The more I hear from and see Secretary of State Hillary Clinton in action, I must admit, the more I admire what she is doing. The most recent headline I read in Reuters was: “Clinton ties U.S. security to better aid delivery.” Now, how obvious and yet innovative is this kind of a statement? Everytime you hear about security it always means suspicion and violence or subduing some kind of violence- but you rarely hear about the U.S. offering or delivering aid as something that is intended to augment our security around the world. Very impressive, Ms. Clinton.

Since WWII, the U.S. has positioned ourselves as leaders and protectors around the world, with or without the UN. And our style of leadership and protection involves spying, getting weapons to insurgent groups when we agree with them (or at least when we disagree a lot with the people they are trying to overthrow), or invading countries that we think are going to be threats to either our national security or the international security of the world.

Seldom if ever have I heard of the aid that the U.S. institutes and hands referred to as anything but our national duty, or us portrayed as some kind of hero-country, or us at least portrayed as the leadership unit that made the good happen.

It certainly is the MO, but from the sounds of what Clinton is saying, that mantra and approach may be in for a change.

"In the past we have sometimes dictated solutions from afar, often missing our mark on the ground. Our new approach is to work in partnership with developing countries," said Clinton.
The gist of her approach is to consult more and dictate less, according to the Reuters report, which I think is the secret as well. Nobody wants to be told what to do, or to be given money with the sense that they are getting a handout from a benevolent and all-good-doing country, with the implication that we are basically better.

Hopefully this is, as it seems, the official addition of talking and listening to other countries as part of our international diplomatic mission.

"We cannot stop terrorism or defeat the ideologies of violent extremism when hundreds of millions of young people see a future with no jobs, no hope, and no way ever to catch up to the developed world," said Clinton.

And again, I think she knows what she is talking about. The problem may be with her logic that the other countries want to catch up, or that we are in some way ahead rather than just on a different path. Sure, this is a dreadfully relativistic approach on my part, and there are certainly issues, like women’s rights, political corruption, and high disease-mortality rates that undeniably should be changed and improved, but looking at it purely as giving aid so other countries can “catch up” would be a mistake as well.

And perhaps it is lip service- does the U.S. really want all other countries to “catch up” to us? Doubtful. Do I? In theory, yes. But how that will play out when we are already so far ahead on an individual basis may be different than anyone thinks or can even forsee.

Photo Credit: US Mission Canada (via Flickr under CCL)