Obama’s Wafting Promises

Where does Obama stand with regard to human rights? According to many he has pushed the issue to the back burner. According to some, primarily partisan members, he is laying the ground work to proceed with the more delicate mission of human rights in some undefined, near distant future. A U.S. official close to the administration spoke on the condition of anonymity.

“The main point we underscore to our friends in the human rights community is that the positions the president is taking are done so in part because they are the best way to advance human rights. The notion that there is some kind of trade-off between acting in a coldly interest-based way versus working in an idealistic way is a choice that the president rejects.”

He also went on to say, in regards to President Obama shunning of the Dalai Lama during his annual visit to Washington, “a positive and constructive relationship with China will advance the goal of promoting human rights and cultural identity for the Tibetan people.”

Then, turning his attention to Sudan he followed up with, “efforts to advance a comprehensive peace in the region will ultimately be the long-term guarantor of human rights for the people of Darfur and all the Sudanese people.”

President Obama’s commitment to human rights appears to be in conflict with the administration’s true agenda. Obsequious kowtowing isn’t getting us any further on the human rights issue.

During his campaign, whereby he pledged to restore American values and talk with governments that had been shunned by his predecessor, he also made promises to human rights groups across the globe. Now those words seem to be in direct contrast to each other. His decision to postpone a meeting with the spiritual leader of the Tibetan Buddhists until after he meets with Chinese officials in November is a prime example of that.

Executive director of Freedom House, Jennifer Windsor, said, “there has not been sufficient attention paid within this administration on how to counter the major challenges to human rights that we face today. We see authoritarian regimes like China, Iran and Egypt and others getting granted opportunities for dialogue and engagement, but it’s not clear from the outside how human rights concerns will be addressed in that engagement.”

Tom Malinowski, the Washington advocacy director for Human Rights Watch, also expressed his concerns. “The president’s larger emphasis on engagement, that you should be talking to even those regimes that you hate the most, tends to empower those in the diplomatic corps whose core approach is making nice and handing out gold stars.

Still others worry about the administration’s neglect of human rights amongst other nations, like Iran, North Korea and Cuba. They feel Obama is focusing too much on the nuclear issue in Iran and not enough on the atrocities committed during and after the June 12^th presidential elections. One particular issue of concern was the abrogation of funds for the Iran Human Rights Documentation Center in Connecticut. A group that documented Iranian government abuses.

Renee Redman, the executive director of the center, said, “We are very disappointed, especially as we watched the events and human rights violations after the June 12^th elections. I would have thought this would be a time when the government would want to fund organizations that are documenting human rights violations.”

Over the last eight months human rights activists applauded the president’s promulgation and disallowance of draconian interrogation techniques, such as waterboarding. But again, the administration backdoored them by reserving the option to send suspected terrorists to other countries where such tactics are not out of the norm. The administration also admitted they wouldn’t make the yearend deadline of closing Guantanamo either.

But wait! According to the Democratic Representative from Massachusetts, Jim McGovern, that’s okay. It’s not Obama’s fault. “If the White House misses its target for closing Guantanamo, many in Congress, including both Democrats and Republicans, are to blame.”

Are we getting tired of the excuses yet?

The director of the American Civil Liberties Union, Anthony Romero, has been quoted as saying, “from a civil liberties perspective, President Obama’s report card shows and incomplete.”

McGovern followed up that comment with his own. “It’s early yet to give anyone a grade.”

Unfortunately, for the partisan representative one of his underlings didn’t quite agree with his view. Representative Frank Wolf of Virginia, McGovern’s co-chairman, said he would give Mr. Obama “an F, failing” on human rights issues.

“I thought Bush was much better,” he said in an interview. “Bush appointed John Danforth as envoy to Sudan. He met with the Dalai Lama. I would send dissidents to the White House and Bush would meet with them.” He followed that up with concerns about advice the president was getting on human rights issues. “Someone has his ear and it’s taking him the wrong way.”

Could that be the same “someone” that “just loves” Van Jones? The someone that takes long, cozy vacations with the Obama family? Why yes, it could.

One of the senior directors at the National Security Council for Human Rights and International Organizations is the one and only “closest advisor” to our beloved president. That’s right, the renowned, or should I say infamous, Samantha Jones. What a coincidental turn of events.

To be fair, let’s turn back to some of Obama’s supporters, like Kenneth Pollack, director of the Saban Center for Middle East Policy at the Brookings Institute and Steve Clemons, director of foreign policy programs at the New America Foundation.

“This is the Democratic version of realism, but by the same token, the president has rhetorically championed American values and we don’t know what the policies will look like at the end of the day because they are still working them out,” Mr. Pollack said publicly.

Mr. Clemons called Obama’s human rights policies vs. his foreign policy making “progressive pragmatism.” He went on to say, “the fact is, just like Richard Nixon, Obama has come into office with an extraordinarily bad national security and economic portfolio to restore America’s leverage in the world and its power. He has to reinvent an engagement strategy with global stakeholders that can create a strategic leap out of the instrumentalism and inertia driving things today. This is frustrating for human rights groups because pragmatic deal-making that ultimately could restore America’s ability to achieve great progressive goals is looked at by many of them as an immoral compromise.”

Hmmm, like Richard Nixon? Was that suppose to be a compliment? Like I said, is anyone tired of the excuses yet? Didn’t Bush inherit problems as well? Don’t all presidents have to clean up their predecessor’s messes?

You know what I took away from all of this? Other than Obama’s continual broken promises. It appears to be the same ol’ hackneyed game of politics, played by one of the most prominent players of the game –Democrats. No matter what they do, it’s never their fault.