President of the U.S., 1993-2001; Former Democratic Governor (AR)
1980: housed Cuban Marielitos; riots ensued against KKK
The summer of 1980 was the period of the infamous Mariel boatlift, in which President Carter welcomed all Cuban ‚migr‚s that Castro desired to export.
In the weeks that followed, more than 100,000 Marielitos washed upon America’s shores, and
Carter did not know where to place them. He telephoned Governor Clinton, who said he would be willing to detain some of the escapees at Fort Chaffee, where they could be assimilated.
The detainees overflowed the grounds. The Arkansas KKK drove to Fort
Chaffee to express its disapproval. As a result, a riot ensued between Cubans inside and KKK belligerents. Soon, law enforcement arrived, but for Clinton’s reelection, it was too late. The entire fiasco was captured by news organizations for all to see,
and Arkansans, led by GOP candidate Frank White, asked why such a debacle had been permitted to happen.
1994 saw the low point of Bill’s White House years--the genocide in Rwanda, which resulted in the loss of an estimated 800,000 lives in just a few weeks. Despite knowing what was happening, Bill effectively did nothing,as did his peers in other countries
While they postponed taking action and pretended not to be aware of the genocide, hundreds of thousands died.
Hillary did not blame Bill for the inaction, but rather “the failure of the world, including my husband’s administration.”
Bill later claimed that he and other world leaders “did not fully appreciate” what had been going on in Rwanda. In fact, his intelligence agencies and newspaper, radio, and TV journalist had made it all clear to the world.
Hillary would have had to ignore the news for weeks, as well as the frantic pleas of human-rights activists and some members of Congress, not to know what was happening. There is no evidence she did anything substantial to help.
Bush had an amazing opportunity to bring the country together under his slogan of compassionate conservatism and to unite the world in the struggle against terror. Instead, they chose to use that moment of unity to push the country too far to the right
and to walk away from our allies, not only in attacking Iraq before the weapons inspectors had finished their work, but in withdrawing American support for the climate change treaty, the anti-ballistic missile treaty, and from the nuclear test ban treaty
Source: Keynote speech to the Democratic National Convention
Jul 29, 2004
Advocate for Tibet-China discussion on human rights
When I advocated more freedom and human rights in China, [Chinese President] Jiang responded that America was highly developed, while China still had a per capita income of $700 a year.
He emphasized our different histories, cultures, ideologies, and social systems. When I urged Jiang to meet with the Dalai Lama, he said the door was open if the Dalai Lama would first state that Tibet and Taiwan were part of China,
and added that there were already “several channels of communication” with the leader of Tibetan Buddhism. I got a laugh from the Chinese audience when I said I thought that if Jiang and the Dalai lama did meet, they would like each other very much.
I also tried to make some practical suggestions to move forward on human rights. For example, there were still Chinese citizens in prison for offenses no longer on the books. I suggested they be released.
Bush’s unilateralism strains international partnerships
[In thinking about Bush taking over], I thought that the international partnerships that we had developed in the aftermath of the Cold War could be strained by the more unilateral approach of the Republicans - they were opposed to the test ban treaty,
the climate change treaty, the ABM Treaty, and the International Criminal Court.
Source: My Life, by Bill Clinton, p.951
Jun 21, 2004
Months of preparation went into Arafat-Rabin handshake
Bill was focused on preparations for the visit of Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin and Palestinian leader Yasir Arafat and the signing of a Middle East peace accord. The meeting that took place on the White House lawn on
September 13, 1993, was the result of months of negotiations in Oslo, Norway and was known as the Oslo Accords. It was important to establish our government’s support for the agreement because the
US is the only country that could push both sides to actually implement the agreement’s terms and be trusted by Israel to protect its security.
On that day, Bill persuaded Yitzhak to shake hands with Arafat as a tangible sign of their commitment to
the peace plan. Rabin agreed. Unfortunately, the handshake and agreement were seen by some Israelis and Arabs as a rebuke to their political interests and religious beliefs, which later led to violence and Rabin’s tragic assassination.
Our goal is constant: to make sure the US remains the greatest force for peace and prosperity on Earth. [Our] new strategy for the 21st century has three parts:
Making the American people more secure by keeping our military and alliances strong
to combat the major threats to our security, like the spread of weapons of mass destruction and terrorism.
Leading the powerful global movement for peace and democracy.
And creating much greater wealth at home by opening markets abroad.
