“Preventing mass atrocities and genocide is a core national security interest and a core moral responsibility of the United States of America.” The directive creates an important new tool in this effort, establishing a standing interagency Atrocities Prevention Board with the authority to develop prevention strategies and to ensure that concerns are elevated for senior decision-making so that we are better able to work with our allies and partners to be responsive to early warning signs and prevent potential atrocities. The directive recognizes that preventing mass atrocities is a responsibility that all nations share and that other countries must also be enlisted to respond to particular crises. Therefore, the directive calls for a strategy for engaging key regional allies and partners so that they are prepared to accept greater responsibility for preventing and responding to crimes against humanity.”
When Power was Obama’s campaign foreign policy adviser, in 2008, she held Jews responsible for the criticism of Obama’s foreign policy platform:
“There will be situations where the priority is self-defence,” she says, indicating that a preference for multilateralism only goes so far. “President Obama, like every other leader on earth, is still going to be looking out for national and economic interests. States don’t cease to be states overnight just because they get a great visionary as their new president.” But it is politically impossible for Obama to talk to Hamas, even if he wants to. She can’t say that, though, especially when vicious internet smears are making lurid allegations about his “Muslim past”….”So much of it is about: ‘Is he going to be good for the Jews?’”
Stanley Kurtz, writing for National Review, describes Samantha Power as the main architect of the US’s intervention in Libya and as a patriot’s nightmare — “a woman determined to subordinate America’s national sovereignty to an international order largely controlled by leftist bureaucrats.” Kurtz goes on to write that Power, like Obama, represents a kind of “pragmatic radicalism.”
In an interview in 2002, with Harry Kreisler, director of the Institute for International Studies at Berkeley, she was asked the following:
“Let me give you a thought experiment here, and it is the following: without addressing the Palestine – Israel problem, let’s say you were an advisor to the President of the United States, how would you respond to current events there? Would you advise him to put a structure in place to monitor that situation, at least if one party or another [starts] looking like they might be moving toward genocide?”
And, Power’s response:
- “Alienate” the American Jewish community, and indeed all Americans, such as evangelical Christians, who support the state of Israel, because Israeli leaders are “destroying the lives of their own people.”
- Pour billions of dollars of the taxpayers’ money into “the new state of Palestine”
- Stage an American ground invasion of Israel and the Palestinian territories — what else can she mean by a “mammoth protection force” and a “military presence” that will be “imposed” by “external intervention”? — Interestingly she considers the exact same thing the height of arrogance and foolishness when it was done in Iraq.
Power expressed disappointment in the disinclination of American policymakers to apologize to other countries for our presumed past mistakes. Her willingness to directly engage “even the worst rogue states” is an extensive theme running through her book, Chasing the Flame. Kurtz also conveys that Power advocates the deliberate process of delegating US power to international bodies.
Samantha Power has a track record of blaming Israel, even in the event she is well aware of the falsity of the charges. According to Martin Kramer , in a quote from Ethnic Violence and Justice, Power, as one of Obama’s foreign policy advisers, queries David Rohde who covered the 2nd intifada for the New York Times:
“Samantha Power: I have a question for David about working for the New York Times. I was struck by a headline that accompanied a news story on the publication of the Human Rights Watch report. The headline was, I believe: “Human Rights Report Finds Massacre Did Not Occur in Jenin.” The second paragraph said, “Oh, but lots of war crimes did.” Why wouldn’t they make the war crimes the headline and the non-massacre the second paragraph?”
So, in addition to Obama’s other controversial appointments, now we are presented with one who has been described as pragmatically radical and post-American and whose goals appears to be to destroy US sovereignty by replacing it with the “redistributive regime of international law.”