Hillary Clinton once again touted her foreign-policy experience in Thursday night's debate with Barack Obama, and once again found herself flat-footed by a very real instance of her own poor judgment. Iraq was the topic that Obama picked up on, for understandable electoral reasons -- her willingness to give George Bush the authority to invade back in 2002, and her refusal to acknowledge since then that she made a mistake.
But Hillary (unnoticed by most debate watchers, to be sure) also made a big hash of a much more immediate foreign-policy issue, Kosovo's declaration of independence.
In the immediate wake of the declaration last Sunday -- energetically embraced by the Bush administration -- Senator Clinton put out a statement calling it "a historic step that will allow the people of Kosova to finally live in their own democratic state".
She went on: "It will allow Kosova and Serbia to finally put a difficult chapter in their history behind them and move forward."
By the time she took the stage at the University of Texas, though, it was more than apparent that her vision of peace for the Balkans was, to coin a phrase, a big fairy-tale. Enraged Serbians -- now the disempowered minority in Albanian-majority Kosovo -- had set fire to the US embassy in the Serb capital Belgrade, besieged the British embassy, thrown stones and bottles at United Nations peacekeepers in Kosovo itself and attacked two guard stations in the ethnically tense north of the fledgling new state. So much for putting the past behind them.
Nowhere in her statement did she acknowledge that Kosovo is far from a viable democracy -- the writer John Laughland, writing in The Guardian this week, characterized it as a "mafia state" and a "sump of corruption and poverty" -- or that there is something clearly anomalous about the United States and the European Union recognizing the independence of a country, when that independence is vociferously opposed by a minority group that can now expect some degree of discrimination if not outright hostility.
The fact that she referred to the new state as "Kosova", using the Albanian rather than the Serbian spelling, only reinforced her lack of understanding about the rage the declaration, and US support for it, was likely to cause among Serbs in both Kosovo and Serbia proper. In other words, her cheerleading for independence and democracy wasn't just naïve. It was also a provocation leading directly to the sort of violence we've now seen.
Granted, there is nothing simple about the Kosovo problem. There's an argument to be made that independence is preferable to the state of limbo the province has lived in since NATO forces ended the Serbs' iron-fisted repression of the Albanian population there in 1999. But certain things need to be acknowledged: the risk that this will set a precedent for other dissident minorities like the Basques in Spain, the risk that it will play into the hands of hardline nationalists in Serbia, who came within a whisker of capturing the presidency there last month, and the risk that it could provoke another bout of deadly violence 17 years after the old Yugoslavia first went into its death spiral. Hillary acknowledged none of that -- offering only a bland line about guaranteeing the rights of the Serb minority left in Kosovo.
Here, by contrast, is Obama's statement, put out at almost the same time as Hillary's. It's much closer to the mark:
Kosovo's independence is a unique situation resulting from the irreparable rupture Slobodan Milosevic's actions caused; it is in no way a precedent for anyone else in the region or around the world.
Kosovo's independence carries with it important responsibilities. The international community has devoted enormous resources to Kosovo's political, economic and social development for nearly a decade, with results not always meeting expectations. I hope that Kosovo's government and people act with urgency to ensure that Kosovo becomes a positive example of democratic governance and the rule of law...
You can read the rest here.
The Clintons have been tone-deaf on the Balkans before. In the first few days of Bill Clinton's presidency in 1993, he had a chance to end the war in Bosnia, then a few months old, and establish a multi-ethnic independent state made up of 10 autonomous provinces. This was the scenario successfully negotiated by Cyrus Vance, the former US secretary of state, and David Owen, the former British foreign secretary. All President Clinton needed to do was to pressure the last hold-out to an agreement, the leader of the Bosnian Muslims, and the war would have been over.
Instead, though, Clinton decided the Vance-Owen plan was a de facto capitulation to ethnic cleansing by the Serbs, encouraged the Bosnian Muslims not to sign, and vowed to set out on a whole new peace process.
Bad mistake. Soon, a whole new front in the war opened up, pitting the Muslims against the Croats, and the Bosnian morass continued for another blood-soaked two and a half years. The peace deal Clinton brokered in Dayton, Ohio in 1995 ended up being a far greater capitulation to ethnic cleansing than Vance-Owen ever was. (The best account of this can be found here.)
Is this the sort of experience Hillary hopes will persuade the people of Ohio and Texas to vote for her on March 4? If so, a quick history lesson the Balkans and its tragedies might not be out of place.
Although the UN General Assembly called "self determination" of a people to form their own Nation one of the basic rights of man, the international community as a whole frowns on willy-nilly carving up of existing territories into new countries for obvious reasons. Should every American or African tribe have its own country simply because they consider themselves to be a separate people? Where would that end, in a million micro-sized states? Taken to its logical obsurdity, unchecked independence would be a bad thing.
