Author’s Note: In Part I of this commentary, I examine the context, thrust and orientation of USAID Administrator Samantha Power’s “Foreign Policy Address” of June 7, 2022 and her possible reason for delivering the speech. In Part II et seq, I focus on various substantive issues raised in her speech.
A “major foreign policy” address that barely anyone heard
On June 7, 2022, Samantha Power gave a speech billed as “ADMINISTRATOR POWER’S FOREIGN POLICY ADDRESS: A Global Revolution in Dignity”.
On its face, the speech is triumphalist announcing a grand strategy for the victory of American-style liberal democracy over diabolical “authoritarianism” (code for assorted dictatorships) stalking the world, ultimately liberating the poor, huddled wretched masses of the earth yearning to breathe free.
Power’s speech attracted very little attention despite heavy promotion on USAID webpages and titillating tweets by Power herself: “STARTING SOON: My speech will address rising authoritarianism and democratic decline—and how the free world can reverse these trends at a pivotal moment in history.”
The much vaunted and advertised “foreign policy speech” did not even attract 1500 live viewers (1477 to be sure).
As of this writing, only 5,511 people had viewed it on Freedom House’s YouTube channel.
On the official USAID YouTube channel, only 812 people have viewed it.
Overall, Power’s speech was, in the lyrics of the Godfather of Soul, “Like a dull knife/ Just ain’t cutting/ Just talking loud/Then saying nothing.”
Power’s 5,226-word speech took about 44 minutes to deliver.
The speech was a concoction of platitudes about “authoritarianism” and demonization of “evil” regimes peppered with truisms and cliches about democracy and human rights.
The speech was also a homily to past presidents and a secretary of state sanctified for their leading roles in building the global infrastructure of democracy.
The speech was presented within a Manichean framework of tedious and condescending hokum about the resurrection of liberal democracy and the demise of authoritarianism
Several themes run through Power’s speech: 1) Why America must save the world from its savage self. 2) Why the Axis of Evil (Russia, China, etc.) will inevitably self-destruct. 3) How American liberal democracy will save the world and triumph by undertaking a global “Dignity Revolution.” 4) How to advance the cause of global democracy by digital and technological means. 5) How “democracy is poised for a comeback.”
When was the last time a USAID Administrator delivered a “foreign policy address”?
Quick answer: NEVER!
The United States Agency for International Development (USAID) is an “independent” agency of the U.S. federal government primarily responsible for administering civilian foreign aid and development assistance as set forth in the Foreign Assistance Act on September 4, 1961.
President John Kennedy created the USAID by Executive Order 10973 to administer non-military economic assistance.
For fiscal year 2021, USAID had a $41B budget.
By law, the USAID Administrator “formulates and executes U.S. foreign economic and development assistance policies and programs, subject to the foreign policy guidance of the President, the Secretary of State, and the National Security Council” and “serves as a principal advisor to the President and the Secretary of State regarding international development and humanitarian assistance.” (Italics added.)
Since 1961, there have been 19 USAID administrators.
None of the past 18 USAID administrators have ever delivered a speech in the nature of “Administrator’s Foreign Policy Address”.
Manifestly, what Power did in her “address” was not “formulating and executing U.S. foreign economic and development assistance policies and programs.”
What Power did in her “foreign policy address” – consisting of a declaration of ideological war against “authoritarianism,” crusading for victory of the Forces of Good over the Forces of the Axis of Evil, etc., — is the kind of speech the US Secretary of State and President of the United States would deliver in setting the tone and tenor of US global foreign policy.
A “major foreign policy address” by a lowly administrator of an “independent federal agency” is unheard of.
But there is no question Power’s speech was vetted and cleared by the White House and the State Department.
It is mindbogglingly refreshing that Power, on the lunatic fringe of the democratic left, should build her entire speech around Reagan’s theory and practice of democracy.
Power said, “Almost exactly 40 years ago in his Westminster Address, Ronald Reagan advocated for assistance to foster the infrastructure of democracy—a free press, civil society, political parties, and universities—this was a call that led to democracy assistance as we know it.” (Italics added.)
It is precisely the Reaganesque democracy that Power’s was pushing in her “foreign policy address.”
Power also resonated the apocalyptic rhetoric of George Bush II in her “address.”
