A critical discourse analysis of two speeches on women by hillary clinton in 1995 and 2013

VIETNAM NATIONAL UNIVERSITY, HANOI
UNIVERSITY OF LANGUAGES AND INTERNATIONAL STUDIES
FACULTY OF POSTGRADUATE STUDIES
*********************

PHẠM THỊ TUẤN

A CRITICAL DISCOURSE ANALYSIS OF TWO SPEECHES
ON WOMEN BY HILLARY CLINTON IN 1995 AND 2013
Phân tích diễn ngôn phê phán hai bài phát biểu về
phụ nữ của Hillary Clinton vào các năm 1995 và 2013

M.A MINOR PROGRAMME THESIS
Field:

English Linguistics

Code:

60220201

Hanoi, 2016


VIETNAM NATIONAL UNIVERSITY, HANOI
UNIVERSITY OF LANGUAGES AND INTERNATIONAL STUDIES
FACULTY OF POSTGRADUATE STUDIES
*********************

PHẠM THỊ TUẤN

A CRITICAL DISCOURSE ANALYSIS OF TWO SPEECHES
ON WOMEN BY HILLARY CLINTON IN 1995 AND 2013
Phân tích diễn ngôn phê phán hai bài phát biểu về
phụ nữ của Hillary Clinton vào các năm 1995 và 2013

M.A MINOR PROGRAMME THESIS
Field:

English Linguistics

Code:

60220201

Supervisor: Assoc. Prof. Dr. Ngô Hữu Hoàng

Hanoi, 2016


`

DECLARATION
I hereby certify that the thesis entitled “A critical discourse analysis of two
speeches on women by Hillary Clinton in 1995 and 2013” is the result of my
own research for the Degree of Master of Arts at the University of Languages and
International Studies, Vietnam National University, and that this thesis has not
been submitted for any other degrees.

Hanoi, 2016

Phạm Thị Tuấn

i


`

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
I would like to express the deepest appreciation to my supervisor, Associate
Professor Dr. Ngô Hữu Hoàng for helping me complete this study. This paper
would not have been accomplished without his expert, constant and valuable
guidance and encouragement. His patience and helpful criticism helped me
confidently express my ideas into this paper.
I also wish to express my sincere thanks to all my lecturers at the Faculty of
Graduate and Postgraduate Studies, University of Languages and International
Studies for their valuable lectures which have helped me a great deal in gaining a
lot of theoretical background as well as practical knowledge.
My special thanks also go to my friends and colleagues for their enthusiastic
help and support with my teaching schedule at school which gave me precious time
to deal with my thesis.
Finally, I would also like to express my deep gratitude and love to my
family who gave me time and encouragement to overcome all obstacles during the
completion of this study.

ii


`

ABSTRACT

This study attempts to discover the relationship between power, ideology and
discourse embraced in two speeches delivered by Hillary Clinton in 1995 and
2013, using the CDA framework suggested by Norman Fairclough (2001). The
analysis is carried out in three separated phases namely Description, Interpretation,
and Explanation. Major aspects selected for analysis include vocabulary, grammar,
and macro-structures. Due to the limited time, the study focuses on analysis of
lexical choice, voice, pronouns, and large-scale structures. The findings show that
ideology and power are expressed in a number of ways, and there is not much
difference between two speeches. The biggest difference lies on the situational
context that exerts influences on exhibiting power and ideology. While 1995
speech centers on depicting the reality of harsh treatment on women, 2013 speech
offers a review of achievements and remains in fights for women advancement. In
general, both speeches serve as Clinton‘s calls for actions on women rights
violations.

iii


`

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS
CDA:Critical Discourse Analysis
S: Sentence
M: Macro - statement

iv


`

LIST OF TABLES AND FIGURES
Tables

Page

Table 1: Frequency of pronoun ―I‖ and ―We‖ in 1995 and 2013 Speech

21

Table 2: Frequency of active and passive voice in 1993 and 1995 Speech

24

Figures
Figure 1: Interpretation (Fairclough, 2001: 119)

11

Figure 2: Explanation (Fairclough, 2001: 136)

12

v


`

TABLE OF CONTENTS
DECLARATION ........................................................................................................ i
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ......................................................................................ii

ABSTRACT ............................................................................................................. iii
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS.................................................................................. iv
LIST OF TABLES AND FIGURES ........................................................................ v
TABLE OF CONTENTS ........................................................................................ vi
PART A: INTRODUCTION ................................................................................... 1
1.

