As Hillary Clinton prepares to step down as secretary of state, the general consensus among the punditocracy is that she was successful in helping to restore America's image in the world: A "rockstar diplomat," Clinton was willing to put in the frequent flyer miles to help repair or rebuild frayed ties between Washington and many other countries. However, she is not viewed as a transformational figure for U.S. diplomacy, nor can she point to a particularly dramatic event, such as a comprehensive Middle East peace settlement, as a result of her tenure in office. Some of the comments in this vein imply that had someone else occupied the executive suite at Foggy Bottom, things might have turned out differently.
Of course, the effectiveness of any secretary of state is enhanced if he or she has a close personal relationship with the president and is perceived by foreign leaders to be speaking for the White House. In this regard, Condoleezza Rice, who many saw as George W. Bush's personal emissary, may have had an advantage over Clinton. It also helps if the secretary of state emerges as the primus inter pares of the foreign policymaking process. Henry Kissinger, for instance, chose not to relinquish the post of national security adviser when he became Richard Nixon’s secretary of state precisely to hold onto that role. ...
To read the rest, sign up to try World Politics Review
- TWO WEEKS FREE.
- Cancel any time.
- After two weeks, just $11.99 monthly or $94.99/year.
Request a free trial for your office or school. Everyone at a given site can get access through our institutional subscriptions.
- Strategic Horizons: U.S. Must Be Prepared for Life After Putin, Even if Russia Isn’t
- U.S. and Cuba Face a Long Road Ahead to Normalization
- The Realist Prism: Shake-Ups Won’t Address U.S. Foreign Policy’s Real Problems
- Global Insights: In State of the Union, Obama Should Not Forget Asia
- How New Metrics Can Reset Global Drug Policy