Jane Smiley's defense of the necessary primacy of human rights in American foreign policy is timely and indisputable. But she takes her argument too far when, in answering Tim Grieve's criticism of Bill Richardson (for saying that human rights are more important than national security), she calls national security meaningless and a mere form of "tribalism." Nuclear deterrence, which she says is obsolete, is in fact still quite active, inasmuch as Russian nuclear forces are most certainly aimed at American targets -- a fact we should not forget as Vladimir Putin more flagrantly violates his own people's human rights with every passing month and now regularly castigates the United States and its political system.
But the most germane point is that human rights and national security are not in a zero-sum relationship: The United States can and should defend and try to advance human rights by all nonviolent, noncoercive means at home and abroad. That will augment the tangible security of Americans. Yet the increased belligerence of the Russian government, the rising military power of China, and the capability of non-state terrorist groups to inflict mass casualties are real or potential threats to the security of Americans, and that reality is not mere "tribalism." There will continue to be the need for traditional military means of self-defense, even by a U.S. administration whose priorities are substantially transformed in the direction that Jane Smiley, and this writer, prefer.
posted 11/25/2007 at 17:18:15
But the most germane point is that human rights and national security are not in a zero-sum relationship: The United States can and should defend and try to advance human rights by all nonviolent, noncoercive means at home and abroad. That will augment the tangible security of Americans. Yet the increased belligerence of the Russian government, the rising military power of China, and the capability of non-state terrorist groups to inflict mass casualties are real or potential threats to the security of Americans, and that reality is not mere "tribalism." There will continue to be the need for traditional military means of self-defense, even by a U.S. administration whose priorities are substantially transformed in the direction that Jane Smiley, and this writer, prefer.
posted 11/25/2007 at 17:18:15
No comments:
Post a Comment