In his 2001 address to the joint session of Congress, Bush categorically declared the choice is between the US and terrorists: “Every nation in every region now has a decision to make: Either you are with us or you are with the terrorists.”
Power offers an equally eschatological choice, “The evidence that proves autocracies are weaker and less capable than democracies is playing out right before our eyes: Vladimir Putin’s brutal war on Ukraine has shown us exactly where despotic power leads and insecurity of dictators and Ukrainian people’s embrace of democracy and desire for deeper integration with their peaceful, European neighbors.”
Power’s message is equally binary: Either you are with U.S., the champions and defenders of the democratic faith or you are with the corrupt, repressive Axis of Evil of Russia, China, North Korea & Co.
Is Power a DINO (democrat in name only)?
But I wonder…
Why is it necessary for Power to deliver “ADMINISTRATOR POWER’S FOREIGN POLICY ADDRESS” at this particular time?
Is Power being groomed to take over Blinken’s job?
Here we go again with cynical, skeptical and “Doubtin’ Al” old me.
Why is it necessary at this time for Power to make a “major foreign policy address” of such global scale and gravity?
Power is not Secretary of State, is she?
Could it be that Samantha Power is angling and jockeyin’ for Tony Blinken’s job!
Was the “major foreign policy address” staged to give Power “street creds,” so to speak as she prepares to replace Blinken?
Was Power pinch hitting for Blinken who may be on his way out?
Is Biden signaling something by letting Power deliver a “major address on the future of democracy and development around the world” as Freedom House put it?
As I noted above, no USAID “administrator” since 1961 when the agency was established by President Kennedy has given a “foreign policy address.”
I have researched it. It has never happened!
My hunch/gut feeling is that the “speech” was staged in a sneaky way to give Power the aura of foreign policy gravitas, depth and expertise in advance of her nomination to replace Blinken as Secretary of State.
I believe Secretary of State Antony Blinken is goner!
Truth be told, Blinken has been a total failure as Secretary of State.
In his first meeting with the Chinese, he let America be humiliated.
The last moments of US troop withdrawal from Afghanistan under Blinken’s watch are seared in the consciences and memories of Americans. It was a scene of total humiliation as Afghanis fell off a US Airforce C-17 cargo plane like bird carcasses.
Just last week, Mexican president Andres Obrador refused to attend the Summit of Americas after Biden refused to invite Cuba, Venezuela and Nicaragua. Bolivia and other Central American countries followed suit. Another humiliation for America under Blinken’s watch.
The Biden/Blinken US foreign policy has been a total disaster.
They talk “inclusiveness” in global politics but practice exclusion, sanctions and petty vindictiveness.
It is mindboggling that Blinken could not even organize “Summit of the Americas,” last hosted by the US in 1994, because he is incompetent and incapable of healing hemispheric divisions, minimizing acrimony and finger pointing in the region resulting in a high degree of polarization and diminishing American influence.
TIME magazine mournfully declared, “The Summit of the Americas was meant to counter China’s Influence. Instead, it showed how weak the U.S. is.”
In December 2021, Biden/Blinken practiced the same exclusionary foreign policy by inviting only 17 of the 54 African countries to attend the Summit for Democracy which presumably sought “to renew democracy at home and confront autocracies abroad.”
In March 2022, 35 members out of 193 countries abstained on the UN General Assembly Resolution deploring Russia’s “aggression against Ukraine.”
Among African countries, 17 abstained and 6 recorded no votes, for total of 23/54 countries (or 43% of all African countries) who refused to line up with the U.S.
Because of the Biden administration’s duplicity and support for the terrorist TPLF, even Ethiopia, America’s long-enduring friend with diplomatic relations dating back nearly 125 years recorded no vote on the Russia resolution.
Blinken lost two-thirds of African countries on an issue of supreme importance for the US.
Another humiliation for America!
Last week, Iran defiantly switched off surveillance cameras around its nuclear plant as resumption of negotiations hit a dead end.
All Blinken had to say was, “it will further complicate” efforts to salvage the 2015 Iran nuclear deal and lead to “a deepening nuclear crisis.”
Under the Biden administration and Blinken’s direct watch, America has become the king with no clothes, the laughing stock of nations.
There is the Midas touch which turns everything into gold and the Blinken touch which turns everything into ****.
Senator John McCain was right. Tony Blinken is dangerous for America.
