She is in the paper again, blaming the lack of international response to the Burma regime's refusal to allow foreign aid to help with the May cyclone victims on--wait for it!--George Bush.
Seriously, it's our fault according to her:
The invasion of Iraq, with the administration's grandiose rhetoric about pre-emption, was another matter, however. It generated a negative reaction that has weakened support for cross-border interventions even for worthy purposes. Governments, especially in the developing world, are now determined to preserve the principle of sovereignty, even when the human costs of doing so are high.
Thus, Myanmar's leaders have been shielded from the repercussions of their outrageous actions.
You see, until Iraq, the world was growing supportive of humanitarian interventions and national sovereignty was being discarded by despots and democrats alike. Not that the international community supported our 1999 Kosovo intervention, of course.
So why can't the rest of the world intervene in Burma without us? If the rest of the world is repulsed by our liberation of Iraq, they can just join a coalition of the willing and morally clean to fix Burma the right way. We won't veto the UNSC resolution, I promise.
Hell, we should introduce the resolution authorizng Chapter VII intervention in Burma. Our allies with few exceptions aren't exactly burdened by their commitments to Iraq and Afghanistan, so surely they can spare some troops for a feel-good intervention without our troops tainting their moral purity. Let them intevene. Dare them to intervene to show us how to invade a country the right way. We'll cheer them on and wish them well. Put up or shut up, I say.
But no, that won't happen, because America alone has the moral obligation to intervene when proper EUrophied Europeans decide we should unleash our military power.
And from my first link above, absorb this quote--in my update--from a national security expert from the US Institute for Peace explaining how we are alienating allies:
“You can get away with unilateralism for only the briefest of times,” he says. “You can’t have it both ways—pushing for greater globalization but not supporting things like an international criminal court or the United Nations”
That was from September 2000 during Albright's tenure, when our allies were learning to accept our role in the world, according to Albright. Before we squandered our good will, according to Albright.
Seriously, Albright is a fool. But she has lovely hats.
