Just remember, Hillary is the one with the foreign policy experience
Last month I said the following on NPR’s Marketplace: [T]rade agreements improve America’s standing in the world. But Senator Clinton’s proposal would strip these agreements of the very certainty that makes them attractive to our allies. How does Senator Clinton think our trading partners in the Middle East, Central America, and Pacific Rim will react ...
Last month I said the following on NPR's Marketplace: [T]rade agreements improve America's standing in the world. But Senator Clinton's proposal would strip these agreements of the very certainty that makes them attractive to our allies. How does Senator Clinton think our trading partners in the Middle East, Central America, and Pacific Rim will react to her proposal? How is this proposal any different from the unilateralism that Democrats have condemned for the past six years? I'm glad that Senator Clinton wants to restore America's image in the world - but I hope she realizes that protectionist stunts will make that task much, much harder.I hereby owe Senator Clinton an apology -- I forgot to include Europe in the list of regions that are not taking too kindly to Clinton's brand of trade policy. The Financial Times' Tony Barber and Andrew Bounds explain: Hillary Clinton, the Democratic frontrunner in the US presidential campaign, came under fire from Europe?s top trade negotiator on Wednesday for suggesting that, if elected, she might not press hard for a new global trade pact. ?The apparent scepticism about a Doha world trade deal that Mrs Clinton expressed in the Financial Times this week, and her suggestion that there is a need to shelter American companies and interests from foreign investment, are a disappointing sign of the times,? said Peter Mandelson, European Union trade commissioner. His remarks represented an unusually direct intervention by a foreign politician in a US presidential election. Mrs Clinton told the FT she believed certain free trade theories might no longer be true in the age of globalisation, but she emphasised ?there is nothing protectionist about this?. Mr Mandelson, at a Brussels globalisation seminar, said: ?Politicians have a huge responsibility not to overstate the risks attached to open investment, because we have nothing to gain from a protectionist turn in global markets.? The former high-ranking UK government minister added: ?That is why I would argue that Hillary Clinton?s doubts about the value of a Doha trade deal are misplaced.? I know Hillary Clinton's had a rough week or two, so in fairness to her, it should be pointed out that she's not the first Democratic presidential candidate to be on the receiving end of foreign criticism. Still, isn't this sort of fracas exactly the kind of thing that an experienced Hillary Clinton was supposed to avoid? See Greg Mankiw on the substance of Clinton's claims regarding trade theory. Or check these posts from three years ago.
Last month I said the following on NPR’s Marketplace:
[T]rade agreements improve America’s standing in the world. But Senator Clinton’s proposal would strip these agreements of the very certainty that makes them attractive to our allies. How does Senator Clinton think our trading partners in the Middle East, Central America, and Pacific Rim will react to her proposal? How is this proposal any different from the unilateralism that Democrats have condemned for the past six years? I’m glad that Senator Clinton wants to restore America’s image in the world – but I hope she realizes that protectionist stunts will make that task much, much harder.
I hereby owe Senator Clinton an apology — I forgot to include Europe in the list of regions that are not taking too kindly to Clinton’s brand of trade policy. The Financial Times’ Tony Barber and Andrew Bounds explain:
Hillary Clinton, the Democratic frontrunner in the US presidential campaign, came under fire from Europe?s top trade negotiator on Wednesday for suggesting that, if elected, she might not press hard for a new global trade pact. ?The apparent scepticism about a Doha world trade deal that Mrs Clinton expressed in the Financial Times this week, and her suggestion that there is a need to shelter American companies and interests from foreign investment, are a disappointing sign of the times,? said Peter Mandelson, European Union trade commissioner. His remarks represented an unusually direct intervention by a foreign politician in a US presidential election. Mrs Clinton told the FT she believed certain free trade theories might no longer be true in the age of globalisation, but she emphasised ?there is nothing protectionist about this?. Mr Mandelson, at a Brussels globalisation seminar, said: ?Politicians have a huge responsibility not to overstate the risks attached to open investment, because we have nothing to gain from a protectionist turn in global markets.? The former high-ranking UK government minister added: ?That is why I would argue that Hillary Clinton?s doubts about the value of a Doha trade deal are misplaced.?
I know Hillary Clinton’s had a rough week or two, so in fairness to her, it should be pointed out that she’s not the first Democratic presidential candidate to be on the receiving end of foreign criticism. Still, isn’t this sort of fracas exactly the kind of thing that an experienced Hillary Clinton was supposed to avoid? See Greg Mankiw on the substance of Clinton’s claims regarding trade theory. Or check these posts from three years ago.
Daniel W. Drezner is a professor of international politics at the Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy at Tufts University and co-host of the Space the Nation podcast. Twitter: @dandrezner
More from Foreign Policy

Saudi-Iranian Détente Is a Wake-Up Call for America
The peace plan is a big deal—and it’s no accident that China brokered it.

The U.S.-Israel Relationship No Longer Makes Sense
If Israel and its supporters want the country to continue receiving U.S. largesse, they will need to come up with a new narrative.

Putin Is Trapped in the Sunk-Cost Fallacy of War
Moscow is grasping for meaning in a meaningless invasion.

How China’s Saudi-Iran Deal Can Serve U.S. Interests
And why there’s less to Beijing’s diplomatic breakthrough than meets the eye.