As I read the tea leaves, I can see Blinken heading out to pasture.
Blinken is simply incompetent. He is a flyweight on foreign policy.
He does not have what it takes to defend US interests diplomatically.
Threatening and imposing sanctions, bullying and vilification of leaders/nations the US disapproves does not win friends, only hardens their resolve and defiance.
Regrettably, Blinken, his mind permeated by White Man’s Burden and carrying the mantle of US foreign policy, will never understand that dignity is the core element of the humanity of the poor people of the planet.
When you rob them of their dignity with your hubristic sanctions, your condescending statements and imperious commands, they will fight you to the end because those who have nothing to lose, except their dignity.
When you take away their humanity which is their dignity, you give them invincibility.
In my August 29, 2021 commentary, I argued “The Legal Case for the Impeachment and Conviction of Antony Blinken” and offered a third article of impeachment.
No need for impeachment now.
Fi Fi Fo Fum!
I smell the smell of Samantha Power gunning for Blinken’s job.
On her Twitter page, Power projects an image of herself as America’s Joan of Arc saving an evil world from the Four Horsemen of the of the Apocalypse — Conquest, War, Famine and Death.
She tweets relentlessly and obsessively about the Red Horseman (war) of the Apocalypse riding Ukraine.
She tweets relentlessly about the Black Horseman (famine) of the Apocalypse riding in Ethiopia.
And lo and behold!
Princess Samantha in shining armor, lance under her armpits riding to slay the Four Horsemen stalking he world.
Power has assumed almost supernatural powers in her evangelical zeal to save the world from itself.
Blinken, on the other hand, seems relegated to perform increasingly ceremonial functions.
Suffice it to say, I have a sneaking suspicion that Biden is going to cut Blinken loose after the midterm elections.
But Samantha Power will be quadruply (infinitely) dangerous for America if she ever became Secretary of State.
Behold the next Secretary of State in waiting?!
“Administrator Power’s Foreign Policy Address”
On June 7, 2022, Samantha Power, USAID Administrator delivered a speech pompously billed as “Administrator Power’s Foreign Policy Address”.
Before offering my analysis of substantive elements of Power’s speech, I must register a note of protest on Power’s and Freedom House’s lack of full disclosure and transparency and actual/appearance of conflict of interest in staging the event.
Power’s speech was jointly organized and promoted by Freedom House and USAID.
In her 253-word congratulatory appreciation of Freedom House, Power said,
Since its founding in 1941, Freedom House has been the democratic world’s lighthouse”, doing “peerless research” and “advocacy that has provided a beacon for those who seek to draw more people to the shores of liberty…
On its website, Freedom House bragged it “hosted USAID Administrator Samantha Power for a major address on the future of democracy and development around the world.”
Freedom House also claims it is “the oldest American organization devoted to the support and defense of democracy around the world,” manifestly implying it is one of those international human rights organizations.
The fact of the matter is that Freedom House is a wholly owned subsidiary of USAID and only nominally an “independent” nongovernmental organization.
Freedom House claims it “advocates for U.S. leadership and collaboration with like-minded governments to vigorously oppose dictators and oppression, and strengthen democracy around the world.”
Some would argue Freedom House is a propaganda arm of the U.S. government.
In fiscal year 2021, the U.S. Government funded Freedom House to the tune of $59,656,663 or 92%of its total funding!
Power’s speech and Freedom House President Mike Abramowitz’s introduction of her depicted Freedom House as some sort of a truly independent human rights organization.
Freedom House is simply a “think tank” funded by the US government.
Freedom House has a checkered past.
Freedom House publicizes its support of the Marshall Plan and the establishment of NATO.
Freedom House does not publicize it supported the Johnson Administration’s disastrous Vietnam War policies.
Freedom House vigorously opposed the Soviet war in Afghanistan but remained silent on the U.S. war in Afghanistan.
There is the general misconception that Freedom House is some sort of international human rights organization unaffiliated with any government, a fact that is generally glossed over by US government and Freedom House officials. That misconception must be corrected.
In his introductory remarks for Power, Freedom House President Mike Abramowitz bloviated about “backsliding democracy” and “advancing authoritarianism.”
As Power and Abramowitz rail and against corruption and lack of transparency in disfavored world regimes, they should also practice what they preach.
