I read the weekend Wall Street Journal interview of Mrs. Clinton with great interest.  I have written before that I was confused by the current administration’s direction with foreign policy, especially with regards to Latin America, and I was hoping that this article would help me understand their rationale.  Unfortunately, it didn’t speak to Latin America at all (shame on you, WSJ, for not hitting this after all the good articles you have written on this topic).  And, unfortunately (again), she was quoted in ways that make me very nervous.

Before I mention why these quotes made me cringe, I will let you read them below.

“First I think it is important to stress that human rights remain a central driving force of our foreign policy,” she says. “But I also think that it’s important to look at human rights more broadly than it has been defined. Human rights are also the right to a good job and shelter over your head and a chance to send your kids to school and get health care when your wife is pregnant. It’s a much broader agenda. Too often it has gotten narrowed to our detriment.”

and

“I always start from the conviction that countries act from their own self-interest as they define them. Part of diplomacy is to open different definitions of self-interest,” she says.

Ok, now that you read them, let’s take the first one.  Does anyone else find her statements to be contradictory?  If human rights are central to their mission, how can they place some of them (and I will argue that the dominant right is freedom of thought and action) below others?  To state that our administration places good jobs, shelter, education, and healthcare above freedom is very tough for me to swallow.  How is it different than if the North decided to settle with the South when it came to slavery by stating that the South was going to focus more efforts on providing their slaves with a nice shelter (basement or horse stall), a good job (picking produce), schooling (how best to pick the most produce in the 16 hour workday), and healthcare for your pregnant wife (so that the slave owner will have another work-hand in a few years time)?

Implicit in her statement is a failing of respect for the fundamental right to be free.  Something I have mentioned many, many times is the sickness of the current administration to focus on ends rather than means.  She will succeed at getting an agreement from Syria, Iran, North Korea, China, or Russia that states that they will lower their carbon emissions, add more aid to build schools, or whatever so that she can then claim victory in advancing human rights.  But she will be fooling herself and others.  She has accomplished nothing other than legitimizing dictators since they can at any time withdrawal the “gifts” they have given to their subjects.

Moving on to the second quote, she shows her hand by suggesting that countries act from their own self-interests.  It’s not countries, its the current despots, dictators, monarchs that act from their own self-interests.  As long as our government recognizes them and diverts the discussion away from advancing individual freedoms, these rulers strengthen their position in their country and increase their control over their people.

This interview just added to the concern that I have that our current administration either doesn’t understand the fundamental right to be free or, worse, doesn’t agree with it.