United States: Good and Bad Diplomatic Moves
Yesterday, Democrats in the U.S. Senate managed to block a legislative initiative by the Republican Party that would have had the effect of annulling the nonproliferation treaty signed last July by Iran and the P5+1 group. The P5+1 group includes the five permanent members of the United Nations Security Council — China, the United States, Great Britain, France and Russia — plus Germany.
The rejection of the Republican initiative by the legislature was described by President Barack Obama as a victory of diplomacy for the security of the United States and the world.
In effect, yesterday’s Senate vote sets a healthy precedent looking ahead to the final ratification of the accord by the U.S. Congress, which will have to be done no later than Sept. 17. It can’t be overlooked, however, that neither the outcome of yesterday’s vote, nor even the eventual implementation of the treaty, avoid the risk that Washington’s well-known warmongers might throw overboard the progress made up to now in the resolution of the dispute over Iran’s nuclear program.
In this regard, it is appropriate to contrast the posture of the Senate Democrats — who on this occasion joined in the White House diplomatic initiative on Iran — with that of Democratic presidential hopeful Hillary Clinton. Last Wednesday, Clinton said that if she is in the Oval Office, she will not hesitate to take military action if Iran attempts to acquire a nuclear bomb. She noted that when dealing with the regime of the ayatollahs, it is best to not trust and furthermore, to verify.
Assertions like these mark a return by Clinton to the militaristic and intransigent posture that has characterized the United States throughout its history and that up to the present, at least with respect to Iran, has appeared to be limited to the Republican Party and Washington hawks. And to make things worse, the ex-secretary of state’s provocative attitude seems unnecessary and even counterproductive, in light of the current composition of the U.S. electorate, in which the jingoistic, xenophobic and conservative vote is no longer the determining factor.
Conversely, in an increasingly complex and multipolar international environment, Clinton is contributing to the reinforcement of a simplistic and factional discourse that in no way helps the various international actors to build understanding. On the contrary, it adds to the tension between Tehran and the West, and to a deterioration in the political climate in the Middle East.
In short, the statements discussed above work against Hillary Clinton’s apparent desire to present herself as a promising nominee for head of state and to differentiate her agenda for directing the diplomacy of the superpower from that of her Republican counterparts.
The rejection of the Republican initiative by the legislature was described by President Barack Obama as a victory of diplomacy for the security of the United States and the world.
In effect, yesterday’s Senate vote sets a healthy precedent looking ahead to the final ratification of the accord by the U.S. Congress, which will have to be done no later than Sept. 17. It can’t be overlooked, however, that neither the outcome of yesterday’s vote, nor even the eventual implementation of the treaty, avoid the risk that Washington’s well-known warmongers might throw overboard the progress made up to now in the resolution of the dispute over Iran’s nuclear program.
In this regard, it is appropriate to contrast the posture of the Senate Democrats — who on this occasion joined in the White House diplomatic initiative on Iran — with that of Democratic presidential hopeful Hillary Clinton. Last Wednesday, Clinton said that if she is in the Oval Office, she will not hesitate to take military action if Iran attempts to acquire a nuclear bomb. She noted that when dealing with the regime of the ayatollahs, it is best to not trust and furthermore, to verify.
Assertions like these mark a return by Clinton to the militaristic and intransigent posture that has characterized the United States throughout its history and that up to the present, at least with respect to Iran, has appeared to be limited to the Republican Party and Washington hawks. And to make things worse, the ex-secretary of state’s provocative attitude seems unnecessary and even counterproductive, in light of the current composition of the U.S. electorate, in which the jingoistic, xenophobic and conservative vote is no longer the determining factor.
Conversely, in an increasingly complex and multipolar international environment, Clinton is contributing to the reinforcement of a simplistic and factional discourse that in no way helps the various international actors to build understanding. On the contrary, it adds to the tension between Tehran and the West, and to a deterioration in the political climate in the Middle East.
In short, the statements discussed above work against Hillary Clinton’s apparent desire to present herself as a promising nominee for head of state and to differentiate her agenda for directing the diplomacy of the superpower from that of her Republican counterparts.