First Post.

Ok, so here's my first post. It's actually a re-post from another blog I have, so I suppose it's cheating, but it is timely and (sort of) relevant to this class. Basically, I decided not to vote for a particular presidential candidate because of my experiences studying humanitarian issues last semester. This conclusion was crystallized over break while I was reading Samantha Power's book "A Problem From Hell, America and the Age of Genocide." This is an amazing book that succinctly spells out the history of genocide and America's reactions to these crimes. I highly, highly recommend it. Anywhere, he's my post:

In the past year or so, I've discussed Hillary Clinton's bid for Presidency with many people, especially when I was overseas. And honestly, I never came up with a position either way. Because Pennsylvania votes so late in the primaries, I knew I would never have to truly decide on the issue, so I just decided to wait and see. I was leaning towards Clinton because I had read a lot about her, considered her an intelligent and capable candidate and relished the thought of America's first woman president, but I also liked all the other candidates in the race. But you know what? Tonight I decided that if I had to vote in the primaries, it probably would not be for Hillary Clinton.

This past semester I've spent a lot of time studying genocide. And Samantha Power's book "A Problem From Hell: American and the Age of Genocide" crystallizes Bill Clinton's inactions in the face of genocide in Rwanda and Bosnia. Her book demonstrates how Clinton's cabinet and staff were so focused on preserving their own jobs and power that they let hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of people die. Millions of people. Clinton's lack of leadership allowed these atrocities to continue unabated. He didn't even have to commit troops, just money and weapons and support, and he couldn't muster up the willpower to do that. While people died, bureaucrats in Washington attempted to redefine genocide so they wouldn't be obligated to intervene.

Would Hillary Clinton be any different? In the face of vast human rights abuses, and perhaps even genocide, wold she be willing to ignore potential political fall-out and work to save millions of lives? Based on her actions during this time (convincing Bill that these were age old tribal rivalries that couldn't be solved, encouraging him to focus exclusively on domestic policy and acting as his sounding board for each decision he made) I can't honestly believe that she would. Her actions, or in-actions, make her culpable. And this is not to say that other presidents have not been guilty of the same malaise when it comes to genocide; Roosevelt, Nixon, Carter, Reagan and Bush all turned a blind eye to as well. But this does not excuse these actions.

While optimists might argue that Clinton has learned from her mistakes and that she would be willing to take greater action in the future, I'm not sure this is the case. To be fair, this was almost fifteen years ago when both Clintons were foreign policy neophytes. It is clear that Hillary has learned a lot since then, and her time in the Senate has surely given her large insights into minute foreign policy dilemmas that she never could have gained as first-lady. In fact, her steely demeanor and need to prove herself as a hawk may even make her more inclined to intervene. But I just haven't seen enough to prove that yet.

So despite my initial hesitancy to pick a candidate, I've at least decided which one I would probably not support in the primaries. The general election, of course, is different. And, of course, while all this postulating is lovely, I'll never have to make a decision in the primaries either way, so it really all is a moot point!