Hilary Clinton made a splash in today's newspapers when she brought her blunt candor to Asia in her first trip as the Secretary of State. She questioned the efficacy of sanctions against the repressive junta in Burma, spoke openly about a possible succession crisis in North Korea and admitted that she expected to make little progress on human rights in China. Now that pissed off the human rights workers because they feel like she was basically throwing her arms up and saying, "well, I can try but it ain't gonna work!" And guess what? She's probably right. I get that it's important to keep putting pressure on countries who continually violate human rights (wait, didn't our last president sanction torture? but i digress...) but by the same token, I think her straightforward, clear speak may serve to enhance rather than undermine policy.
There's just one problem. While I wholeheartedly support her lack of obfuscation and political jawboning, there's a cultural difference that may not be working in her favor. We already know China is notorious for female infanticide, so her chances of being fully efficacious are already somewhat limited. In addition, David Shambaugh, director of Asian policy studies at George Washington University points out that it's not so much what the subject matter is, it's how it's presented:
"Foreigners generally get much further when they do it in quiet rather than in public, when it is framed in a nonconfrontational way, and explained in terms of being in China's best interests."
So, what do you think? Should Hilary tell it like it is or should she modify her tone based on cultural rules of engagement? Do you think it's more important to tell the naked truth, or to soften it to achieve your objectives? hmmmm....
No comments:
Post a Comment