Before the breakup of Yugoslavia, Kosovo was an "autonomous region" within the country. While acknowledging greater Yugoslavia as the State power, Kosovo had a great deal of freedom to set its own policy. Had Serbia proper decided to restore this status, Kosovo might still be Serbian territory. But Serbia, having lost the war in the aftermath of the breakup of Yugoslavia, wasn't willing to let go even that much power over what it sees as its territory. So, not surprisingly, Kosovo has taken the plunge to independence. It is also no surprise that the Serbs are pissed.
I saw this coming for the past year or so. Obama knows the score over Kosovo and he gets it because he is up on foreign policy issues. Hillary, on the other hand, seems to be up on "the message," just like Bush -- all platitudes and no substance. If I know more about foreign policy developments than the candidate who is touting HER foreign policy experience, guess who I am NOT voting for!
As for her international travels as a first lady. Sen. Clinton could have gained valuable experience with hler trips to the Balkans, but instead resorted to controlling her image and projecting what she thought might look good. Well before the Debate on Thursday, I posted, that Hillary Clinton would use Kosova has her past experience. Remember when she went To Macedonia? Hillary Clinton went to Macedonia and heard what was going on in Kosova, and did many photo ops, http://www.cnn.com/WORLD/europe/9905/14/kosovo.refugees/
She then proceeded to make her appearance at "a refugee camp so carefully scripted that Administration officials chose which refugees Mrs. Clinton would speak with, she commiserated with Kosovo's expelled masses."http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9F01E7D9163EF936A25756C0A96F958260
Yes, she mentions this as her foreign policy experience.http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G2QQXReXzf8
As noted, previously, If I were her, I wouldn't be too proud at what was allowed to fester there. It still shows she could have gained valuable experience there but didn't. This crisis in the Balkans was padded down with make up. A hallmark of a lot of Clinton foreign policy "solutions" No doubt, all the scandals that happened during the 1996-1998 period didn't help resolve the problems of the world and distracted.
Hillary does not grasps the facts She might know detail and policy but she doesn't know how to put it into action. She has been given a great pass. In addition, her husbands administration failed to grasp the seriousness of terrorism, the Balkans, or even Rwanda. Yes, Terrorism, the USS Cole and the African Embassy bombings were an example. Hillary's own statement pertaining to Kosovo on Thursday, prior to the Embassy being rioted, shows her lack of.
Jump to Global trade and the economy, as Paul Craig Roberts notes, "Barack Obama has raised the issue of US job loss from US corporations moving operations abroad in order to lower their labor costs and, thereby, boost profits"...that "American hubris produces gigantic delusion not only among the people and the politicians but also among the economists. President Obama and his (possible) Secretary of the Treasury, Ralph Gomery, are our last best hopes."hhttp://www.counterpunch.org/roberts02232
008.html
Our global hegemony and strength, has been threatened on many fronts, most especially by China - whom the Clintons have encouraged and exacerbated their ties and weakened the US. After the Clintons, left office the US as a nation was weaker both militarily, administratively and morally. Hence 9/11 but on top of that the bad judgments by the Bush administration just highlighted the bad policies of the Clinton Administration , Who's kidding who here. Also, over the years with her authority and name recognition, she gave more legitimacy, to President Bush's failed. action. She has been given some of the greatest "passes" and "overlookings" in politics.
Let's say a middle-aged man dropped his suitcase while running across an intersection. And out popped sex magazines and paraphernalia of every description.
How many Americans would be shocked to discover that the man was Bill Clinton?
I am tired of the tawdry, the soap opera and the personal issues that are part of the Hillary and "Bill in a China Shop" show.
Remember when certain sexual acts were not acceptable subjects when talking to strangers?
Remember when alone actually meant alone?
The trashing of the English language, the increasing coarseness of public discourse are all part of the Billary legacy.
When I see Barack and Michelle together, the love and respect is palpable.
When I see Hillary and "Bill in the China Shop" together I really do not know what I am seeing - what is palpable is the feeling of revulsion.
Please God or whoever is out there, deliver us from the Clintons, once and for all!
One thing is certain. Hillary is correct in stating that we should be looking for a candidate who is ready on Day One. World events don't wait for the new president to get his/her bearings. Stuff happens, and sometimes it happens fast.
Personally, I think the person more likely to be on the ball when that stuff happens is Barack Obama, because he's demonstrated an understanding of the complexities of the world that Hillary has only tried to nuance and "message." I will be proud to cast my vote for him in November and I will be proud to call him Mr. President.
Your Words – his words- PLAGIARISM: be honest (check out the words)
http://www.youtube.com/user/wtmv
Obama reneges on his word to use public funding
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080215/ap_on_el_pr/mccain
People in glass houses: was it poor judgment? You be the judge: Obama wrote letters for Rezko a friend , who was indicted last fall on federal charges
http://mediamatters.org/items/200706140007
Obama’s Iraq Platoon Story Spin at the Austin Tx debate:
http://southernledger.com/ap/98571/Fact_Check_Obamas_Iraq_Platoon_Story
So regardless of what Michael Ignatieff says Wesley Clark said the humanitarian case for intervention in 1999 is IMHO unanswerable.