Rationale ............................................................................................................ 1

2.

Aims of the study and Research Questions ..................................................... 2

2.1. Aims of the study ................................................................................................. 2
2.2. Research questions .............................................................................................. 2
3.

Scope of the study .............................................................................................. 2

4.

Design of the study ............................................................................................ 3

5.

Significance of the study ................................................................................... 3

PART B: DEVELOPMENT..................................................................................... 5
CHAPTER 1: THEORETICAL BACKGROUND AND LITERATURE
REVIEW .................................................................................................................... 5

1.

An overview of CDA ......................................................................................... 5

1.1 The development of CDA ..................................................................................... 5
1.2 Definitions of CDA ............................................................................................... 5
1.3

Some main directions in CDA ........................................................................ 6

1.3.1. Van Dijk‘s ..................................................................................................... 6
1.3.2. Wodak‘s ........................................................................................................ 7
1.3.3. Fairclough‘s ................................................................................................... 7
1.3.3.1. Description of the text ............................................................................8
1.3.3.2. Interpretation of the text ......................................................................10
1.3.3.3. Explanation of the text .........................................................................11
CHAPTER 2: METHODOLOGY OF THE STUDY .......................................... 14
vi


`

1.

Research questions restated ........................................................................... 14

2. Methods of the study ........................................................................................... 14
3. Data of the study.................................................................................................. 15
4. Analysis procedure of the study ......................................................................... 16
CHAPTER 3: A CRITICAL DISCOURSE ANALYSIS OF THE TWO

SPEECHES ON WOMEN BY HILLARY CLINTON IN 1995 AND 2013 ...... 19
1.

Description ....................................................................................................... 19

1.1 Description of vocabulary use ........................................................................... 19
1.2 Description of grammatical features ................................................................. 20
1.2.1. The use of ―I‖ and ―we‖ pronouns .............................................................. 20
1.2.2. The use of voice ....................................................................................... 23
1.3 Description of macro-structures ........................................................................ 24
2. Interpretation ...................................................................................................... 26
2.1. Interpretation of situational context .............................................................. 26
2.2 Interpretation of inter-textual context ............................................................ 28
2.3 Interpretation of language use ......................................................................... 30
2.3.1. Interpretation of vocabulary use ............................................................... 30
2.3.2

Interpretation of grammatical features .................................................. 32

2.3.2.1. The use of pronouns ―I‖ and ―we‖ .......................................................32
2.3.2.2. The use of voice ...................................................................................33
2.3.3. Interpretation of macro-structures ............................................................ 35
2.3.3.1. Macrostructures in 1995 speech ...........................................................35
2.3.3.2. Macrostructures in 2013 speech ...........................................................37
3. Explanation .......................................................................................................... 38
3.1

Explanation of 1995 speech ........................................................................... 38

3.2

Explanation of 2013 speech ........................................................................... 40

PART C: CONCLUSION....................................................................................... 42
1.

Summary of findings ....................................................................................... 42

2.

Limitations of the study and Recommendations for further study ............ 44

vii


`

REFERENCES ........................................................................................................ 45
APPENDIX 1 ............................................................................................................. I

viii


`

PART A: INTRODUCTION
1. Rationale
There has been much written about Critical Discourse Analysis (CDA) in recent
years. It is noticeably noted that not only does CDA seek to describe language but it
also offers critical resources to those wishing to resist various forms of power. With

its success in discerning the relationship between language and power in a wide
range of contexts, CDA is attracting growing interest of numerous worldwide
language researchers.
Language is one of the greatest inventions that human have ever made. It has been
long considered a communication tool that people use to express their wills, their
feelings and their attitudes towards the world. By this way, language is a social
phenomenon. From CDA‘s perspective, language is said a part of society, social
practice and a socially-conditioned process (Fairclough, 2001).
As a part of society, language is taken advantage of by different specialists from
various fields, in which politics is included. It is often said that politics is about
power, and language serves as a useful weapon that country leaders use to achieve
their political purposes. From that, there is no doubt for the close relationship
between language and politics; in other words, between language and power.
Political speeches are striking examples for the application of linguistic practice to
show power. Generally speaking, as a speech is given, not only are the messages
delivered, but the speaker‘s ideology and power are also embedded.
CDA approaches the study and critique of social inequality by focusing on the role
of discourse in the production and reproduction of dominance, which is defined as
the exercise of social power by elites, institutions or groups, that results in social
inequality, including political, cultural, class, ethic, racial, and gender inequality
(van Dijk, 1993, p. 249-250). One important social issue that be examined in any
given culture in terms of dominance and inequality is gender.

