Hillarysworld

Members Login

Post Info

TOPIC: Clinton is proving that a feminist foreign policy is possible – and works (UK Guardian 1/16/11)

Jen the Michigander

SuperModerator

Status: Offline

Posts: 1788

Date: Jan 18, 2011

Clinton is proving that a feminist foreign policy is possible – and works (UK Guardian 1/16/11)	Permalink

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cifamerica/2011/jan/16/hillary-clinton-feminist-foreign-policy It is these unspoken rules that Hillary Clinton has been dismantling since becoming US secretary of state two years ago. She is the most powerful politician to advance an explicitly feminist agenda. Even in that most delicate and crucial relationship with China – on which the world’s attention will be fixed this week for the Chinese president’s visit to the US –Clinton has gone out of her way to press feminist issues. In China’s case, she has highlighted the country’s growing gender imbalance caused by the high abortion rate of female foetuses. Inevitably, some see it as a recasting of US imperialism, others as a force for the progressive good. I’ll come on to what it stacks up to, but the first point is to marvel at how she has got away with it. On countless occasions since arriving at the state department, Clinton has asserted that the rights of women and girls are now core to US foreign policy. It’s hard to imagine any British foreign secretary ever saying such a thing. Many of her statements can be routed back to the idealistic internationalism of 70s feminism. Astonishingly, she has managed to bring the feminism for which she was loathed in the early 90s (as the first lady who didn’t stay home and bake cookies) into the heart of the state department and foreign policy, and is still clocking high opinion poll ratings. From the start Clinton left no one in any doubt where she stood: women’s rights are “the signature issue” of this administration’s foreign policy, she said. She mentioned women 450 times in speeches in the first five months in office. “Transformation of the role of women is the last great impediment to universal progress,” she declared, and began to develop what is her standard line: women’s issues are integral to the achievement of every goal of US foreign policy. Or put more simply: the empowerment, participation and protection of women and girls is vital to the long-term security of the US. Last month this rhetoric was translated into policy in the long awaited Quadrennial Diplomacy and Development Review, which aimed to redefine US foreign policy around civilian power. “We are integrating women and girls into everything we do… in all our diplomacy with other governments… in our work on conflict and crisis,” said the state department’s briefing. She makes this abstract thinking concrete on her foreign visits. Her press entourage finds itself dragged around meetings with micro-credit groups, activists and politicians – all women. It’s strategic, she admitted in an interview – “It’s a constant effort to elevate people who, in their societies, may not even be known by their own leaders. My coming gives them a platform, which then gives us the chance to try and change the priorities of governments.” When she visited South Africa, she spent twice as much time with a women’s housing project as she did with the president. She has carefully chosen key issues and pushed hard. Perhaps her greatest success so far has been to highlight sexual violence as a weapon of war. Anne Marie Goetz of UN Women argues that sexual violence is an “even more destructive weapon than landmines or cluster bombs on communities because its effects are so long term”, but repeatedly the issue was marginalised or ignored in conflict resolution or peacekeeping. In 2009 Clinton visited the Democratic Republic of the Congo and talked to rape victims, and she has been instrumental in the passage of a series of UN security council resolutions that have put real teeth into tackling the issue: the appointment of a special representative last April – Margaret Wallström – the naming of perpetrators, and a dedicated team of experts to pursue them. Take another issue for which women’s groups had struggled to get recognition. One of the biggest killers of women and children in the developing world is cooking stoves. Inhalation of smoke from open fires kills 1.9 million a year. Plus, gathering firewood makes women and girls vulnerable to sexual violence, quite apart from the environmental consequences of chopping down trees. Yet the issue has had a fraction of the attention of Aids/HIV or malaria. Last September, Clinton launched a global alliance for clean cookstoves with a US pledge of $50m and a target of 100m stoves by 2020. One observer said: “It was classic Clinton, very practical; it’s modest but makes a massive difference – but it took a woman to get it.” Observers on both sides of the Atlantic acknowledge “she’s a game-changer”. They say the prominence she gives key issues enables them to be taken seriously. But for all the enthusiasm, it’s clear there are major constraints on this agenda. It gets nowhere in the Middle East, while Afghanistan presents a big challenge – Clinton has insisted peace cannot come at the cost of women’s rights. But the signs aren’t good that she can hold this line. Meanwhile, there are critics who worry that her advocacy could backfire and antagonise conservative societies, and even prove inimical to US interests. Clinton is careful to couch her feminism in talk of US interests and splice it into a hawkish toughness to reassure her domestic audience. She has picked her issues carefully, and made some big compromises to keep people on side. Her feminism has obviously been helpful for the Obama administration, which is anxious to redesign US foreign policy in the midst of two disastrous foreign wars. It could still reap dividends for women, but the question is: will it be quietly sidelined when no longer useful? __________________ Nobody puts THIS baby in the corner!

Page 1 of 1 sorted by

Tweet this page

Post to Digg

Post to Del.icio.us

Create your own FREE Forum
Report Abuse