Obama, Richardson and Building American Leadership in a Complex World

Faced with a choice for Secretary of State between Hillary Clinton, Chuck Hagel and Bill Richardson, President-elect Obama's choice should be clear. While all of them have strengths to serve the new president well, only Governor Richardson brings both a depth of experience and a philosophical commitment to Barack Obama's leadership style.

Each of the candidates brings great strengths to the position. Hillary Clinton would bring unrivaled superstar status to the position, and provide unmatched energy and focus to push ahead the Obama foreign policy agenda. Like her husband, she is a pragmatist who will quickly grasp the nuances of every issue, and she will bring--as she does to all things--a tremendous motivation to succeed.

Chuck Hagel is a very different choice. He is a serious student of foreign policy and military affairs, with a deeply grounded understanding of the international world. Unique among the Washington crowd, Hagel understands and has spoken on the most serious foreign policy challenge that we face, which remains our relationship with Russia. Our ability to address all other international issues--Iran, Iraq, the Middle East, nuclear proliferation, drug trafficking, and financial integration and regulation--will be either facilitated or undermined by our relationship with our former adversary. Hagel understood immediately our error in embracing the Kosovar declaration of independence, which undermined the primacy and principles of international law, and the far-reaching consequences of that action, which continue to unfold. Hagel recognizes the importance of American leadership that embraces the world in all its complexity, particularly after years of hubris and empty threats that have eroded our credibility and capacity to lead.

But in Bill Richardson, President-elect Obama can choose a seasoned international diplomat and negotiator who truly embraces the core of Obama's worldview. Like Obama, Richardson understands and has practiced a style of diplomacy and leadership that begins with listening, and that is grounded in the view that even as disparate parties may have widely differing agendas, the most complex and intractable conflicts can be addressed if differences are acknowledged and respected, as a first step toward identifying and achieving common goals.

In addition, Richardson would bring to the administration a broad network of relationships across the international community and an ability to take on the portfolio of State with no learning curve. From his time as UN Ambassador, to his range of assignments as an international negotiator during both Democrat and Republican administration, Richardson has built an international reputation for diplomatic skill, integrity and credibility.

Much has been made of this being a time of transition from a uni-polar to a multi-polar world. But this is not an accurate reflection of the world that President-elect will inherit. The US will remain the dominant military and financial power for decades to come. However, the significance of that status is what people expected it to be, and the world has not, and will not in the future, march to our tune on account of that power. The emergence of asynchronous warfare and strategy has proven to be an effective counterpoint to US military dominance, and years of US deficits have led to the emergence of China and other countries as powerful financial players, even if the dollar remains dominant in times of crisis. Today, our power gives us the capacity to lead, but will not compel others to follow.

The celebrations around the world that greeted the election of Barack Obama reflect the hope that positive and effective US leadership will reemerge in the world. But that leadership must reflect a new world of struggling and emerging democratic nations that will each need to chart their own politics and path forward. This is a world that will need American support, encouragement and direction, but will not respond well to hubris or dictates from foreign soil.

The world today is defined by overlapping networks. National identity remains elemental, but in almost every conflict across the globe, we are witnessing the influence of transnational linkages and networks that put a claim on community identity. Afghanistan, Georgia, Kenya, Kosovo, Indonesia, Iran, Iraq, Lebanon, Palestine, Russia, Sri Lanka, Syria, Timor, Ukraine, Zimbabwe. All of these nations are facing conflicts where religious, ethnic, tribal and family identities are threatening the primacy national identity as a unifying force. These challenges will be exacerbated rather than solved by democratic reforms--national unity was easier to maintain at the point of a gun--and demand the development of national and transnational institutions to create legal, political and regulatory frameworks for the new century.

In this world, US leadership and policy will need to focus on multiple levels and strategies. At the highest level, the US must define and focus on its core strategic interests. This is and will always be its primary priority. At the same time, the US must implement policies that encourage and support regional networks and leadership to engage regional conflicts and issues. The world of emerging and evolving democratic states must, under American leadership, learn new skills in conflict resolution. And all roads will no longer lead to Rome.

This is a world that is ready for the leadership of Barack Obama, who built a political campaign based on a philosophy of uniting people with vastly differing identities toward common purpose. This is the world in which Bill Richardson has been immersed for decades. A world he understands from extensive personal experience, and one where, like Barack Obama, he is greeted warmly wherever he goes as one who has the knowledge, understanding and philosophical stance that can enable him to bring together even the most entrenched adversaries.

Comments

[XME]

Problem is, the choice may be clear to YOU, but the choice may be just as clear to others that it should be someone else...and that includes Obama.

Personally, I respect any choice that he makes, until they prove to be wrong. So far, Obama has made good choices...even when people were doubting his choices and tactics, they ended up being right on!

So, I say enough with the second guessing, and presuming any one knows better than Obama what he should do, and let him do the job you SAID you had faith in him to do if you voted for him.

[LEOvet]

Has this article been sent to the Transition team, oh that's right, John Podesta is head of the transition team and Bill's former Chief of Staff. Richardson showed political courage in endorsing and helping Obama. I would have thought Obama would have looked at that, plus Richardson's qualifications as being perfect for Secretary of State. I have a hard time understanding this move toward Hillary at State, HHS maybe because of Health care, but not State.