1


`

That women rights violation is a pressing world problem leads to the delivery of
numerous speeches. The speaker, Hillary Clinton, also made a number of remarks

on the issue, in which 1995 speech is the most outstanding ever. 2013 speech is also
chosen for analysis for it is the review of 1995 one and also gains some important
popularity.
To my best knowledge, there have been quite a variety of researchers working on
language and power connection through the analysis of political speech. However,
most of them tended to study a single speech, and this remains a slot for me to fill
here. Hence, in this thesis, I maybe have a look at the same matter, yet with the
investigation of two speeches at the same time.
All reasons mentioned above lead me to the choice of these two speeches on women
by Hillary Clinton as the data of the study for analysis from the viewpoint of CDA.
2. Aims of the study and Research Questions
2.1. Aims of the study
The study aims to:
-

Provide a critical analysis of two speeches on women by Hillary Clinton in 1995

and 2013 based on Fairclough‘s framework to find out the way hidden power and
ideologies are shown in two speeches.
-

Find out changes in the way power and ideologies are shown in two speeches.

2.2. Research questions
To achieve the aims of the study, the following research questions have been posed:
1. How are ideologies and power lexically, syntactically and macro-structurally
shown in two speeches on women by Hillary Clinton in 1995 and 2013?
2. Are there any changes in the way ideologies and power are shown in two
speeches? If yes, what changes are they?
3. Scope of the study

2


`

In this critical discourse analysis, the researcher is confined to the written aspects of
two speeches and some concerned situational contexts as a kind of background
knowledge. This thesis is a linguistic study rather than a political or social one. It is
actually based on political speeches to approach and to do a linguistic research for
an academic purpose.
4. Design of the study
The study consists of three parts illustrated as follows:
Part A is the INTRODUCTION of the study which presents the rationale, scope,
aims, methodology, and design of the study.
Part B is the DEVELOPMENT which is made up of three chapters.
Chapter 1: Theoretical background and literature review.
This chapter gives an overview of CDA – its history, role, concepts, and procedure.
Chapter 2: Methodology of the study
This chapter provides a detailed description of the methodology, which includes
research methods applied for data collection, the types of the data, and the analysis
procedure of the study.
Chapter 3: A critical discourse analysis of two speeches on women by Hillary
Clinton in 1995 and 2013
The CDA procedure addressed by Fairclough (2001) is applied to analyze two
speeches to find out the relationship between power, ideology and language, and
simultaneously explore the similarities and differences in how power and ideology
are reflected in two speeches.
Part C is the CONCLUSION which summarizes the major findings of the study,
draws important conclusions, and offers suggestions for further research.

5. Significance of the study

3


`

Theoretically, this study provides a support to CDA theories. From an objective
view as linguists when approaching texts, CDA analysts can find out ideology and
power hidden behind words. Practically, this study is submitted in partial fulfillment
of requirements of my degree of Master in English Linguistics. Moreover, with the
investigation of two speeches at the same time, it may provide the researcher
another approach to political speech analysis from CDA viewpoint.

4


`

PART B: DEVELOPMENT
CHAPTER 1: THEORETICAL BACKGROUND AND LITERATURE
REVIEW
1. An overview of CDA
1.1 The development of CDA
Before the 1970s, linguistic research was mostly concerned with the formal aspects
of language, which are believed to theoretically be isolated from specific instances
of language use (Chomsky, 1957).
The attention was shifted when the relation between language and context was
considered, as in pragmatics, with a focus on speakers‘ pragmatic or socio-linguistic
competence. In the 1970s, text and discourse analysis, which lay the emphasis on

the role of language in structuring power relations in society, has been emerged and
flourished. Famous linguistic researchers such as Kress and Hodge (1979), Van
Dijk (1985), van Dijk (1993), Fairclough (1995a), Fairlough (1995b), Fairclough
and Wodak (1997) made a great contribution to set out the main assumptions,
primary principles and procedures of what then became known as Critical
Linguistics (CL).
By the 1990s, the label Critical Discourse Analysis, CDA came into existence and
rapidly emerged as ―a distinct theory of language, a radically different kind of
linguistics‖ (Kress, 1990, quoted in Wodak& Meyer, 2001, p.5). The terms CL and
CDA are sometimes interchangeably used by some linguists until nowadays.
1.2 Definitions of CDA
According to Leeuwen (1993), CDA concerns with the discourse as the instrument
of the social reality. In Rogers (2004)‘s point of view, CDA not only includes a
description and interpretation of discourse in context, but it also offers an
explanation of why and how the discourse works. As a result, it itself distances from
other discourse analysis approaches. I am favor of the notion by Wodak and
Fairclough (1997) that CDA regards language as a social practice. Comparatively

