Another problem from hell. Self delusion.
by digby
I missed this last week, but it's really worth noting. Here's right wing shill Jennifer Rubin talking about UN Ambassador Samantha Power:
In her few weeks in the job she has managed to give voice to the truism that the United Nations is no substitute for the United States. The president we remember all too well came to office (and his Secretary of State John Kerry tried to get into office) with the fantasy that the United States could defer to international bodies, need not act on its own and could just fade into the crowd, the “international community” as he likes to call the illusion of commonality among various nations which in fact have conflicting values and aims.
Speaking in clear and unequivocal tones, Power joins a list of recent ambassadors (e.g. Daniel Patrick Moynihan, Jeane Kirkpatrick, John Bolton) who did not seek consensus but rather clarity — about what the United States stands for, about its commitments to universal values and about which countries stand with us and which do not. Looked at in this fashion, the United Nations becomes not simply a maddening forum for tyrants to pose as respectable players but an opportunity for the United States to articulate to friends and foes its policies and values.
Wow. When the right is enthusiastically comparing you to John Bolton, it's probably a good idea to step back and reassess.
Powers' speech was bizarre, in my opinion. Apparently our UN ambassador has little use for the international institutions that have been trying for decades to create universal consensus on issues of violence and human rights and believes the whole thing is a waste of time. Good to know.
I read her book "A Problem From Hell" and was as moved by her passion as anyone. But I didn't realize she thought the United States had comic super powers to go along with its super responsibilities. Of course, if one sees the most powerful military on the planet as a Super Hero who can save the world from bad men everywhere then I suppose that makes sense. But it's very hard for me to see how the US warmaking death machine, with a well known propensity to create "collateral damage" (as warmaking death machines inevitably do) is the answer to humanitarian crises. It's a very crude instrument best reserved as a last resort in self-defense. One nation, even a powerful one like the US, cannot bear this burden alone and the rest of the world is naturally suspicious of its power if it's used unilaterally.
This problem from hell requires more than passion and a desire for the US to act as a movie hero that jumps in and saves the day. I realize that the UN and other international institutions are imperfect to this task as well, but they are the foundation of a global mechanism of the future that may be competent to set norms against violence and have the credibility to back it up. Slandering and belittling them as Powers (and others like Bolton and Kirkpatrick did) only weakens the globe's prospects for changing the way that humans deal with these tragedies. It's very short-sighted. And we have enough of that among political players, we really don't need any more of it.
This whole argument among the humanitarian hawks raises the question: at what point do those who believe that violence is the only way to stop violence against innocents become what they despise? I think it's a very easy line to cross without even knowing it because I suspect that nearly everyone involved in these disputes self-righteously believes they are either acting out of self-defense or in defense of others. Even "the evil ones" believe they are doing what they do for a higher purpose. Everyone who promotes violence as the answer to problem are very sure that they are doing it for all the right reasons. But the reasons on all sides always sound exactly the same.
.