Power and Freedom House should have made the fact of their special financial and policy relationship crystal clear.
I believe glossing over the incestuous relationship between USAID and Freedom House is dishonest and ill-serves the global crusade for democracy, transparency and accountability.
Decoding/Deconstructing “Administrator Power’s Foreign Policy Address”
Triumphalism of an “imperiled democracy”
Power began her speech with an elegiac note on “our own, imperiled democracy.”
Power said for democracy to prevail in the world, “America’s own democracy, must of course, prevail. We have to be able to pass common sense laws that can save lives… forge consensus to deal with existential threats… respect the outcomes of free and fair elections and… peaceful transfer of power.”
Translation: Donald Trump ****** up (“imperiled”) American democracy by raising questions about “fake elections” and exposing to the world the liberal elite game of electoral democracy. Salvaging American democracy hinges on passing “sensible” gun laws as mass shootings have become so commonplace.
Powell’s elegy, however, quickly turned into hollow triumphalism.
Power declared victory in the global cause of democracy because “American democracy has prevailed” as a result of the “country’s democratic legitimacy and strength—the endurance of our institutions, each passing generation’s sacrifice to make ours a more perfect union, the sanctity of our elections.”
Her speech would have had tremendous power if Power had made an object lesson of America’s flawed democracy and the fact that it is a work in progress and a labor of love.
Indeed, American democracy was stillborn in the womb of slavery and tethered to the yoke of disenfranchisement of women.
Until ratification of the Nineteenth Amendment to the US Constitution in 1920, American women were not citizens as the quintessential quality of citizenship is the right to vote.
At least African Americans (arguably including African American women) had the right to vote guaranteed to them in theory in the Fifteenth Amendment (“right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude).
Until passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Voting Rights Act of 1965, African Americans were systematically and unconstitutionally denied equal economic opportunities and prevented from voting by poll taxes, literacy tests, white primaries and intimidation by terrorist groups such as the Ku Klux Klan.
In 2021 alone, 19 American states have enacted 33 laws that will make it harder for Americans to vote, with draconian criminal liabilities.
Congress has been investigating over the past year and currently having so-called January 6 pubic hearings to show the world how a ragtag army of homegrown terrorists tried to take over the constitutional government of the United States.
Power conveniently overlooks the whole January 6, 2021 incident as she condemns other countries for stealing elections by rigging constitutions, staging coups and by using digital means of confusion and electoral suppression.
Was Donald Trump’s efforts to stay in power any different than similar efforts by tin pot dictators in Africa and elsewhere?
When preaching democracy to the world credibly, it is vitally important to acknowledge America’s own harrowing journey on the road to democracy and the real challenges it currently faces in its democratic practices and institutions.
The fact that Power completely ignores the historical and contemporary context of American democracy demonstrates her shallowness and make her appear she is trying to hoodwink the world.
Her lack of recognition of the dire contemporary realities of American democracy shows she is either willfully ignorant or has an ignorant speech writer. Her lack of elementary rhetorical education is also self-evident.
Power pays homage to American democracy by effectively canonizing the late and former US Secretary of State Madeleine Albright with an adoration fit for magi.
Power extols Albright as the Defender of the True Faith of American Democracy and adopts as her battle cry Albright’s pithy aphorism, “Democracy is not a dying cause; in fact, it is poised for a comeback.”
Power praises Albright as a global democratic stalwart who fought against the “worst of communism and fascism and dedicated her entire life to helping promote human rights and accountable governance around the world.”
In fact, the very last line of Power’s speech closes with Albright’s aphorism.
But Power’s Albright, that paragon of global democracy, the fighter against fascism and communism and defender of human rights — was she really what she appeared to be or a heartless warmonger. Watch the short video below.
In a 1996 60 Minutes interview as America’s U.N. ambassador, Albright showed the kind of human rights defender and supporter of democracy she is.
60 Minutes’ correspondent Lesley Stahl asked Albright about the effect that U.N. sanctions were having on Iraqi society: “We have heard that a half-million children have died. I mean, that’s more children than died in Hiroshima. And, you know, is the price worth it?”
Albright with depraved indifference responded, “I think this is a very hard choice, but the price — we think the price is worth it.”
Power should heed Abe Lincoln’s maxim: “You can fool all the people some of the time and some of the people all the time, but you cannot fool all the people all the time.”