5


`

speaking, it is a discourse analytical research that primarily studies the way social
variables, such as power abuse, dominance, and inequality, are enacted, reproduced,
and resisted by texts and talks in the social and political context.
1.3 Some main directions in CDA
1.3.1. Van Dijk‘s
Van Dijk (1988) does not see the discourse as an isolated textual and dialogic
structure, but as a complicated communicative event embedding the social context.

Therefore, discourse, in his view, is not only simply investigated at phonological,
morphological, grammatical and semantic level, but deeply approached by higher
level properties such as coherence, themes, topics and the whole schematic and
rhetorical dimensions of the texts.
He also focuses on the ideology analysis of discourse and proposes a framework of
discourse analysis as follows (1988b, p.61-63):
-

Examining the context of the discourse: historical, political and social background of a

\\\\
-

conflict and its main participants.

-

Analyzing the groups, power relations and conflicts involved.

-

Identifying positive and negative opinions about US and THEM

-

Making explicit the presupposed and the implied

-

Examining all formal structures: lexical choice and syntactic structure, in a way that

helps to (de)emphasize polarized group opinions.

Van Dijk places his emphasis on the discourse of news in the press and mainly
applies his theory to authentic cases of news report at national and international
level. His new method of analysis is concerned with three levels of news discourse
production (structure, production and comprehension processes) and their
relationship with the social context within which are embedded. Such relationship is
described by the analysis of text at two levels: microstructure and macrostructure.
The former includes the semantic relations between propositions, syntactic, lexical
and other rhetoric elements that create the coherence for the text. The latter involves
the analysis of thematic structures, and overall schemata of news stories.
6


`

1.3.2. Wodak‘s
As Wodak and Ludwig (1999) state, language "manifests social processes and
interaction" and "constitutes" those processes as well (p.12). Viewing language this
way entails three things at least.
First, discourse "always involves power and ideologies. No interaction exists where
power relations do not prevail and where values and norms do not have a relevant
role" (p.12). Second, "discourse is always historical, that is, it is connected
synchronically and diachronically with other communicative events which are
happening at the same time or which have happened before" (p.12). The third
feature is that of interpretation. One of the most striking features of this approach,
as Wodak (2002) claims, is endeavor to work inter-disciplinarily and multimethodically and on the basis of a variety of different empirical data as well as
background information. That is, readers and listeners, depending on their
background knowledge and information and their position, might have different

interpretations of the same communicative event (p.13)
The overall framework of this approach is seen in the four levels of contexts as
follow (Wodak, 2002, p.68):
- The immediate language or text internal co-text;
- The inter-textual and inter-discursive relationships between utterances, texts, genres, and
discourse;
- The extra-linguistic social/socio-logical variables and institutional frames of specific
„context of situation‟;
- The broader socio-political and historical contexts, which the discursive practices are
embedded in and related to.

1.3.3. Fairclough‘s
As previously said, CDA has been further developed and broadened over years.
Among the CDA scholars, Norman Fairclough is one of the most striking authors,
whose works have profoundly contributed to the development of CDA. He claimed

7


`

that the earliest work in CL did not adequately focus on the "interpretive practices
of audiences." In other words, earliest CL, for the most part, assumed that the
audiences interpret texts the same way the analysts do. The other issue he suggested
is that earlier contributions in CL were very thorough in their grammatical and
lexical analysis while they were less attentive to the inter-textual analysis of texts:
"the linguistic analysis is very much focused upon clauses, with little attention to
higher-level organization properties of whole texts" (p.28).
Despite raising some limitations of earlier CL, Fairclough (1995b) added that the
achievement of critical linguistics cannot be denied as that reflects the shifts of

focus and development of theory over past years. CDA today is not a specific
direction of research, but a shared perspective encompassing a range of approaches.
Nevertheless, ―given the common perspective and the general aims of CDA, we
may also find overall conceptual and theoretical frameworks that are closely
related." (van Dijk, 1998a)
This study follows the steps set forth by Fairclough (2001). Language, seen as
discourse and as social practice, is neither analyzed by texts nor by processes of
production and interpretation, but to be analyzed by the relationship between texts,
processes, and their social conditions, both the immediate conditions of the
situational context and the more remote conditions of institutional and social
structures. With these three dimensions, he suggested a CDA procedure framework
with three main stages: Description, Interpretation, and Explanation modified as
follows.
1.3.3.1. Description of the text
This stage is concerned with the formal properties of the text which can be regarded
as the particular options made by each individual. To unravel the hidden meanings,
embedded messages, and interpret the speaker‘s ideology, a set of ten main
questions, followed by sub-questions, is introduced by Fairclough (2001, p.92-93)
in terms of vocabulary, grammar, and textual structures. (See Appendix 3)

