U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry was confronted by his irate constituents … in Syria.
The consequences of the US’s long-standing adventurous foreign policy are that “Angry Syrian refugees … demand [that] the United States and the international community to do more to help opponents of President Bashar Assad’s regime, venting frustration at perceived inaction on their behalf,” Yahoo reported.
They should talk to the rebels. As sad as this is,
“…the US government’s duties in the classical liberal tradition are negative, not positive; to protect freedoms, not to plan projects. … distinguish we must, moreover, between the [Syrians'] right to be free and our obligation to free them.
We have a solemn [negative] duty not to violate the rights of foreigners everywhere to life, liberty, and property. But we have no duty to uphold their rights. Why? Because (supposedly) upholding the negative rights of the world’s citizens involves compromising the negative liberties of Americans—their lives, liberties, and livelihoods. The classical liberal government’s duty is to its own citizens, first. ….
Again, the duty of the “night-watchman state of classical-liberal theory” is primarily to its own.
On the other hand, while “compassionate pickpockets” of the left are eager to conscript the country into inefficient and unethical policies, we should all agree to say a big, “YES TO US AID, NO TO USAID”:
As private individuals, we can give to the Syrian people as much as we like. It is far more efficient, provided one finds a private charity operating in the region.
Proof that USAID seldom reaches the people for whom it is intended: “the situation remains unchanged” in the refugees camps even though,
The U.S. has provided nearly $815 million in humanitarian aid to Syrians through the United Nations. Of that, $147 million has been directed to relief agencies working in Jordan, which is home to about 600,000 displaced Syrians.