Clinton’s Foreign Policy: A Legacy Of Reason, Restraint

FAYETTEVILLE, Ark. — At a conference intended to examine the legacy of the Clinton presidency, University of Arkansas historian Randall Woods will argue that, in regards to foreign policy, our 42^nd president left a record of responsible management marked more by economic and political finesse than by military might.

In addition, Woods will suggest that the current war on terrorism threatens to sweep away that legacy of evenhanded restraint — possibly leading the United States back to the bipolar worldview that characterized the Cold War era.

On Thursday, June 13, Woods will present his views as part of a panel of nationally renowned scholars, gathered at the University of Arkansas for a multidisciplinary conference called "Vantage Points: Perspectives on the Clinton Presidency."

Approaching the topic from a historical context, Woods examines Clinton’s take on foreign affairs in comparison to that of another great statesman — Clinton’s own mentor, Senator J. William Fulbright. Despite the different eras and political atmospheres in which the two men served, Woods finds their approaches quite similar.

"The overriding concerns of Fulbright’s time were the Cold War and Vietnam. He lived in a bipolar world. But Clinton was the first post-Cold War president, serving in a time when the U.S. was the only superpower," Woods explained. "At first glance, it would seem the two men faced different problems and lived in very different worlds. But, in fact, I think Fulbright’s experiences shaped Clinton’s perspective and prepared him to lead foreign policy in the 1990s."

According to Woods, Fulbright positioned himself as a strong critic of the rampant anti-Communism that swept the nation during his time in office. He opposed both the war in Vietnam and the mounting international antagonism of the Cold War. Fulbright believed that with the nuclear deadlock between the United States and Soviet Union, Cold War tensions would accomplish little more than the vast growth of the military-industrial complex and an us-versus-them ideology that would distance our nation from the rest of the world.

"Fulbright argued that one of the principle negative effects of the Cold War was American unilateralism. That is, the United States acted independently, arbitrarily and without consultation of its allies and, consequently, frequently found itself isolated," Woods said. "He was a great proponent of U.S. action through the United Nations — committed to the idea of collective security rather than unilateral exercise of power."

That commitment resurfaced decades later in Clinton, who emphasized American cooperation with international organizations in his 1992 campaign. However, Woods acknowledges Clinton’s inconsistent record, noting that he acted in tandem with allies only when he believe it suited U.S. interests. On several occasions, Clinton allowed the voice of the Pentagon to override that of international organizations.

Such inconsistency may have made Clinton’s approach to foreign policy seem slapdash. His slow agreement to commit peacekeeping support in the Balkans and his withdrawal of U.S. troops from Somalia brought widespread condemnation. But Woods states that Clinton actually was consistent in the fact that he weighed U.S. involvement against U.S. interests for each situation. Rather than applying a blanket approach to policy, he assessed every incident independently and determined the best course of action for each circumstance.

"One of the criticisms of Clinton’s foreign policy was that he didn’t have an ideology, a master plan. Then again, there are those who argue that master plans are dangerous things," Woods said. "In the modern world, the goals are stability, peace, prosperity at home and, if possible, abroad. And the object is to manage crises to keep them from getting out of hand and to manage resources to reach those goals. Clinton left no legacy, therefore, except a record of skilled management."

In the aftermath of September 11, Woods believes that the United States is once again moving away from that reasoned, reactive approach to foreign policy. Already, the bipolar, us-versus-them mentality seems to have revived throughout the nation. And Woods notes that as the war on terrorism progresses, it shows more and more signs of unilateral American action.

The war on terrorism may sweep aside the brand of open-minded internationalism promoted by Fulbright and Clinton, but Woods feels confident that Clinton will one day be appreciated for his approach to foreign affairs, just as Fulbright is revered for his.

"There are personal similarities between Fulbright and Clinton and a similar trajectory to their careers," Woods said. "Because of his opposition to the war in Vietnam and his outspoken criticism of the Cold War, liberals and conservatives alike shunned Fulbright for years after he left the senate. Clinton is experiencing the same backlash, in part because of his policies and in part because of the scandals."

As long as Clinton remains a central political figure and an active participant in the nation’s political dialogue, he will remain a focus of controversy and criticism. Fair assessment of his presidency won’t be possible until the political clamor subsides and historians and other scholars step in to perform an objective, comparative analysis, Woods said.

Woods, and those who have organized the UA conference, hope that "Vantage Points" will mark a positive step in that direction — toward a more balanced and objective understanding of the Clinton presidency.

For more information about the symposium or for a list of presenters, visit the University of Arkansas news website at http://pigtrail.uark.edu/news/.