http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/19/world/africa/19policy.html
Several commentators on today's Sunday talk shows, based on the NYT piece, have noted that the shift in policy in favor of a military solution was the work of a group of women policy makers, including Hillary Clinton, Samantha Power and UN Ambassador Susan Rice. One said, "the girls prevaled" against the boys, namely Robert Gates and Admiral McMullen and Tom Donilon. This had already occurred to me, and I think it is important to think why this happened. Some associated this with the Clinton administration's failure to respond adequately on Rwanda and the roles of these women at that time. I believe this is valid, but it goes beyond Rwanda. The Obama adminstration, as I have noted in previous blogs, has embraced fully the doctrine of universal human rights--without properly citing the UN's Universal Declaration of Human Rights--including again today during the President's speech in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil. I believe that this deep seated adherence to universal human rights and the importance given specifically to the new doctrine of Responsibility to Protect (P2P) drove the Obama decision. I would further venture the opinion that for whatever reason that one may chose to identify, women in general have been more dedicated to human rights than men, and the rise of women to positions of the highest power in government has influenced our foreign policy.
.bmp)
Dan, I read your comments with both interest and pride. I was interested in seeing the deep insights into the problems we face and your ability to call the cards by their faces. I was proud to see that your comments were accurate and to the point, and diplomatic.
ReplyDeletePerhaps we would do the country a favor if we were to elect you to the U S Senate! It is men like you, with a clear head and a deep knowledge of the world that will lead us out of the pettiness and uninformed decisions that are plaguing our country.
Yes, Elenore has has a War in Lybia, but that is not her first war, nor will it be the last. USA has become the conscience of the world, reluctantly, while the isolationists give lip support, kicking and screaming all the way. Perhaps we should come up with a paraphrase of Carl Sandburg's Chicago poems to help them understand who we have become without asking for the role. It is a role that responsible people cannot shirk or abandon, for to do so would abrogate all that our country stands for.
I wrote a poem, Something there is that does not Love a Wall, and invited in it our congress to rethink their priorities. Instead of investing billions to build a wall between us and our neighbors, spend that same amount of money helping our neighbors revitalize their economy; and then they would stay home and take care of their families. The small minds of so many of us who live in luxury cannot understand that if you get up every day and watch your children starving, you must do something, even if it is to run the risk of the Border. They need money to survive, and there is no work to be had in the home town. Why cannot our tea drinkers understand what pain it is to watch one's child starve to death?
The role of our diplomatic corps has changed in the past 200 years. No doubt about it. And it is a change that embodies the best ideas of every faith on earth. And the corps includes people of every religious persuasion and every ethnic background. Yet we have isolationists in this country whose ignorance of mankind leaves them with such narrow thoughts as to ask that only white caucasons be allowed to serve.
WE have a way to go yet.....