Late Saturday night during a Democratic Party debate, presidential hopeful Senator Hillary Clinton stated that if elected president, she would propose joint US-British oversight of Pakistani nuclear weapons. Within hours, media outlets from New Hampshire to New Delhi had all picked up on the story, with headlines screaming, “Clinton Proposes Oversight of Pak Nukes.”
MISSION ACCOMPLISHED?
Hillary Clinton is many things, but one thing she is not is unintelligent. Nor are those she surrounds herself with. Her foreign policy team — which includes former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright, Ambassador Richard Holbrooke, and of course, her husband, former President Bill Clinton — is painfully aware of how impractical her proposal for joint oversight is. After all, it was under President Bill Clinton’s watch that Pakistan defiantly tested its nuclear weapons, despite the threat of new sanctions when its economy was teetering on the brink of collapse.
So then why did she issue such an undeniably flawed policy statement?
The answer is right in front of us in the media’s response. Following her third place finish in Iowa at the hands of Senators Barack Obama and John Edwards, Sen. Clinton’s policy appears to be a ploy designed to attract attention to her campaign on the eve of the crucial New Hampshire primary. With a media that thrives on soundbites, it’s a ploy that in the past has proven effective.
NUCLEAR FALLOUT
Not convinced that the proposal is a campaign tactic? Assume for a moment that Clinton is serious in proposing joint US-UK stewardship of Pakistani nuclear weapons. Implications abound, the proposal would risk severe fallout for Pakistan as well as US interests in the region:
Violent and Vocal Reaction in Pakistan. It’s safe to say that any sitting government in Pakistan that would agree to US oversight of the nation’s nuclear weapons would be overthrown either in a military coup or by an overwhelming response from the Pakistani public. President Pervez Musharraf is afraid to openly acknowledge American boots on the ground in Pakistan’s northwest, let alone American oversight of Pakistani nukes. (Just today, Pakistani spokepeople were bristling at alleged deliberations by the Bush administration to give the CIA expanded powers to operate within Pakistan.)
Spike in Anti-Americanism in Pakistan and the Muslim world. Pakistan is currently the world’s only Muslim nuclear weapons state. US supervision of Pakistan’s nukes would be viewed as a continuation of the American “crusade” against Muslims. Pakistanis in general have long been convinced that the US is seeking to destablize their country in the hopes of an excuse to defang its nuclear capabilities. Many average Pakistanis are convinced that the US had a role to play in the assassination of Benazir Bhutto for that very reason. Sen. Clinton’s proposal is a sure fire way of stoking anti-Americanism and bringing Islamists to power in Pakistan.
Disruption of Sino-US relations. China was heavily involved in helping facilitate the funding and technical expertise towards the Pakistani nuclear program. China’s involvement reflects a long-standing strategic relationship between itself and Pakistan. The Chinese will not take pseudo-US control of nuclear weapons in their backyard lying down. The US government should be prepared for a severe reaction from the Chinese govement including aggressive behavior around Taiwan, Central Asia and the support of a military coup in Pakistan.
Loss of Credibility for the Democratic Party in Pakistan. The Pakistani establishment has long favored the Republican Party given the party’s record of, more often than not, engaging Pakistan. Many in Pakistan have not forgotten the treatment meted out to them by President Bill Clinton, particularly during his second term in office. If Hillary Clinton pushes her policy proposal, she would be helping ensure a poor working relationship with the government of Pakistan anytime a Democrat is in office.
The aforementioned are only a handful of the potential (frightening) outcomes from the promotion/imposition of Sen. Clinton’s proposal. It’s unlikely that the likes of Madeleine Albright, Richard Holbrooke, or Hillary Clinton herself would have overlooked these.
LESSONS LEARNT
The buzz generated by Clinton’s statement lasted a heartbeat and as of now, she trails behind Barack Obama by 9 points in New Hampshire. It’s a poignant lesson for all presidential candidates who seek to use controversial statements as a short term means of boosting their respective campaigns. Instead of formulating strong messages backed by well thought out policies, they end up right back where they started while looking, well, unintelligent.