Source: Between Hope and History, by Bill Clinton, p.147-148
Jan 1, 1996
Engagement over escapism and isolation
There are some in both parties who would choose escapism over engagement, who would have us turn inward and ignore out international obligations as the world’s oldest democracy. These escapists have waged an all-out assault on the United Nations-even
though it can help us share the cost and the risks of engagement. They have slashed our foreign affairs budget-even though it represents less than 2% of our overall budget. They oppose efforts to open markets through the GATT, WTO, or NAFTA. In short,
they trumpet the rhetoric of American leadership and, at the same time, argue against the commitment of time, energy, and resources that leadership requires.
These escapists are just plain wrong-as wrong as their isolationist predecessors were in the
years following the First World War. If we want to meet the challenges and seize the opportunities of this new era, we have to stay engaged. Our well-being as a nation and our strength as a people depend on maintaining our leadership abroad.
In Russia, we have worked steadily to support the forces of reform as Russia makes its historic transition to a free-market democracy. The recent elections were a stunning accomplishment-a victory not just for President Boris Yeltsin, but for the forces
of reform and democracy. That election demonstrates that Russia’s best long-term hope is to continue its struggle to become a stable, democratic, market-oriented nation, secure within its own borders and at peace with itself and its neighbors. To the
extent that we can help it achieve these objectives, the world will be an infinitely safer place. We have taken the same approach to bolster independence, market reforms, and democracy in Ukraine, the Baltic, the Caucasus, and Central Asia, and
throughout Central Europe.
We want NATO to work with Russia and other institutions and other institutions of European integration to produce what in all Europe’s history has never before been more than a dream: a truly united, free Europe.
We must understand, as we never have before, that our national security is largely economic. The success of our engagement in the world depends not on headlines it brings to Washington politicians, but on the benefits it brings to hardworking
middle-class Americans. Our ‘foreign’ policies are not really foreign at all.
We can no longer afford to have foreign and domestic policies. We must devise and pursue national policies that serve the needs of our people by uniting us at home
and restoring America’s greatness in the world.
We need a national economic strategy as well as a human-development strategy that recognizes we are living in a world in which what people earn depends largely on what they can learn and
whether their economies are organized for change. [We should therefore] emphasize education and training, encouraging private investment, and organizing for change.
In Asia, our security strategy has four priorities: maintaining our military commitments to the region, supporting stronger security cooperation among Asian nations, providing leadership to combat emerging threats, and supporting emerging democracies. We
have worked hard with China to see that it embraces nuclear nonproliferation; agrees to abide by the rules of free and fair trade; cooperates in regional and global security initiatives; and grants basic human rights to its own citizens-in short, to see
that a resurgent China takes its rightful place as a leader for positive change for its own people, and for the world.
But we haven’t been shy about voicing our differences-and acting on them. When China conducted menacing military exercises in
the Taiwan Straits, I sent the Seventh Fleet to the area to demonstrate out commitment to ensuring peaceful relations between China and Taiwan.
Progressive Internationalism: globalize with US pre-eminence.
Clinton adopted the manifesto, "A New Agenda for the New Decade":
Build a Public Consensus Supporting US Global Leadership The internationalist outlook that served America and the world so well during the second half of the 20th century is under attack from both ends of the political spectrum. As the left has gravitated toward protectionism, many on the right have reverted to “America First” isolationism.
Our leaders should articulate a progressive internationalism based on the new realities of the Information Age: globalization, democracy, American pre-eminence, and the rise of a new array of threats ranging from regional and ethnic conflicts to the spread of missiles and biological, chemical, and nuclear weapons. This approach recognizes the need to revamp, while continuing to rely on, multilateral alliances that advance U.S. values and interests.
A strong, technologically superior defense is the foundation for US global leadership. Yet the US continues to employ defense strategies, military missions, and force
structures left over from the Cold War, creating a defense establishment that is ill-prepared to meet new threats to our security. The US must speed up the “revolution in military affairs” that uses our technological advantage to project force in many different contingencies involving uncertain and rapidly changing security threats -- including terrorism and information warfare.
Goals for 2010
A clear national policy with bipartisan support that continues US global leadership, adjusts our alliances to new regional threats to peace and security, promotes the spread of political and economic freedom, and outlines where and how we are willing to use force.
A modernized military equipped to deal with emerging threats to security, such as terrorism, information warfare, weapons of mass destruction, and destabilizing regional conflicts.
Source: The Hyde Park Declaration 00-DLC12 on Aug 1, 2000
Click here for definitions & background information on Foreign Policy.