Beating on the “Axis of Evil” of “authoritarianism” with the cudgel of human rights
Power’s speech was also intended to be a damnation of “authoritarianism” (namely Russia, China, North Korea, Iran, Venezuela and others best identified by their presence on the US blacklist of sanctions).
Power triumphantly proclaimed,
The evidence we’re searching for, that proves autocracies are weaker and less capable than democracies, is playing out right before our eyes: Vladimir Putin’s brutal war on Ukraine has shown us exactly where despotic power leads.
Quoting President John F. Kennedy, Power pontificated,
The Free World cannot shame Russia and China into freedom—but it can inspire democracy to enrich its own freedoms. Freedom’s banner will be vindicated or lost not by the test of military strength alone—but by the purity and passion of our commitment to democracy, by our dedication to advancing the hopes of new nations, and by our determination to prove that freedom can lift the haggard burden of poverty from desolate lands.
Kennedy had some good ideas although I very much doubt his executive order creating USAID was one of them.
When Kennedy delivered his 1961 Annual Message to the Congress on the State of the Union, much of Africa was under the yoke of colonialism.
The hopes of all mankind rest upon us–not simply upon those of us in this chamber, but upon the peasant in Laos, the fisherman in Nigeria, the exile from Cuba, the spirit that moves every man and Nation who shares our hopes for freedom and the future.
But Kennedy did not walk the talk of “hopes of all mankind.”
In 1961, Kennedy authorized the Bay of Pigs Invasion using Cuban exiles in an unsuccessful and inept attempt to oust Fidel Castro.
Was US military intervention the “hope of all mankind”?
Two decades later, from 1981 to 1991, in Kennedy’s footsteps, Ron Reagan, provided weapons, training, and extensive financial and logistical support to the Contra rebels in Nicaragua, who used terror tactics in their fight against the Nicaraguan government.
It was called the Reagan Doctrine.
Reagan said it was America’s obligation to support “freedom fighters,” just like Kennedy’s Cuban exile army.
It is the same Reagan that Power extols as the man who made the first “call that led to democracy assistance as we know it.”
In 1984, Nicaragua won its case against the US for its support of a terrorist insurgency at the International Court of Justice.
Though the U.S. refused to participate in the merits phase of the proceedings, the ICJ determined the U.S. had violated international law by supporting the Contras in their terrorist actions against the government of Nicaragua and by mining that country’s harbors.
Nicaragua was awarded reparations.
However, the U.S. blocked enforcement of the judgment by the United Nations Security Council using its veto power and prevented Nicaragua from obtaining compensation.
There are countless other documented instances of U.S. intervention to instigate coups and chaos throughout the world.
So much for Power’s glorification of the prowess of American democracy and upholding the rule of law.
Of course, it is no different with the Biden administration’s support for the terrorist TPLF in Ethiopia today!
Putin’s “authoritarianism” and Russia’s military action in Ukraine is a sensitive issue for African states as many of them have abstained or walked away from voting on the UN General Assembly resolution condemning Russia, a matter of supreme importance to the Biden administration.
Unlike Power’s simplistic analysis, Russian intervention in Ukraine is not a question of good versus evil for Africans.
For Africans, they “don’t have a dog in that fight.”
The old African saying holds true for them, “When two elephants fight, it is the grass that suffers.”
The US/West elephants are fighting the Russian elephant (bear) to establish the principle, “Might makes right.”
For Africans, it is not about Putin’s actions against the “the Ukrainian’s people’s embrace of democracy,” “rejection of corrupt oligarchs” or condonation of Putin’s “rain of steel and death” on Ukraine.
If Power’s litmus tests are democracy and corruption, there is not much difference between Ukraine and Russia.
In 2021, Ukraine with a population of 44 million ranked 122/180 countries on the Transparency (Corruption) Index. It is reported that 23% of public service users in Ukraine paid a bribe in the previous 12 months.
In 2021, Russia with a population 144 million ranked 136/180 countries on the Transparency (Corruption) Index. It is reported that 27% of public service users in Russia paid a bribe in the previous 12 months.
Both Tweddle Dee and Tweddle Dum are bastions of corruption and oligarchs. Period!
But Power’s childish characterization and demonization of Russia borders on the absurd and laughable.
