Post by Daniel on Jul 21, 2015 9:47:47 GMT -5
What Happened to Obama’s Humanitarianism?
by Tom Rogan July 21, 2015
There’s a great incongruity between people and policy when it comes to the Obama administration and foreign policy. Many of President Obama’s senior foreign-policy officials are students of liberal humanitarianism, which is a style of international relations that seeks robust American leadership to combat global suffering. Yet in President Obama’s foreign policy, liberal humanitarianism is now nearly non-existent. Instead, what liberals once proudly celebrated has now become a dirty theory for an administration that is extremely hesitant about using American power to pursue moral objectives.
When one looks at Obama’s foreign-policy team, this is deeply surprising. Take Susan Rice. Before becoming Obama’s U.N. ambassador and national-security adviser, Rice worked in the Clinton administration. After witnessing the consequences of President Clinton’s acquiescence to the Rwandan Genocide, Rice made a solemn pledge: “I swore to myself that if I ever faced such a crisis again, I would come down on the side of dramatic action, going down in flames if that was required.”
Then there’s Obama’s U.N. ambassador, Samantha Power. A longtime proponent of humanitarian interventionism, Power authored a book, A Problem from Hell, that called for greater American resolve in the face of atrocities abroad. Campaigning for then–candidate Obama in 2008, Power asserted that Obama would, if necessary, use military force to prevent foreign atrocities. Rice and Power were far from alone in their liberal-hawk sentiments. Those who joined them on the Obama-campaign bandwagon spoke proudly, indeed unashamedly, of a new era of American humanitarian boldness (think President Marshall’s “be afraid” speech at the beginning of Air Force One).
Obama himself was once a fervent liberal humanitarian. While many analysts claim that the president has always been a cautious realist, his pre-2008 record proves otherwise. He gave speeches expressing his opposition to the 2003 invasion of Iraq (he was not in office, so he did not actually vote against it at the time), but Obama firmly supported the war in Afghanistan, which he called the “good war.” And in 2006, he argued in favor of sending U.S. attack helicopters to Darfur. Indeed, declaring victory on election night in 2008, Obama promised: “A new dawn of American leadership is at hand. To those who would tear this world down — we will defeat you.”
But that was then. As president, Obama has been — and is — a very different man.
Read more at: www.nationalreview.com/article/421417/obama-foreign-policy-end-liberal-humanitarianism
by Tom Rogan July 21, 2015
There’s a great incongruity between people and policy when it comes to the Obama administration and foreign policy. Many of President Obama’s senior foreign-policy officials are students of liberal humanitarianism, which is a style of international relations that seeks robust American leadership to combat global suffering. Yet in President Obama’s foreign policy, liberal humanitarianism is now nearly non-existent. Instead, what liberals once proudly celebrated has now become a dirty theory for an administration that is extremely hesitant about using American power to pursue moral objectives.
When one looks at Obama’s foreign-policy team, this is deeply surprising. Take Susan Rice. Before becoming Obama’s U.N. ambassador and national-security adviser, Rice worked in the Clinton administration. After witnessing the consequences of President Clinton’s acquiescence to the Rwandan Genocide, Rice made a solemn pledge: “I swore to myself that if I ever faced such a crisis again, I would come down on the side of dramatic action, going down in flames if that was required.”
Then there’s Obama’s U.N. ambassador, Samantha Power. A longtime proponent of humanitarian interventionism, Power authored a book, A Problem from Hell, that called for greater American resolve in the face of atrocities abroad. Campaigning for then–candidate Obama in 2008, Power asserted that Obama would, if necessary, use military force to prevent foreign atrocities. Rice and Power were far from alone in their liberal-hawk sentiments. Those who joined them on the Obama-campaign bandwagon spoke proudly, indeed unashamedly, of a new era of American humanitarian boldness (think President Marshall’s “be afraid” speech at the beginning of Air Force One).
Obama himself was once a fervent liberal humanitarian. While many analysts claim that the president has always been a cautious realist, his pre-2008 record proves otherwise. He gave speeches expressing his opposition to the 2003 invasion of Iraq (he was not in office, so he did not actually vote against it at the time), but Obama firmly supported the war in Afghanistan, which he called the “good war.” And in 2006, he argued in favor of sending U.S. attack helicopters to Darfur. Indeed, declaring victory on election night in 2008, Obama promised: “A new dawn of American leadership is at hand. To those who would tear this world down — we will defeat you.”
But that was then. As president, Obama has been — and is — a very different man.
Read more at: www.nationalreview.com/article/421417/obama-foreign-policy-end-liberal-humanitarianism
!!
