Hillary Clinton Returns Home, but Violence Against Women Continues in Africa

David, I think we are in fundamental disagreement on one thing...

I completely agree with what you are saying. And, I believe that theory applies beautifully in traditional humanitarian contexts. I think where we disagree is on the severity of the conditions in the Congo. We're not talking about fairness to women. While I support reasonable gender equality, neither equality nor fairness are the issue here. We're talking about genocide. Pervasive and systemic rape is a form of genocide; it's included in the international definition of genocide.

As stated in the article, the money doesn't create anything new. It is added to the existing Congolese police budget. Presumably, this is all the Congolese government has in the budget for such efforts. So, there's no way to ask the Congolese government to "match" the funds. Furthermore, food/goods will not prevent rape. In fact, it may only encourage it as women become more valuable targets.

As a father, I'm sure you're horrified to hear that women are not safe even in their own homes from the type of rape that leaves them incapable of bearing children or controlling their bowels. I'm glad to contribute from my own pocket to stop such atrocities. I'm fearful that we all can so easily go on with our lives, turning a blind eye, when such barbaric acts are being committed daily.

If we truly are a Christian nation (which I may or may not believe, but many others do), are we not duty-bound to try and stop this nightmare?

Democracy works when the people reach a certain level of civilization

We have problems with different countries in the world, whose citizens haven't reach that level of maturity to understand that all the citizens of a country have to work together, pull together, treat each other as they themselves want to be treated. Unfortunately, we deal with a lot of nations who don't understand this concept of civilization. We can dump tons of money into these countries, and there will be no improvement. Many of these nations are still living in the Middle Ages when the Feudal System prevailed. "Might Makes Right", in other words. But another problem exists: These primitive countries can band together to overcome the United States as what occurred during the Middle Ages. These primitive cultures have more in common with each other than with the United States. "Birds of a Feather Flock Together".

The Roman Empire had this problem with the barbarians.

Re: Meryl of CA

First off, I have two daughters and I'm very concerned about gender fairness . . . not equality, but fairness.

Now to answer your question. Yes, to a fault. We are a humanitarian nation.

I agree concerning the lamentable plight of women in Africa. But tell me why the United States is the only nation concerned enough to put "skin in the game" to the tune of $17 million. Where is Congo's matching funds? If it's important to them, shouldn't they at least pony-up a few million. They won't because the interest is not there. Why? Because effecting social change isn't a simple matter of throwing money at a problem. Africans simply are not concerned enough about women and their plight to do anything. If they were, then they'd already be doing something instead of begging for more money from the US.

I'm not going to assume if you have or have not, but I've been in 3rd world, impoverished, abject nations. Colombia, Venezuela, Mexico, Panama, and Iraq to name a few. The people in these countries are trying to survive. The last thing on their collective minds is the ethereal concept of women's rights. Absolutely there are some that care. But, taken as a whole, these countries don't give a collective rip until they can get food on the table, a roof overhead and a secure, living wage job. Until these countries resolve their physiological needs, they are never going to resolve their self-actualization needs. (Read up on Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs to understand)

Why not give $17 million in goods? At least the $17 million could be used to purchase wheat, corn, tools, material and equipment produced here in the US and sent to Africa to assist them with their physiological needs.

It's because it's easier for the Sec of State to scribble out a check. The money though, will evaporate and likely never reach it's intended audience because of the way these countries work. Remember, they don't care. What they care about is themselves (physiological needs). $17 million will pass through a myriad of hands, each grabbing a chunk of it until a small amount will get to where it was headed.

I think you'd agree that a Sec. of State must be sent where we get the most return/value for her time. That's why I wrote: ". . . involved with North Korea, confronting pin head Chavez in Venezuela, developing better ties with China or Russia, or hell bent on maintaining stability in South America."

Also, keep in mind that some/many in this nation want colossol government requiring vast and seeming infinite financial resources .... more than we have. Now, thanks to Hillary, Obama and his Democrate profligates are $17 million less than when Hillary began her trip. Where will all this revenue come from? It will come from you and I and every other hard working American because we are the spring melt of the government's revenue river.

How effective will we be as humanitarians when this nation is insolvent?!