Posts Tagged ‘foreign policy’

Is it just me, or are things amiss?

Times are interesting to say the least.  Our president is working overtime to extend olive branches to people all across the planet, but wagging a stern finger at those of us in the US who seek to make profits providing a service to others.

I read much about our foreign policy and the strategy of undoing the terrible decisions of the predecessor administration.  To that end, we are “reaching out” to leaders of Iran, North Korea, Russia, Egypt, Libya, Syria, and Lebanon.  We respect them.  We seek to listen to them. We hope for them.  We believe that treating them with respect and dialoguing on the high road will encourage them to act in ways that benefit the citizens of their countries and the world.  We are giving these leaders the benefit of the doubt.  Long before they demonstrate fair dealing, we honor them as if they already have the Noble Peace Prize.

Contrast that theme with the treatment of our own managers, business people and entrepreneurs.  In a variety of sectors including, banking, financial services, mortgage lending, insurance, and autos, our corporate leaders are cast as villains.  In less than one year, they have been summarily fired, suppressed, demoted, penalized, criticized and otherwise scapegoated after years of demonstrating honorable service to their respective organizations or to our systems of commerce.  Where is the benefit of the doubt?  Why not take the high road?

I am at a loss to understand why our own citizens are not worthy of the grace and understanding that we offer leaders of other nations?  It seems to me that the current administration has it backwards.  Invite dialogue with the leaders of US businesses and lecture the world leaders.  Encourage those in our economy who offer jobs and support the pursuit of happiness, and speak harshly to those who threaten our life and liberty.

Who is the enemy?

Mr. Obama won the Nobel Peace Prize.  There has been a lot of talk about if it was deserved, if politics played a part, etc.  I don’t care.  What the whole thing has stirred up in me is the question, Is it more noble to be wanting peace at any cost versus to fight for the mistreated? Am I crossing the line on Libertarianism by suggesting that we should look upon ourselves as those fortunate enough to help others in time of need?  Maybe.  I really don’t care.

From my very limited understanding of the current brewhaha over this announcement, it appears that he is getting the prize for wanting to find peace by finding “shared values”.  I may be a closed-minded warmonger but I find it really hard to believe that I have much in common or share anything of interest with those that believe they are superior to women, that believe that marrying off children to old dirty pervs is a good idea, that blindly follow something which was written over a thousand years ago.  I know I have much more in common with dogs than with those mullahs and their cronies (rub my belly and my leg actually twitches).

I have no idea what the answer is as I am conflicted in my desire to have our country (which stands for personal freedom at its core) help those that are in need of it yet not wanting to impose that belief onto others.  With that said, I’m not conflicted in thinking that it’s a bad idea to continually award prizes to those that want to perpetuate a system that is destructive to personal freedom.

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.