This article by Thomas Barnett is very approving of the vision outlined by Clinton and zeroes in on this portion of her recent speech to the Council on Foreign Relations:

“Our approach to foreign policy must reflect the world as it is, not as it used to be. It does not make sense to adapt a 19th century concert of powers, or a 20th century balance of power strategy. We cannot go back to Cold War containment or to unilateralism.

Today, we must acknowledge two inescapable facts that define our world:

First, no nation can meet the world's challenges alone. . . . Second, most nations worry about the same global threats. . . .

So these two facts demand a different global architecture -- one in which states have clear incentives to cooperate and live up to their responsibilities, as well as strong disincentives to sit on the sidelines or sow discord and division. . . .

And here's how we'll do it . . . We'll use our power to convene, our ability to connect countries around the world, and sound foreign policy strategies to create partnerships aimed at solving problems. We'll go beyond states to create opportunities for non-state actors and individuals to contribute to solutions. . . .

In short, we will lead by inducing greater cooperation among a greater number of actors and reducing competition, tilting the balance away from a multi-polar world and toward a multi-partner world.”

Clearly, Clinton is saying that any resurrection of the old school “balance of power” must be resisted as must all other major strains within the American foreign policy tradition- containment and unilateralism.

I suppose this is an interesting vision, but I think it’s a dishonest one.  I find it devoid of the all important conservative insight that man simply doesn’t fundamentally change his nature and that “interests” and perceptions of interests clash. 

Cooperation is all fine and good and a “global architecture” may seem like a reasonable idea, complete with “incentives” for those who wish to create solutions to our transnational problems.  But what happens when individual state interests inevitably clash?  Cooperation is only possible when interests at some level coincide. 

It is quite likely our interests with nations like China and India will coincide on substantial issues (though not all like “global warming”). It is far less likely our interests with Russia, Iran, or North Korea will coincide.  Consequently, all this talk of a “multi-partner” world seems as quixotic to me as the old Bush era nostrums regarding the prevention of the rise of “near-peer” competitors.  In fact, it may be even more so.

At least Bush recognized that stability is brought when there is no power vacuum for a competitor to seek to fill.  While predicated perhaps too much on “hard” military power, at least this had a historical basis for understanding strategic realities. 

All this talk about cooperation has no real basis in historical fact.  It is a dream that intellectuals and even many policymakers have articulated for years (think of Kant’s “perpetual peace” or Woodrow Wilson’s League of Nations ).  Yet it remains today still a dream.  We can’t even get the United Nations to take meaningful steps in a place like Sudan because there are too many differing interests looming behind the scenes.

 If President Obama and Secretary Clinton don’t understand this, they are immensely dangerous due to a misguided and inaccurate view of reality.  If they do understand this reality, then the speech is nothing more than pretty words put together to pacify the intellectual class and those tired by the exertions required of a superpower.