US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton is nearing the end of an 11-day, 7-country tour of Africa. And all indications are that she is performing admirably, reinforcing the Obama doctrine of good governance as a precondition for US aid and direct investments.
Unfortunately, the earlier part of her tour was upstaged by her husband’s simultaneous mission to North Korea to secure the release of two American journalists. In fact, Bill’s trip so dominated news coverage that one could be forgiven for having no clue that Hillary was even on this diplomatic tour.
Moreover, many of her supporters have clearly channeled her resentment over the fact that her role as secretary of state has been undermined by all of the special (male) envoys President Obama has appointed to deal with hot spots like the Middle East and Pakistan. Not to mention how the president’s own global, rock-star shadow hovers over all of her trips.
It is in this context that many are either criticizing or rationalizing the infamous hissy fit Hillary threw on Monday when she thought a Congolese student asked her what Bill thought about investments deals the Chinese were making with his government. (Incidentally, there has been far too little reporting by Western media about the way China has usurped the US as the biggest donor to, and investor in, many African countries … and about what political consequences this portends.)
At any rate, here’s how Hillary responded:
You want me to tell you what my husband thinks?” My husband is not secretary of state, I am. If you want my opinion I will tell you my opinion. I am not going to be channeling my husband.
The problem is that what got lost in translation is the fact that the student asked her what President Obama thought about these Sino-Congo deals….
Now the remainder of her trip will be dominated by psycho babble about her outburst: On the one hand, her critics are gleefully insinuating that it was triggered by her jealousy over all the attention her husband is getting; while on the other hand, her supporters are ruefully rationalizing that it reflected the resentment any professional woman would feel over being marginalized not only by her (male) boss, but also by her husband.
Actually, I think both points of view have merit. Indeed, this is why some of us warned Obama that appointing Hillary as secretary of state would invite far more drama than substance to his foreign policy initiatives:
‘No drama Obama’? Then how about C-H-A-O-S?
[The die is cast: Obama nominates Hillary as sec of state, TIJ, December 1, 2008]
When all is said and done, however, it redounds to Hillary’s shame and America’s embarrassment that she reacted to this poignant question, notwithstanding the mix up, more like a woman scorned than as the chief diplomat of the United States.
Related commentaries:
Bill Clinton plays supplicant in chief for hostages
The die is case…
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.