8


`

A. Vocabulary
1. What experiential values do words have?
2. What relational values do words have?
3. What expressive values do words have?
4. What metaphors are used?

B. Grammar
5. What experiential values do grammatical features have?
6. What relational values do grammatical features have?
7. What expressive values do grammatical features have?
8. How are (simple) sentences linked together?
C. Textual structures
9. What interactional conventions are used?
10. What larger-scale structures does the text have?
The three terms: experiential, relational and expressive, as Fairclough (2001)
claimed, refer to formal features of texts. By looking at experiential values, CDA
attempts to show how ‗the text producer‘s experience of the natural or social world‘
affects and is shown in a text. A person‘s views of the world can be identified by
assessing formal features with experiential value. Relational values may identify the
perceived social relationship between the producer of the text and its recipient. The
third dimension, expressive value, provides an insight into ‗the producer‘s
evaluation (in the widest sense) of the bit of the reality it relates to. Moreover,
Fairclough (2001) goes on to identify another value that any formal feature may
possess, connective value, as its function may be to connect together parts of a text.
He also stresses that any given formal feature may simultaneously have two or three
of these values.

9


`

Macrostructures of discourse are distinguished from its microstructures, that is, the
local structures of words, clauses, sentences or turns in conversation. The
presupposition behind the search for macrostructures is that, for any given wellstructured discourse, there exists an overall idea that the author of the text has in
mind as he produces it. To the extent that the text is well-formed, that controlling

idea is reproduced in the mind of the receiver as he reads or listens to the text. In
other words, according to Van Dijk (Wodak, R. and Meyer, M., 2001), ‗semantic
macrostructures‘(global meanings or topics) represent what a discourse ‗is about‘
globally speaking, embody most important information of a discourse, and explain
overall coherence of text and talk. They are the global meaning that language users
constitute in discourse production and comprehension.
1.3.3.2. Interpretation of the text
The three values of formal features of texts are connected with three aspects of
social practice which may be constrained by power (contents, relations and
subjects) and their associated structural effects (on knowledge and beliefs, social
relationships, and social identities). However, it is obvious that one cannot directly
infer from the formal features of a text to structural effects upon the constitution of
a society. Values of textual features only become real when they are put in social
interaction. Therefore, in this stage, an analysis is needed to deal with the discourse
processes and their dependence on background assumptions.
Interpretations are generated through what is in the text and what is ―in‖ the
interpreter. Formal features of the text act as the ―cues‖, which activate elements of
interpreter‘s MR (member‘s resources). The term MR can be understood as the
background knowledge, values, beliefs, assumptions, or in Fairclough‘s viewpoint,
the interpretative procedures of the text. The process of interpretation is briefly
summarized in the following figure:

10


`

Interpretative procedure (MR)

Resources

Interpreting

Social orders

Situational context

Interactional history

Intertextual context

Phonology, grammar,

Surface of utterance

vocabulary
Semantics, pragmatics

Meaning of utterance

Cohesion, pragmatics

Local coherence

Schemata

Text

structure

and

―point‖
Figure 1: Interpretation (Fairclough, 2001: 119)
1.3.3.3. Explanation of the text
This stage aims to portray discourse as a social practice, and a social process,
showing how it is determined by social structures, and what reproductive effects
discourse can cumulatively have on those structures, sustaining them or changing
them.
Social determinants and social effects of discourse could be investigated at three
levels of social organization: situational, institutional and societal levels. Fairclough
gives out three questions which can be asked of a particular discourse under
investigation in this stage such as:
Social determinants: What power relations at situational, institutional, and societal
levels help shape this discourse?
11


`

Ideologies: What elements of MR which are drawn upon have an ideological
character?
Effects: How is this discourse positioned in relation to struggles at the situational,
institutional and societal levels? Are these struggles overt or covert? Is this
discourse formative with respect to MR or creative? Does it contribute to sustaining
existing power relations or transforming them?
The processes can be summarized in Figure 2 below:

