Will Power Have Power?

Alex Rogers wonders how Samantha Power’s “skepticism of the UN’s effectiveness” will affect her as ambassador:

Despite picking Power, [Obama] may be no more likely to intervene in future cases of genocide, or in current war-torn areas like Syria [than past presidents]. And even if Power got her way, history suggests that a major U.S. humanitarian effort would not start with the UN, as Power has accepted a role in which she believes she has little power. As Laura Secor wrote in the New York Times after the release of “A Problem from Hell,“ “Power appears to have given up on international institutions. She does not argue for empowering them, for liberating them from the narrow interests of the powerful or for altering their terms of engagement in genocidal conflicts. Instead, she presses for the United States to act like something other than the self-interested superpower it is.”

Marc Tracy, pondering why so many UN ambassadors are “people whom even the French would consider intellectuals”, casts Power as the US’ global spokeswoman-in-chief:

The U.N. ambassador has served as an eloquent mouthpiece for American values at the clearest symbol of “the world community” that exists. … Particularly at the U.N.’s lowest moments, where the place seems little more than a collection of schoolchildren squabbling and wasting time, the ambassador’s job is less to get things done and more to forcefully advocate for what the adminstration believes America should stand for. Given how justifiably harsh [Power’s book] “A Problem From Hell” was toward U.S. administrations that looked on as genocides took place, [she] seems like a great choice: she is fierce, she is articulate, and she is decidedly un-diplomatic—and that’s exactly what the job calls for.

I found her acceptance speech rather moving, as a fellow immigrant from Irish stock. Check it out.