Power’s claim that Ukraine is winning and ultimately will prevail over Russia because “corruption has undermined the Russian military’s modernization,” the Russian armed forces are led by incompetent generals and colonels and Russian soldiers “lack the will to fight” is silly.
Truth be told, many critics of the US war in Afghanistan were saying exactly the same thing.
After 20 years and trillions of dollars wasted in Afghanistan, the US withdrew from Afghanistan under the most humiliating circumstances under the watch of the Biden administration.
Was the US literally driven/flown out of Afghanistan because of incompetent generals and American soldiers who lacked the will to fight and win?
Or is it because an incompetent Secretary of State?
When Power points an accusatory finger at others, she must beware three fingers are pointing at oneself.
The cheap shots against China are equally laughable.
The Chinese government was the darling of Obama and Biden not too long ago.
Obama himself once said, “The relationship between the United States and China is the most important bilateral relationship of the 21st century.”
Secretary Blinken can tell you, I spent a lot of time with President Xi — traveled over 17,000 miles with him; spent, they tell me, over 24 hours in private discussions with him. When he called to congratulate me, we had a two-hour discussion. He’s deadly earnest about becoming the most significant, consequential nation in the world. He and others — autocrats — think that democracy can’t compete in the 21st century with autocracies because it takes too long to get consensus.
If as Obama said the “relationship between the United States and China is the most important bilateral relationship of the 21st century” is true, then Biden should have used effective diplomacy to make China America’s ally and do what it takes not to make China Russia’s friend.
Power’s preachments and vilification of China on human rights have little credibility and will fall on deaf ears. She is merely weaponizing human rights to demonize China.
If China would suddenly condemn Russia and join the US, I am absolutely sure there will be no mention of Hong Kong, Uyghurs or even Taiwan.
To expect China will be bullied into submission by preachments of human rights is simply ridiculous.
But there is a larger issue most white liberals seem innately incapable of understanding.
That is, most non-Western countries regard America’s human rights preachments as moral cudgels to name shame, humiliate and vilify them. They resent the preachments especially as they see human rights violations in the US every day.
The fact is societies and nations are entitled to give supremacy to societal rights over individual rights.
I am a fierce and uncompromising defender of individual rights because I am an uncompromising defender of the American Bill of Rights. I have spent over three decades of my life standing sentry in defense of American liberties.
For over a decade and half, I have preached the universality of America civil liberties to Ethiopians. But I no longer hold that view.
I have come to the conclusion there is no divine mandate that human rights and civil liberties as defined/practiced by the US/West have universal value and application and must ipso facto be imposed on non-Western societies.
“Human rights” evolved within the context of Western political experience and philosophical traditions.
I have spent a lifetime immersing myself in that tradition. I still believe the Bill of Rights is the heart and soul of America and a work of timeless human genius.
But I am also convinced neither the US nor the West has any right to impose their system of rights and liberties on non-Western societies.
Despite Power’s human rights and democracy preachments, she fails to come clean on US human practices as well.
In 2018, President Donald Trump ordered the U.S. withdrawal from the U.N. Human Rights Council because it was a “cesspool of political bias.”
To be sure, I supported President’s Trump’s decision in my op ed in The Hill on June 9, 2017.
I also supported President Trump’s decision to withdraw the U.S. from the W.H.O. because I believe American taxpayers should not support a cesspool of corrupt global bureaucrats.
In December 2020, Trump imposed sanctions on the International Criminal Court by Executive Order 13928 because the ICC was investigating potential crimes against humanity in Afghanistan and Palestine.
I did not agree with Trump on his ICC sanctions, even though the ICC is a toothless legal body.
Those who commit crimes against humanity, regardless of race, gender, nationality, etc., must be brought to justice.
I am member of the ICC Forum.
I did my tiny little best to bring Laurent Gbagbo, former Ivorian President, to the ICC prosecution.
I did the same for other African leaders as well.
I made a special trip to the Hague to observe the ICC trials of Gbagbo and Bosco Ntaganda, the former member of the Rwandan Patriotic Army at the ICC in the Hague.
I do not believe in a double standard of justice nationally or internationally.
The fact of the matter is that there cannot be a standard of justice that applies to the US/West and the rest of the world.
In her speech, Power presents herself as the high priestess of democracy and human rights and that just does not….
To be continued… in Part II