During her whirlwind tour this past week, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton took credit for nearly every foreign policy success that was not nailed down by the previous administration or, as we saw in North Korea, the husband she refuses to channel. The Joanie-come-lately to foreign policy also stands by the “rightness” of her choice to avoid human rights concerns in China and Iran as essential to the overall strategic interests of the United States. She cites for instance, China’s prima face cooperation on North Korea, which may to some degree be genuine if Beijing sincerely believes Pyongyang is out from under its control. However, there is as much uncertainty as ever as to Beijing’s genuine role or the lasting positive effect it might have on the DPRK.

If it is true that the administration is placing “non-proliferation ahead of democratization in Russia and Iran” (as well as China), as Clinton has said, then one must conclude democratization has been pushed farther back, given where we are on non-proliferation. Indeed, Mrs. Clinton’s rationale for putting off talk of human rights during her visit to China is that “We already know what they are going to say”. When asked about her apparent about-face in Africa, one place she claims to be trying to channel human rights, one quickly discovers that instead of genuine human rights, as in human liberty and the institution of democracy, Clinton seems to be pushing for the kind held up in the manifestos of utopian promises proffered by regimes such as China, North Korea, Russia, and even Iran. The right to be provided food, work, and shelter – of some sort – by the government so long as you keep your mouth shut, believe what you are told, and do the job you are told to do; the kind that puts necklaces of flaming tires around your head if you don’t. But never mind the details; if you slap a label on it, it must surely count as human rights.

It would seem then there is no point in pushing for non-proliferation, either. After all, we already know what Iran has to say about it, as they have done so repeatedly. We are also abundantly aware through the actions of Russia, China, North Korea, and others where we stand on non-proliferation wherever it has truly counted. Far from former Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice’s confident assertiveness in support of democracy, Clinton at this early point already seems to hold little interest in championing the cause of liberal democratic governments which are ultimately far less likely to support nuclear proliferation or start wars, for that matter.

While some may see it as unfair to critique the rhetoric of someone so new, particularly in the absence of substantial actions so far, it is worth mentioning the vital importance also of saying the right things, a mantra familiar to us from the years of the Bush administration. In fact, Senator John Kerry practically based half of his 2004 presidential campaign on the importance of foreign policy dialectical nuance. The Secretary may also benefit from her husband’s own former Secretary of Defense William Perry. Perry spoke at a recent Henry Jackson Society event, in which he concluded that the best way to mitigate the threat of a nuclear Iran is through supporting the creation of genuinely democratic institutions in that state along with respect for human rights and all the trappings.

While Dr. Rice pushed the power of “transformative democracy” and was at least in part effective, Mrs. Clinton champions the “power to convene." The administration of her husband, while enjoying unusually good relations with China, attempted to use this mighty power to convene, free of significant demands, in the 1990s and the result was the successful test of a nuclear warhead by the North Koreans. That regime continues with its predictable cycle of becoming more bellicose, receiving foreign money, softening and then becoming more belligerent than in the last round for more foreign money. While Rice, too enthusiastically some argue, sought to stop proliferation (as in the case of Iraq), there was no question that the former Secretary of State and National Security Advisor understood the real geopolitical threat posed by backdoor proliferation of nuclear weapons technology by Russia and China, through North Korea to Pakistan and Iran, and through Pakistan and Iran to other states and entities. Clinton, however, at this point seems almost dismissive of this threat, choosing, possibly in reference to Russia and Iran’s relationship, to casually relegate these states to the status of "a few outliers", as she put it.

Mrs. Clinton argues that it is time to develop closer ties with China on economics and the environment, two otherwise “hopeless causes” which also happen to serve politically utility. As for the economy, China has been signaling anything but cooperation. Thus far, it has called for countries to replace the dollar as the world’s base currency and continues to signal it may at some point call its loans; there was also the incident where Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner was laughed at by Chinese students for telling them their assets are safe. This was indeed a patently ridiculous statement by Geithner, as the U.S. continues to increase its debt through massive public spending while paying for that debt by an equally massive increase in currency, which, as the Chinese correctly worry, will devalue the dollar and devalue U.S. debt to China (not that getting out of debt with China is a bad thing in itself, of course).

So far, ecology not only seems to be turning out better than all others, it is easily trumping human rights. Clinton says she finds it “quite remarkable that every country has recognized climate change as a problem.” This, of course is no surprise, given what at times appears to be the precedence of climate change over human rights as a priority within the Obama administration and within the UN. Thus, we behold the shameful reality that had human rights been as aggressively pressed by the UN and others, perhaps we would have some progress there, as well. Perhaps if people grew roots and leaves, their rights could enjoy international protection, too.

This same collection of realities will handicap the State Department and the Obama administration with Russia, Iran, and elsewhere, also. Naturally, one hopes this changes. It is very early on, so there is the possibility Madam Secretary will be a quick study. She claims to be a realist; what this means for her, however, may evolve, as may the breadth of facts about which she must be realistic. For the moment, Clinton has neither the overflowing respect of her opposites nor always the benefit of bright expectations from those in her own camp at home, and that, for any Secretary of State, can be problematic.

From Thomas Jefferson to Dean Acheson, Henry Kissinger, George Shultz or Condoleezza Rice, there are to be sure very few who would counter the notion that the role of the United States Secretary of State has historically been an important one. Nor has it ceased to be as important today. In fact, to argue that such a role presently is inconsequential in light of the probability of further nuclear proliferation into the hands of unstable regimes and actors, would be to also argue that the consequences of such proliferation is also inconsequential. In other words, the role of Secretary of State has always been important, but it is one which becomes increasingly so as the tasks of preserving US interests in a diffuse, hostile, and dangerous world become ever more important and necessary. While Secretary Clinton has for only a short while occupied her post, her rhetoric to this point has not inspired much confidence in what is to come from her actions as would be desired.