| Policy Challenges in the Eastern Mediterranean after the Presidential Election |
|
Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton Last Wednesday’s appearance by Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton (D, NY) could not have come at a more momentous time. Concluding a two-day conference “Engaging in Dialogue on U.S. Foreign Policy,” held at The Fletcher School and sponsored by the Fares Center for Eastern Mediterranean Studies, Senator Clinton spoke to a massive crowd – the largest gathering for a Fares Center lecture – on anticipated American policy in the Middle East. Her talk came on the heels of the re-election of Republican President George W. Bush, as well as one day before the death of Palestinian leader Yasir Arafat. “I hope that there will be changes in process, policy and engagement in the region,” Senator Clinton began. Citing the necessity in the United States’ involvement – “Our fates are inextricably bound together” – she structured her talk around “free, unsolicited advice to the current administration.” Continuing in the “family tradition” of Clintons giving Fares Lectures (her husband, former President Bill Clinton, spoke at Tufts in 2002), Senator Clinton clearly understood the divisiveness of the issues she had come to discuss. Thanking Tufts for its willingness to take on “controversial, honest dialogue” on Middle East issues, she boldly outlined a number of directives that she believes the U.S. must take. Clinton first asserted that Israel’s security and freedom is the “hallmark of U.S. foreign policy,” drawing both applause and boos from the crowd. She continued down her list of major directives by declaring, “The dream of democracy and human rights belongs to all people in the Middle East… Women’s rights are human rights.” Although not mentioned by Senator Clinton herself, the packed house was abuzz with talk of her potential run for the presidency in 2008. She retold how she had been one of the first US politicians to condemn inequalities in Afghanistan society, adding the ironic punch line: there are now women on the ballot for presidency in Afghanistan, unlike in the U.S. Despite her crowd-pleasing neo-feminist statements, the majority of Senator Clinton’s speech was reserved for more contentious topics: decrying President Bush’s involvement in Iraq, Turkey’s non-inclusion into the European Union, and the fate of the Palestinian conflict in a post-Arafat world. “The passing of Mr. Arafat provides the opportunity for… America to be engaged,” she noted, adding that “Palestinians [need] to see how damaging the Intifada has been, not just to others but to them as well.” In typical Fletcher fashion a dialog quickly immerged at the conclusion of Clinton’s speech. Fletcher second-year student Shane Antony immediately responded to Senator Clinton’s lecture: “While she was correct in saying that the Palestinians definitely share some measure of the blame for the stalled peace negotiations in the Middle East, she did not seem to mention… Israel’s role in the failure to achieve any real solution.” Rachel Gottesfeld, also a second-year, countered Antony’s accusations: “I don’t think that Mrs. Clinton was blaming Arafat for the dire straits of the peace process, but she was drawing attention to the need for accountability and rapprochement… highlighting the failures of Mr. Arafat and the peace process as an impetus for change in the Middle East.” Clinton acknowledged that at this moment, on the verge of global change, it is not necessarily the policymakers who have the answers, but academics, practitioners and students alike upon whom this responsibility falls. “We may be at a unique historical moment in the Middle East. Now more than ever we need not only top-quality research and theory but also strategic analysis.”
Article by Stephanie Lindenbaum, MALD '05
|