An Unwanted Spokeswoman

Sahar

I couldn’t help but laugh out loud when I read Mark Landler of The New York Times’ interview with U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. Reminiscent of a colonial-style arrogance, the brazen title of the interview, ‘Saving the World’s Woman—A New Gender Agenda’ set the mood of the interview.

In the interview, Clinton is asked a series of questions in which she highlights political, economic and social problems facing women  today, and what she considers  ‘solutions’.  We are given the impression that she wants to be remembered for her contribution in alleviating the problems women are facing.

I find it remarkable that Clinton– who assumes the role of spokeswoman for all women in the world—is talking about global women’s rights, while concurrently a part of a government that has wrought so much havoc on many in the developing countries specifically mentioned in the interview (India, Palestine, Afghanistan, Iraq).

I wasn’t surprised by her attempt to present herself as a representative of women, considering she ran in the Presidential elections under such a rubric.  However, her policy stance on women seems disjointed and incongruous when you consider she is known for her hawkish stance on numerous issues like nuclear weapons and Iran, national security and the Israel-Palestine conflict. According to academic Stephen Zunes, she has opposed restrictions on U.S. arms transfers and police training to governments that have horrendous human rights violations like Saudi Arabia, Pakistan and Israel.  She has insisted upon unconditional funding for the disastrous and illegal war in Iraq and further increase in military spending.

Clinton asserts “ I happen to believe that the transformation of women’s roles is the last great impediment to universal progress — that we have made progress on many other aspects of human nature that used to be discriminatory bars to people’s full participation. But in too many places and too many ways, the oppression of women stands as a stark reminder of how difficult it is to realize people’s full human potential”.

Putting aside the contention of a normative discourse on universal human rights, theoretically, Clinton, like any Western leader, adheres to this liberal notion and stresses the importance of universal human rights, yet, she has questioned the credibility of known human rights organisations like Amnesty International when they’ve criticised the policies of the U.S. and its allies.  Moreover, she has also been an outspoken critic of the UN, opting for a unilateral stance in international politics.

She further states “Women and girls are a core factor in our foreign policy”—yet her historical record suggests either she is being disingenuous or is oblivious to the implications of her policies on women in particular.

Knowing the implications of war with Iran because of the experiences in Afghanistan and Iraq, she has eagerly continued with a hawkish stance on confronting Iran where in which she has described the Iranian ‘threat’ as unacceptable and suggesting a military strategy is possible. Early this year she vehemently defended the abhorrent Israeli invasion of Gaza which killed over 1000 civilians.  Just this month she has finalised a defense agreement with India to ensure US companies sell sophisticated arms to New Delhi.  Clinton states that she travels and talks about women’s rights and raises women’s concerns with leaders while simultaneously ensuring the imperial praxis remains.  It’s difficult to imagine how women’s lives are improved when she encourages and in fact openly endorses increasing militarism in countries like Pakistan, India, Iraq, Israel and Afghanistan—rather than on development to ensure political, economic and social stability. There is no mention of the structural mechanisms in place which generate North-South inequalities and maintain them via neo-liberal policies. These global economic policies create an unsafe environment for women and children who are vulnerable to war and poverty. Clinton would much rather blame women’s oppression on religious fundamentalism and global terrorism.

 “If you look at where we are fighting terrorism, there is a connection to groups that are making a stand against modernity, and that is most evident in their treatment of women”. What Clinton fails to understand, or purposely ignores is that the Islamic movements she is alluding  to are modernist movements which are resisting U.S. foreign policies in the Middle East, Africa and Central Asia. They are not simply resisting because of their hate of freedom, so the Bush administration mantra went—rather, they are modern in their own right and challenging a Western hegemony and a colonial modernity that is being imposed on them in the guise of economic exploitation and Western consumer culture.

With glaring audacity she continues,

“What does preventing little girls from going to school in Afghanistan by throwing acid on them have to do with waging a struggle against oppression externally?”

Clearly it’s in Clinton’s best interest as a representative of a government responsible for so many of the conflicts raging in many Muslim countries, to ignore the historical and political context in which women’s issues can be better understood.  The cultural violence that has ensued by Western countries in the ‘developing’ world harks back to colonialism and perpetuated today in similar policies of exploitation and domination.  The throwing of acid can only be understood within such a context in order to read it accurately as a response to the encroachment on national sovereignty and the cultural life of these people—where women often are seen as the cultural/national symbol. Thus, instability ensures women become a prime target of preserving what is perceived to be cultural losses.

If Clinton was genuine about wanting to help women (which I certainly doubt she is) she should– along with her ‘white sisters’– stop basking in the colonial glory of ‘saving’ women in developing countries.  Instead, she should acknowledge her complicity in ensuring that current oppressive political and economic structures remain, which reinforces a dichotomy of power and powerless that has had disastrous effects on global politics, particularly on the lives of women. But I wouldn’t hold my breath on that one.