Figure 2: Explanation (Fairclough, 2001: 136)
2. Some previous studies

Various studies are on CDA of a speech, and so are those on women rights. For
example, a Chinese researcher, Lee (2004) studied about women and their career by
focusing on the construction of female officials in Hong Kong. The study had given
a positive picture of career women in professional fields, and in fact, the women in
Hong Kong were constructed as ―perfect‖ by the media because they can balance
their career and family and seemed not to face any problems in gender competition.
Whereas, Fariyal and Omrana (2004) argued that the life advantages which women
from developed countries enjoyed is not seen clearly in the society where gender
gap against women persists pervasively. The study showed that sex selective
abortions, neglect of girl children, reproductive mortality, and poor access to health
care for girls and women are some basic reasons in perpetuating gender
discrimination in developing countries, in South Asia. A study conducted by
Chaudhry and Naz (2011) was undertaken on socio-political and economic
12


`

constraints in women‘s empowerment in Pakhtun Society of Chakdara District Dir
(L) Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, Pakistan. The findings showed that women in the region
have been discriminated in many ways, i.e., at domestic, economic, religious and
political levels. Cooray (2012) examined the influence of women‘s suffrage and
democracy on gender equality in education in a sample of 80 countries, covering
Asia, Africa, the Middle East, South America and Eastern Europe. The findings
revealed countries with a longer duration of suffrage tend on average to perform
better in terms of gender equality in education. In general, results from studies
present a fact that women even in the past or in recent years, are still under
discrimination and gender inequality need right solutions.

13

`

CHAPTER 2: METHODOLOGY OF THE STUDY
1. Research questions restated
As presented previously, the study seeks the answer to the following research
questions:
1. How are ideologies and power lexically, syntactically and macro-structurally
shown in two speeches on women by Hillary Clinton in 1995 and 2013?
2. Are there any changes in the way ideologies and power are shown in two
speeches? If yes, what changes are they?
2. Methods of the study
The data in the study tend to be discussed from the viewpoint of CDA framework
given by Fairclough (2001) with three stages of analysis: Description, Interpretation
and Explanation.
The thesis serves as a descriptive qualitative research; as a result, qualitative
methods, namely referencing to publications, discussing and consulting the
supervisor, document and material analysis are actually the main research
techniques. Also, in a descriptive research, there is no need for the researcher to do
any manipulation because pertinent and precise information concerning the current
status of phenomena are obtained from the condition itself.
Referencing to publications is chosen as the first and foremost techniques because it
provides theoretical background and empirical bases for discussions and
conclusions in the study.
Following this, discussing and consulting the supervisor also plays a contributing
role in the completion and fulfillment of the study. Fruitful and helpful suggestions
and comments of the supervisor make the researcher encouraged and right-oriented.

14

`

In addition, the data in the study belong to the textual type which exists in form of
words collected from a speech transcript. Therefore, document and material analysis
is an indispensable technique.
3. Data of the study
The data of the study is the underlying power and ideologies embedded in two
speeches on women delivered by Hillary Clinton in 1995 and 2013.
On September 5th, 1995, Hillary Clinton, the American First Lady at that time,
delivered a speech called ―Women‟s rights are human rights‖ at the United Nations
4th World Conference held in Beijing, China. Over 180 countries and thousands of
human rights supporters came together in Beijing China to hear the speech. It was a
speech that launched a movement.
Actually, those lengthy powerful remarks almost could not come about unless bitter
oppositions could be overcome. First, Bill Clinton‘s, her husband‘s White House
did not want Hillary Clinton to attend the conference in Beijing due to political and
diplomatic reasons. At that time, the Clinton administration was struggling to
normalize relations with China, which had got severe since 1989 Tiananmen
massacre. They feared that the first lady would ―lecture‖ China‘s hyper-sensitive
government officials in their treatment of women, upsetting the slow effort to
rebuild US-China ties. Moreover, they argued that in the position of the first lady,
she was not supposed to call out and challenge foreign government as a guest on its
soil. That is not diplomatic.
At the same time, the situation got worse following the arrest of American –
Chinese prominent human rights activist, Harry Wu. It is declared that Clinton
would not deliver her speech if the Chinese government did not release Wu prior to
the event. Finally, all worked out and Hillary Clinton still came to Beijing, and gave
the finest and most important speech of her life, marking the striking moment in

international women's rights advocacy.

15