The rightward shifts of President Clinton on numerous issues have been a constant frustration for liberals who voted for him in the past. While Clinton is neither a modern nor a progressive liberal, his election after twelve years of Republican control of the White House initially provided the hope that change might occur, a feeling he had reinforced with his campaign pledges. Few realized how accurate George Bush was in 1992 when he accused Clinton of "waffling" on the passage of NAFTA. Clinton's eventual passage of that agreement was a harbinger of things to come. From his support of NAFTA to the watering-down of his pledge to end discrimination against gays in the military with the biased "Don't ask, don't tell" policy, Clinton has established a pattern of making progressive pledges and then equivocating. Often, as in the case of Clinton's opposition to same-sex marriages and his support for "fast track" authorization of free trade agreements, his final position is diametrically opposed to his initial one. Most recently, Clinton has equivocated in his support of the Ottawa Convention, an international landmine ban proposed by Canada. With this action, he has led the American opposition to an agreement that needs America's support to gain international political momentum. Given the positive political image of a treaty that would ban mines, which kill and maim thousands of civilians each year, Clinton initially supported the effort. However, after coming under pressure from the Pentagon not to support a treaty that it felt might jeopardize American military interests, Clinton withdrew his support and refused even to negotiate. Although he recently relented somewhat and returned to the bargaining table, Clinton has made it clear that he will not support a ban unless it contains provisions that give the United States authorization to both use "smart mines" (a form of anti-tank mine) and standard anti-personnel mines on the border between North and South Korea. The first provision is somewhat fatuous, while the validity of the second, which an administration official claims would save "thousands of lives" (New York Times, August 24, 1997), is also questionable. More importantly, however, any exemptions to a standardized agreement granted to the United States will lead other countries to seek special consideration. As Caleb S. Rossiter, director of the organization Demilitarization for Democracy notes, "The diplomatic reality is that the U.S. mines have to go if the other countries are going to give up theirs." Clinton remains firm on only accepting a treaty that includes provisions that permit the United States the two previously mentioned uses of landmines, while excluding any special provisions for other nations. Such a treaty would be highly unlikely to be accepted by other countries. In the event that it were passed it would probably lead to further international division because it would create an unfair system. In taking this position, he has effectively aligned himself against the landmine ban, reversing his earlier position. Agreeing to negotiate only on his terms is merely a rhetorical device so that he isn't forced to seem to have succumbed to those who oppose the landmine ban. At a time when Clinton is attempting to establish a historical legacy for himself, he has chosen to be an opponent rather than a leader of the liberal cause. With his thinly-shrouded opposition he jeopardizes the Ottawa Convention, placing the United States among the ranks of Russia and China, two other countries which still wish to use landmines in warfare. American support would help to generate worldwide support for the treaty, and would also be a wise foreign policy move because it would stabilize relations with Canada, with which the United States is currently involved in a heated debate over fishing rights. Clinton's shift on the issue of landmines is only the latest in a series of rightward moves on issues on which he originally expressed a liberal viewpoint. Clinton's resignation of leadership on the issue is unfortunate on a range of levels, from the obvious disregard for human life that support for landmines entails to a political affront to Canada. Internationally, it is an unwise move in that it promotes the feeling abroad that the United States is a political hypocrite. With no election facing him for the first time in his career, Clinton can afford to assume the moral high ground on this issue and to ignore the complaints of hawks in Congress and the Pentagon. As disturbing as Clinton's stance on this issue is, nearly as troubling is its place in his general pattern of conservative behavior. Other issues, such as campaign finance reform, where Clinton simultaneously indulges in the system's worst excesses yet urges reform, also show Clinton's lack of political conviction. The Ottawa Convention is but the most recent example of Clinton's pattern of "waffling" rightward that has grown unchecked since his stance on NAFTA. |
Home | Archives | L-Word by Email | About The L-Word | Staff | Feedback