Samantha Power and the United Nations
When the applause subsides and she gets down to work, how will Samantha Power engage any meaningful “reforms” at the United Nations as America's newest and youngest ambassador?
In her first public address as ambassador, Ms. Power, 42, urged her UCLA audience to “demand more of (the U.N.) to make it work better, to build the world that we envision.”
Sorry, but as “world visions” go, the U.N. has its own. And it's strikingly similar to Power's.
Since joining the U.N.'s in-name-only Human Rights Council, the Obama administration has remained nonconfrontational on major rights issues, reports Brett D. Schaefer of The Heritage Foundation. It's doubtful Power will do much to “reform” the Israel-bashing council when, in a 2002 interview, she accused Israeli leaders of “destroying the lives of their own people.”
Never mind congressional demands for more accountability and transparency in U.N. budgets, which go nowhere. And U.N. peacekeeping missions that have no measurable effect but one: The cost of “peacekeeping” keeps rising for U.S. taxpayers.
To this world forum, the Obama administration sends an ambassador who in 2003 called for “a historical reckoning with crimes committed, sponsored or permitted by the United States.”
Given that mindset, Power should fit in quite well at today's United Nations. This, when the U.S. should find that “fit” more intolerable than ever.
Show commenting policy
TribLive commenting policy
You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.
We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.
While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.
We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers.
We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.
We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.
We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.
We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.
- Alle-Kiski Tuesday takes
- Greensburg Tuesday takes
- Pittsburgh Tuesday takes
- The flood of illegals: Misplaced blame
- The Thursday wrap
- The federal budget: Here we go again
- The PUC, Lyft & Uber: The real ‘threat’
- Saturday essay: Ants with tool belts
- Pittsburgh Laurels & Lances
- Alle-Kiski Laurels & Lances
- Greensburg Laurels & Lances