Reply #38: No - I think we should come up with a coherent idea about [View All]

[Colorado Blue]

foreign policy, about international affairs and our role in the world. This would cover humanitarian crises LIKE those we're discussing, but also of course matters concerning global economics.

Even Kerry, who IMO is a brilliant and experienced man, did not articulate a world-view - in global matters - terribly different from Bush. I think that was a problem in the election. At best he said he had a BETTER plan than Bush, but not a markedly DIFFERENT plan, one which he was able to articulate plainly and with passion.

In both cases, we were led to the inescapable conclusion that global CORPORATIONS were a prime mover and that domestic workers, for example, would just have to deal with it. And our policy on foreign affairs has been inescapably colored by our need for oil. It is hard to escape this conclusion when you see that we are ignoring Darfur, for example, and the whole global community ignored Yugoslavia until it was way too late to save the homes, lives and livelihoods of hundreds of thousands of people right next door, in Europe itself.

So, what DO we do, as the poster asked, not in marginal situations, but in clearcut humanitarian disaster areas? These need not necessarily, I would suggest, be areas devastated by war or crazy dictators, but those affected by famine, drought and disease. What about cases in which religion or superstition is keeping huge swathes of the population - the women and children - dominated, poor and at risk?

Our position is strong and clear on domestic issues, both on social issues and on the idea of domestic economic justice and fairness. On international matters, however, I think it's confusing if it exists at all.

Sometimes, I think we are very progressive at home but reactionary on foreign policy issues. We seem to believe that leaving terrible conditions in place is preferable to trying to intervene even in extreme cases of humanitarian disaster.

Back at you!