This is typical Clinton Administration double talk and their unwillingness to accept responsibility for their indiscrimanate bombings.
Hillary was a proud part of this hypocrisy.
This is true because Albanians have ten or
eleven children.Can they give them education
or anything?We will end up paying for them
because of this failed policy.
Hillary can spend a lot of time with Madeline Albright and reflect after her
humiliating loss.
about 1.6 million total inhabitants in Kosovo of which about 300,000 serbs plus some various gypsies and other minorities and an Albanian majority of about 1.2 million.
I believe the European Union ethnic cleansing operation with NATO basically expelled about 200,000 Serbs leaving the current estimate of about 100,000 mainly in Northern Serbia because it is unsafe to live among Albanian Muslims in south. Gypsies have essentially been exterminated by NATO.
Is above correct? it is hard to get accurate information because I don't think EU likes to publish it.
Notice the above. The Serbs FLED from Kosovo -- they were not expelled.
They seem to be doing just fine. I don't see them dying to move to Kosovo. I wonder why?
Bill and Hillary gave them their "independence".
For how long...we'll see.
It is irresponsible to count Russia and China out now that USA is in debt and $$$ is worth
nothing.Serbs will get Kosovo back.
Oh, and you have to tell us again that we're only supporting Obama because of fancy phrases and cultish brainwashing, not because of his intelligent grasp of the facts on the ground as evidenced by this latest example! Geez.
Get with the program, please!
Enough is enough. We can't afford any more of this bankrupt mindset.
Honestly, I am really sick of people trying to criticize Hillary just for the sake of it, using illegitimate arguments.
Nazi sympathizers were the Croatians and the Bosnian Muslims. Albanians as well.
The Serbs were strong anti-Nazi allies of the US.
What's your point and what makes whatever your point is legitimate?
Serbia was VERY pro Nazi, going so far as to issue a postage stamp declaring Belgrade the first city to be free of all its Jews. It also gave them free reign to go after their hated rivals, the Croats.
As for Croatia, there were three distinct groups. One sided with the Nazis, the Ustasha, the other were the partisans fighting against the Nazis and for an independent Croatia and the third was Tito's communists. At most, only 1/3 of Croats were pro-Nazi.
The CROATS were the strong anti-Nazi allies of the US and the UK. They sent word begging the US and the Brits to land in Dalmatia and move up the Balkan peninsula into Hungary and Austria and then into Germany. This would have been faster than going up Italy.
What the Croats didn't know was the US and UK had already reached a secret agreement with Stalin that split Europe between the East and West and that Yugoslavia, an artificial country made up of ethnic groups that actually hated each other but was held together by a dictator (sound familiar? Iraq, anyone?), was to be handed over to Stalin. Of course, Tito had something to say about that and refused to live under the thumb of the USSR and relations between the two were very frosty, to say the least.
As the Soviet army made its way westward, a common rejoinder from the Soviets was that they would rather spend a year fighting in Hungary than just one day fighting in Yugoslavia.
The entire country was torn apart, one of Hitler's doings by telling everyone they would be independent, which they all wanted, and everyone was pretty much fighting against everyone else.
While much is being said about the war in Bosnia, little is said about the war in Croatia that raged for a full year before the war in Bosnia. The town of Vukovar was leveled in the ruthless fighting. Once that war ran to a draw, the Serbs then trained their guns on Sarajevo and the Bosnians.
This gave the Croats time to build up their army and then they tore through the Serb held areas in Croatia retaking them and then moved through the Krajina region of Bosnia. Had the US not asked them to stop, they would have routed the Serbs from Bosnia entirely.
After this humiliating defeat, and finally with the world watching, the Serbs laid low for awhile. However, as the dreams of a Greater Serbia lay dead in Croatia and Bosnia, they then trained their guns on Kosovo, the historic heartland of the Serbs. The reason the Albanians are there is because the Serbs lost to the Ottoman Empire way back when and were forced out.
Bush I allowed this whole mess to happen when he sent word through Lawrence Eagleberger to Milosevic that the US would not interfere in the inner political workings of Yugoslavia.
The Yugoslav constitution clearly stated that the republics could declare independence with a vote. It also said that the presidency would rotate, something Milosevic didn't want to happen as Serbia was to give up its seat so he started his war for Greater Serbia.
Personally, I think it is ironic that Serbia just keeps getting smaller and smaller after the untold numbers of dead. Pretty soon all that will be left is Belgrade.
Her flag waving over the move to independence (or however you want to characterize it) was a policy blunder -- if you expect your next Head of State to understand and act effectively in the world of diplomacy. However, if you just want that person to STAND for an IDEAL regardless of what other countries think, then Hillary is your woman.