of a nation\u201d at that time warring on two fronts and with an \u201cacute sense of the costs of armed conflict\u201d, Obama nevertheless argued that American military involvement was\u00a0 coterminous with the waging of a\u00a0just war<\/em>, \u201cwaged as a last resort or in self-defense\u201d, with proportional use of force, and, where possible, sparing civilians from violence.[11]<\/a><\/p>\n Obama went on portray America itself as a nation that, while permanently and emphatically armed against any number of foes, has also \u201cled the world in constructing an architecture to keep the peace\u201d, largely by emphasising commerce, which \u201chas stitched much of the world together\u201d, aid, by which \u201cbillions have been lifted from poverty\u201d, and an abiding dedication to the \u201cideals of liberty and self-determination, equality and the rule of law.\u201d\u00a0 However, operationalizing this legacy in pursuance of world peace frequently comes at a\u00a0cost. In order to balance \u201cnotions of just war and the imperatives of a just peace\u201d, political reality \u2013 at least for the self-appointed hegemon of the early 21st<\/sup>\u00a0century \u2013 means acknowledging that \u201cthere will be times when nations \u2013 acting individually or in concert \u2013 will find the use of force not only necessary but morally justified.\u201d Obama mentions Mahatma Gandhi and Martin Luther King Junior and the need to \u201cprotect and defend my nation\u201d because \u2013 in the simplest statement of realist foreign policy \u201cI face the world as it is.\u201d<\/p>\n In her role as Secretary of State, Clinton has reliably upheld the dyadic nature of this operative spectrum, and done so with considerable influence. Let us hope that her legacy was merely temporarily jet-lagged in London, rather than permanently jaded.<\/p>\n [1]<\/a>\u00a0Caroline, Howard. \u201cThe World\u2019s 100 Most [2]<\/a> [3]<\/a>\u00a0Interestingly, in Clinton\u2019s transcript, [4]<\/a>\u00a0\u201c2013 Chatham House Prize Acceptance [5]<\/a>\u00a0William Hague, \u201cChatham House Prize 2013\u201d (speech, London, [6]<\/a>http:\/\/www.chathamhouse.org\/sites\/default\/files\/public\/Meetings\/Meeting%20Transcripts\/111013ClintonAward.pdf<\/p>\n<\/div>\n [7]<\/a>\u00a0Clinton, Hilary Rodham. [8]<\/a>\u00a0Ibid.<\/em><\/p>\n<\/div>\n [9]<\/a>\u00a0Hillary [10]<\/a>\u00a0Ibid<\/em><\/p>\n<\/div>\n [11]<\/a>Barack References<\/strong><\/p>\n Howard, Caroline (2013) \u201cThe World\u2019s 100 Most Powerful Women.\u201d\u00a0Forbes<\/em>, May 22,http:\/\/www.forbes.com\/profile\/hillary-clinton\/<\/a>.<\/p>\n Clinton, Hilary Rodham (2013) Interview with Robin Niblett,\u00a0Chatham House, London,\u00a0<\/em>11 October,\u00a0http:\/\/www.chathamhouse.org\/sites\/default\/files\/public\/Chatham%20House\/111013ClintonFull.pdf<\/a>.<\/p>\n Clinton, Hillary Rodham (2010) \u201cLeading Through Civilian Power\u201d\u00a0Foreign Affairs<\/em>, November\/December,\u00a0\u00a0http:\/\/www.foreignaffairs.com\/articles\/66799\/hillary-<\/a>rodham-clinton\/leading-through-civilian-power.<\/p>\n Hadfield, Amelia (2013) \u201cLiberalism and the Neo-Neo Debates\u201d,\u00a0Contemporary International Relations Analysis\u00a0<\/em>(CIRA), Hague, William (2013) \u201cChatham House Prize 2013.\u201d Speech, London. October 11, 2013. Obama, B., (2009), Nobel Peace Prize Acceptance Speech, Oslo:http:\/\/www.nobelprize.org\/nobel_prizes\/peace\/laureates\/2009\/obama-lecture_en.html<\/a><\/p>\n
\nForeign Affairs<\/em>\u00a0article of 2010, and the backdrop of President Obama\u2019s own Nobel Prize speech of 2009.<\/p>\n
\nwould be off the record\u201d. After another swift\u00a0volte face<\/em>, Clinton concluded that she was in agreement with Chatham House Director Robin Niblett, and that it would be \u201ca fascinating idea that we would talk and answer questions\u201d, principally because \u201cwe need more discussion, we need more dialogue, we need more challenge to one another.\u201d[6]<\/a>\u00a0Converting
\nnecessity to virtue, and warming to the thrust of questions from the audience, Clinton responded precisely to the requirements she had earlier suggested, namely the need to strike a balance between means and ends, between core liberal values and strategic methods, arguing that \u00a0\u201cwe have to hold on to our values and our ideals, but we have to be smart about how we chart our course forward together\u201d. In marrying classical, if implicit liberal modes with realist methods, Clinton \u2013 like many contemporary politicians \u2013 travels the full spectrum of International Relations theory that has long underwritten foreign policy in theory and practice, and finds a convenient middle ground.<\/p>\n
\nclassical liberal views, primary responsibilities suggest an abiding allegiance to realist state-centrism.<\/p>\n
\ndeepens her advocacy for a differential take on foreign policy, including the role of civil society and an enhanced role for women and education policy.<\/p>\n
\n
\nPowerful Women.\u201d\u00a0Forbes<\/em>, May 22,
\n2013. http:\/\/www.forbes.com\/profile\/hillary-clinton\/ (accessed October 21,
\n2013).<\/p>\n
\nhttp:\/\/www.chathamhouse.org\/events\/chatham-house-prize\/2013\/chatham-house-prize-2013<\/p>\n<\/div>\n
\n\u2018special relationship\u2019 is not capitalized, while in William Hague\u2019s response it
\nappears as a capitalised formal noun, and thus a diplomatic term of art.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n
\nSpeech,\u201d Read by Hilary Rodham Clinton, Web,\u00a0http:\/\/www.youtube.com\/watch?v=bkxfJdhw14E<\/a>. Transcript available at:
\nhttp:\/\/www.chathamhouse.org\/sites\/default\/files\/public\/Meetings\/Meeting%20Transcripts\/111013ClintonAward.pdf<\/p>\n<\/div>\n
\nOctober 11, 2013) Chatham House,http:\/\/www.chathamhouse.org\/sites\/default\/files\/public\/Meetings\/Meeting%20Transcripts\/111013Hague.pdf<\/a><\/p>\n<\/div>\n
\nInterview with Robin Niblett.\u00a0Chatham
\nHouse, London.<\/em>\u00a011 October 2013.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n
\nRodham Clinton, \u201cLeading Through Civilian Power,\u201dForeign Affairs<\/em>, no.
\nNovember\/December (2010),
\nhttp:\/\/www.foreignaffairs.com\/articles\/66799\/hillary-rodham-clinton\/leading-through-civilian-power.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n
\nObama, Nobel Peace Prize Acceptance Speech (2009) http:\/\/www.nobelprize.org\/nobel_prizes\/peace\/laureates\/2009\/obama-lecture_en.html.<\/p>\n
\nPolitics\/International Relations, Canterbury, Kent, October 15.<\/p>\n
\nChatham House:\u00a0http:\/\/www.chathamhouse.org\/sites\/default\/files\/public\/Meetings\/Meeting%20Transcripts\/111013Hague.pdf<\/a><\/p>\n