[IndyReader]

I'd like to be pointed to the speech where Obama said, "Change means no Washington insiders", please. Otherwise the change is away from the insanity of the last 8 years.

I agree with BeltwayBette that something will be found out about Bill and they'll have to withdraw gracefully, leaving no recriminations from the Hillary-philes.

Maybe all of this Billary hooraw is just a smokescreen, get enough people talking about them and Obama can go on to the other appointments without everyone peering over his shoulder and second-gue­ssing/kvet­ching about his every move.

[zookie]

Deeply, deeply disappointd in Obama's first choices made in his administration. If I didn't know any better, I would think Hillary and Bill won the recent election and that Obama was merely a stand-in.
Totally agree with you regarding Bill Richardson...who, by the way, showed great courage in supporting Obama when Obama needed it....who would make an excellent secretary of state. He has all of the qualifications (unlike Hillary, who really has no foreign relations experience of importance) needed. His ability to speak Spanish puts him in good stead, also.

Obama apparently spoke with forked tongue when he promisted - Change; no Washington insiders; turn the page, ad infinitum. I campaigned for him, donated to his campaign and shouted his praises; but, I have become terribly disillusioned and disappointed. I hope he remembers that 2012 is not far off and we all have good memories.

[mater]

Don't want to sound harsh, but essentially, I agree with this person. Perhaps Hillary can help balance the Supreme Court for human rights issues, but when Republicans like Kissinger and Kyl say she would be a good SOS, I feel Obama is not using his Promise to change in the best way. And if he does goes with Hillary, Bill Richardson has every right to feel disrespected. And there better be a major office for Senator Chuck Hagel, in the mix too. The man is an outstanding statesman and courageous speaker of truth to power.

[Deparis]

I agree with the whole article, but one point. Hillary Clinton being a pragmatist is an overstatement. Threatening to obliterate a country with the ability to create hell in the most unstable region of the world and antagonizing the leader of a country with probably the most loosened nuclear arsenal is not pragmatism in my diplomacy 101 book.

[Zobamacrat]

NOT HILLARY , She is an incident waiting to happen. Please OBAMA, do not go down that road.

[Jonni Rae]

I agree completely with this article. I wonder why Obama did not choose him, it seems. Or if he has another role for him that would use his skills and experience.

[sippewissett]

YES. Please appoint Bill Richardson for all the reasons laid out in David Paul's blog. Richardson has the international statesmanship we need to restore our standing with the rest of the world. There are lots of other places that Hilary Clinton can serve (including the Supreme Court), but my fingers are crossed that Richardson is our next Secretary of State.

BTW, are there any talks underway with Colin Powell, another strong choice for a cabinet spot?

[maab76]

In addition to all mentioned here, Richardson also has the temperament and attitudes which meld so well with Pres. Obama. To not choose him would be a serious mistake. Days ago I emailed Pres. Obama my reasons for selecting him as the candidate with the most to offer. I hope he reads and listens to the many who advance this nomination.

[GraceNeeded]

This article shares most of my concerns well. Senator Clinton is a brilliant person and problem solver and works well in the Senate, as my senator from New York I might add, BUT she is a polarizing figure, although popular. She does NOT have the leadership style to be Secretary of State. She's a self-proclaimed 'fighter' NOT uniter. Her husband had more diplomacy inherent in his style, but NOW would have to pull back from many international causes and donations to for political expediency. With those two strong negatives to her resume, I agree that Bill Richardson is a much better choice. He has proven his ability to listen and use diplomacy in difficult situations. HECK, he had to use these skills with the Clintons, who threatened, fought him and exiled him from their presence. DO we really want as our Secretary of State someone who would use such a manner against a former friend to get what they want?

[PKSSK]

Richardson should have been chosen for the SOS. If he were the public media frenzy would be over, but instead it is just beginning with the choice of the Clinton'ssss in the postion.

[BeltwayBette]

Let HRC and Bill graciously back out and prove they are not just another overly ambitious same ole,same ole politically savvy back room players.

[ImWithThatOne]

I agree with the Richardson choice, and that's who I would want for this job if I were Obama. It would go along with his 'no-drama' atmosphere and not carry the baggage of the Clintons.

[ConcernedAboutRFuture]

I really like Bill Richardson. Hillary DID vote for the war.... and that shows a lack of forethought regarding international matters.

[LeftLeanWing]

If you have presidential administrative experience within the last 20 years you have 2 choices...

1) One of the Bushs
2) The Clintons

I agree the Clintons it is.

[dayala]

I say lets have a televised debate between Clinton, Richardson and Hagel and let the American people choose.

[SF13]

SOS is a job where temperament matters, and Richardson in addition to his actual experience, is more appropriate. He has managed a state government.

Hillary has no foreign policy skills and poor management skills based on her management of her campaign.

Selecting a secretary of state based on her "star" power sorta feeds the celebrity story.

[Deparis]

Don't ya know that she dodged sniper fires in Bosnia and brokered the Northern Ireland peace agreement by kissing babies and having tea with women in Northern Ireland? How dare you question her foreign policy and management skills, you must be a sexist and a Clinton hater!

Hey pal, shhhhh..., this is off the record, I agree with you!