What Would George Bush Have Said?

President Obama's approach to foreign affairs has given the Ivory Tower Pundit much to think about over the past week.

Perhaps I will start off with the following question: What would George Bush have said about the proposed law in Afghanistan which would have required women to submit to having sex with their husbands on their demand, or to require their husbands' permission to leave the house?

Normally one government will refrain from interfering in the internal domestic affairs of another country. This is generally a legitimate approach. It is not up to people who live in one country to preach or lecture to the people of another country. Conventions, cultures and values differ from country to country and democratically elected governments are ordinarily answerable only to those persons who put them into office.

When internal domestic matters, however, give rise to breaches of international law, or raise human rights concerns, other countries do not have to remain indifferent or silent. This is particularly so when the country that is abusing the human rights of its citizens, or is flouting international law, is being supported, either financially or militarily, by other countries.

Kudos therefore to the Stephen Harper government for its firm and uncompromising stand on the proposed Afghanistan law referred to above. Canadians are fighting and dying in Afghanistan in order to defeat the Taliban and to improve the condition of Afghanis. It was therefore entirely appropriate and laudable for Prime Minister Harper, and other Canadian parliamentarians, to publicly condemn the proposed law. The Prime Minister made it clear that "making progress on human rights for women is a significant component of the international engagement in Afghanistan." Canadians from both sides of the political spectrum called on President Karzai "to make sure Afghanistan lives up to its international treaty obligations for human rights, especially human rights for women." Prime Minister Harper showed yet again that when it comes to foreign affairs, he is prepared to stand up for what the Canadian government believes in, even if sometimes Canada has to stand alone.

Now let me turn to the public position of the American government on this issue. As far as I can tell, President Obama's limited position was that although the law was "abhorrent", American troops were in Afghanistan to protect Americans from the terrorists who seek to destroy it. Although improving conditions in Afghanistan might be a "commendable goal", that is not the mission. There was no outrage here.

I cannot help but wonder - what would George Bush have said about the proposed law? Would he also have taken the position that bringing freedom and dignity to all Afghanis was not America's mission, or would he have sounded more like Stephen Harper?

And what about the public flogging of a 17 year old screaming girl in Pakistan? Is this also none of America's business? I may be wrong but I have not heard any outrage expressed over this by President Obama in his recent world tour. He certainly had ample opportunity during his many press conferences and speeches to say something about this. As far as I can determine, the US government did not wish to comment on this horrific incident from an ally country despite requests from the media. The most they could finally muster up was a statement by UN Ambassador Susan Rice that this would "appear" to be an abuse of human rights which the US "would be" very concerned about. I am not sure whether the President said anything about it himself. And what about Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, who ran against Obama as a champion of the rights of women, and in particular the right of a woman, i.e. her, to become President?

I would love to see some of their AIG bonus rage from the U.S. Administration on these issues. And I am sure we would have seen it from George Bush.