11 responses so far ↓
1 Presidential election 2008 |Republicans Vs. Democrats » Hillary’s Proposal: Policy or Ploy? // Jan 7, 2008 at 11:21 pm
[…] Proposal: Policy or Ploy? January 7th, 2008 Bookworm at Bookworm Room wrote an interesting post today onHere’s a quick excerptLate Saturday night during a […]
2 Hillary Clinton » Blog Archive » Hillary’s Proposal: Policy or Ploy? // Jan 7, 2008 at 11:36 pm
[…] CNN Ticker Producer Alexander Mooney wrote an interesting post today onHere’s a quick excerptLate Saturday night during a Democratic Party debate, presidential hopeful Senator Hillary Clinton stated that if elected president, she would propose joint US-British oversight of Pakistani nuclear weapons. Within hours, media outlets … […]
3 Hillary Clinton » Hillary’s Proposal: Policy or Ploy? // Jan 8, 2008 at 12:06 am
[…] Here’s another interesting post I read today by Shaan Akbar […]
4 Hillary Clinton » Hillary’s Proposal: Policy or Ploy? // Jan 8, 2008 at 1:04 am
[…] Here’s another interesting post I read today by The Insider Brief […]
5 noman habib // Jan 8, 2008 at 4:57 am
1.The question is ”why the American public opinion views Pakistan as threat”.Pakistan
would not be able to pose a threat to USA in million years.We have no border dispute with them neither we claim to their rivals in international politics.
2.I think we need to float the idea of international team of monitors for all the nuclear weapons in the world may it be US,britain, china russia,israel,india france and Pakistan.The number of weapons,size should be told to all.The doctrine has to be told.As for as Pakistan is concerned we have pure defensive doctrine of employment of nukes aginst any agressor who brings us close to ”extinction as a soveriegne nation”.What is Israeli doctrine or british or americans or Indian for that matter.
3.I think the time for usual down play of nuclear arsenal is out dated for Pakistan.Hillary clinton is most welcome in Pakistan we are ready to show her all of our weapons provided she ask her country to open up their nuclear facilities,Israeli facilities and Indians as well.
4.There has to be some safeguards for transfer of nuclear technology to non state organisations
but to check the spread of knowldge is bit difficult in this age.
5.Anti pakistan propaganda in US is sold like hot cakes in US but what can we do except offering
USA ” NO WAR PACT”Pakistan will never be a
party in in any overt or open Attack on US main land or ever has been a party in the past however in regional propective Pakistan has her own interests to look after and we can not support imperialistic wars of Bush regime.
6 Riaz Haq // Jan 8, 2008 at 10:32 am
While the Hillary proposal sounds frightening, I would not take it seriously. However, when I see the Time cover story screaming out “We must save Pakistan”, it gives me pause to think what motives does the US have to “save Pakistan”. Is it to defend democracy? secularism? Or to maintain stability of its client state Pakistan vis-a-vis China and India? Is it to keep Iran at bay and keep the oil flowing from the Persian Gulf? The implications of serious trouble in Pakistan are very large for the entire region and the world.
7 Shaan Akbar // Jan 8, 2008 at 5:20 pm
Not taken seriously at all:
“Following her third place finish in Iowa at the hands of Senators Barack Obama and John Edwards, Sen. Clinton’s policy appears to be a ploy designed to attract attention to her campaign on the eve of the crucial New Hampshire primary.”
8 imran tahir // Jan 8, 2008 at 7:06 pm
she was crying today with tears at nh but good thing a concensus in pakistan about nuke that ia best defence against these idoits like hillry a looser.
9 Junaid // Jan 9, 2008 at 10:54 pm
if musharraf continues on this path not only will our nucleur weapons will be destroyed but our country will be dismembered.he is playing with fire.ofcourse he is showing usa that pakistan is unstable,to prolong his rule ,what do you expect american politicians to do.they will say what they want because musharraf has succesfully done their work for them…..showed pakistan as a failed state
10 Abdul khaliq // Jan 10, 2008 at 5:37 am
In the process of explaining we gave out information,like nukes are stored in pieces on different locations all over Pakistan.
we have PAL system on our hot weapons,
are we helping US to plan a massive strike on all the location of where these pieces are stored and PAL on hot weapons are jammed to finish chance of counter strike.It will be an unfortunate scenario but what choice is left
with Pakistan .
Nation need to know how many we have and how many per year we are making.Our minimum deterrence against threat from India is different than what we need to have to to make Israeli.s or anyone els to behave themselves.
11 Sub Gleim // Apr 6, 2008 at 7:12 am
Hillary is a dirty bitch.
Leave a Comment