Clinton's frankness raises concerns

She says clarity enhances policy

BEIJING - Hillary Clinton's blunt and unadorned style of diplomacy was evident throughout her weeklong Asian tour, her first foreign trip as secretary of state.

She questioned the efficacy of sanctions against the repressive junta in Burma, spoke openly about a possible succession crisis in North Korea, and conceded that she expected to make little progress on human rights in China.

To a certain extent, these comments crossed taboo lines in international diplomacy. US officials generally do not say their sanctions have failed, or speculate about the future government of another country, or suggest that a carefully watched human rights dialogue is largely a farce.

Clinton's willingness to speak frankly - combined with an extensive effort to get beyond ministerial meetings to hold town hall meetings and conduct local TV interviews in the countries she visited - suggested that she will put a distinctive personal stamp on the Obama administration's foreign policy. What is emerging is something less rigid, less cautious, and more open.

Before her meetings in Beijing, for instance, Clinton said she would raise human rights issues with Chinese officials. "But we pretty much know what they're going to say," she added.

Clinton's comments have stirred outrage among human rights advocates, who once viewed her as a hero for having confronted the Chinese government, in 1995, over its record. Activists say that without public, sustained international pressure on human rights issues, nothing will change in China.

Clinton says she does not understand the fuss. In her view, speaking clearly - and not obfuscating through diplomatic artifice - helps enhance the policy, rather than undermine it.

"I think that to worry about something which is so self-evident is an impediment to clear thinking," Clinton told reporters traveling with her. "And I don't think it should be viewed as particularly extraordinary that someone in my position would say what's obvious."

Before leaving China yesterday, Clinton wrapped up her trip by visiting a state-sanctioned church and then meeting 23 women involved in legal, poverty, and healthcare organizations aimed at helping women and promoting gender equality.

Many of the women had previously met Clinton when she was first lady and a senator. The one-hour session underscored Clinton's contention that working with such nongovernmental civic organizations can do as much to promote women's rights and human rights as does jawboning the Chinese government.

Gao Yaojie, an 82-year-old AIDS activist, told Clinton of being monitored and hassled by government agencies, declaring, "I am not afraid." But several others told the secretary of state that grass-roots organizations have grown fast and have had an increasing impact on Chinese society since they first met with her more than a decade ago.

In foreign policy circles, Clinton's remarks on human rights have stirred consternation that she is giving up possible leverage with China before any dialogue has begun. Others say she is inviting criticism from Capitol Hill and rights groups that undermine her ability as a diplomat.

But some analysts have defended her, saying she should be commended for speaking frankly. The Bush administration was criticized for what some saw as a hypocritical approach to human rights, claiming to promote freedom but treating friends and foes differently on rights issues.

"I think she clearly feels it's necessary to induce realism and perspective to expectations and performance, and to tell the Chinese that [President] Obama knows that we all need to work together, so she is determined not to let less centrally vital issues handicap that," said Chris Nelson, who writes an influential newsletter on Asian policy.

Former UN ambassador John Bolton, who was known for his bluntness, said he thinks "our diplomacy should be more candid, with less doublespeak, so if she really meant to say what she said, I don't mind at all."

But he added, "the issue with whatever she says, candid or not, is whether it has an objective in mind, or whether she is just running at the mouth. . . . Executive branch officials, by definition, are not just bloviating, but executing policies."