As soon as they get oil? http://www.csmonitor.com/2003/0612/p09s02-coop.html What about Africa's mass graves? By Dennis Jett GAINESVILLE, FLA. – The news reports this week about the fighting in Liberia and the evacuation of Americans and others there brought to mind Yogi Berra's line: "It's like déjà vu, all over again." Liberia's nightmare of war has repeated itself several times since 1990, but this latest version has a significance that goes beyond this one country's particular tragedy. The current carnage is the latest battle in a civil war that began on Christmas Eve 1989. On that day, a rebel force led by Charles Taylor launched an attack from neighboring Guinea in an attempt to overthrow President Samuel Doe. At first it seemed like just another minor incident, but by the middle of 1990, Mr. Taylor's motley collection of fighters was closing in on the capital, Monrovia. I, as acting ambassador, and the rest of the embassy staff organized the evacuation of hundreds of Americans and thousands of others. At first, they left by charter aircraft and then, when that became impossible, with the help of the US Navy and Marines. Although Mr. Doe was killed a couple of months later, the fighting has continued on and off ever since. In 1996, Monrovia was threatened again and the US Embassy organized another evacuation. The US military was called upon once more to carry out the operation. A year later, elections were held and Taylor won, but only because Liberians knew he would continue the war if he did not. Taylor's presidency, however, did not bring peace. While Doe would have been on any short list of the world's most corrupt, incompetent, and ruthless presidents, Taylor was worse. There are now two rebel factions trying to oust him. They control most of the country and have once again brought killing to the streets of Monrovia. Another evacuation has been ordered by the American Embassy, but this time those fleeing the war are being protected by French troops, and flown in French helicopters out to a French landing ship. The immediate lesson that could be drawn is that even the world's only superpower can't be everywhere at the same time and still needs allies. Our politicians and supposed statesmen who have spent recent months thinking up new ways to insult the French for not rubber-stamping the invasion plans for Iraq might ponder that fact. The second lesson is that the "moral clarity"that administration spokesmen like to proclaim as a feature of their foreign policy is largely a fraud. Where is the moral clarity when it comes to Africa? Taylor, who has been indicted for war crimes by an international court, has been ignored, except for some efforts to support sanctions imposed by the UN. Taylor is responsible not just for the continued destruction of Liberia, but for spreading instability and strife to all his neighbors - Sierra Leone, Guinea, and Ivory Coast. Hundreds of thousands have died, millions have had to flee their homes, and the cost to the American taxpayer of dealing with the various humanitarian disasters created by his actions easily tops $1 billion dollars. Liberia is not the only African civil war Washington has done little to stop. While the Bush administration points to mass graves in Iraq as yet another justification for its invasion, it has done little to deal with the civil war in the Democratic Republic of the Congo, where an estimated 3 million people have died. The administration is engaged in efforts to find peace in Sudan, but that is because a number of Christian groups, a core constituency of the Bush administration, care about that conflict because they see it as an assault by Muslims in the north against Christians in the south. So is the moral clarity of the current regime in Washington a pillar of its policy or a device used selectively to sell a particular strategy to the public? If morality is supposedly the basis of foreign policy, it should be applied consistently and by people who are themselves consistently moral. It seems this administration prizes loyalty more than integrity. And morality, like weapons of mass destruction, is an excuse that is used when needed and ignored when it is not. Dennis Jett, dean of the International Center at the University of Florida, was US ambassador to Peru and Mozambique and deputy ambassador in Liberia in 1989-91.
I'll go ahead and point it out before one of our resident conservatives does. Clinton did nothing to stop them either. There, I saved someone some time. To me, this was my favorite part of "The West Wing" last season...the formation of a foreign policy that stated that we should use our influence wherever atrocities are being performed, not just in those countries that pose a direct threat to us or our interests. That's why, in the end, I was for the war in Iraq, for our intervention in Kosovo, and would welcome a presence in African countries that see horrible acts like these.
Actually, I think this is the USA's biggest problem. We selectively enforce our values. I have said all along we need to be more consistent. If we are going to be the world's police force we need to be fair to everyone. DD
Some Africans are still far from a general civility of modern society in which different people can coexist with one another. It's as if they are still living the same warring lifestyle their ancestors have in the last 1,000 years. That's why fighting continues between different ethnicities. I don't think there is much we can do for Africa except to throw money at them and hope for the best.
I think this is the USA's biggest problem. We selectively enforce our values. Actually I agree. Let''s have a public confession and apology for recently aiding the attempted overthrow of the democratically elected government in Venezuela. Let the GOP allow a congressional investigation. Also let's have an apology for such anti-democratic measures designed to keep down the percentage of voters in US elections as: 1) Tuesday voting 2) not allowing felons to get back their voting rights 3) allowing GOP aligned private companies to puirge voters from the rolls etc.
I totally agree with glynch on this one. The voting practices of this country are a joke. Registration needs to be on the spot at the polling place. Campaigns need to be shortened as they are in Britain. Voting needs to take place on the weekend at least, over an entire week would be better. Election coverage shouldn't even start until all the voters have a chance to vote. They should not do exit polls at all. I could probably go on all day long like this. As far as election day registration goes, CA tried to pass this resolution and it failed! YES vote of this measure means: Eligible citizens could register to vote up to and including election day. Penalties would be increased for fraudulent registration or voting activity, and a new crime of conspiracy to commit election fraud would be created. A NO vote of this measure means: Eligible citizens could not register to vote up to and including election day. Current law would remain in place requiring citizens to register to vote at least 15 days before an election. Penalties would not be increased for fraudulent registration or voting activity, and a new crime of conspiracy to commit election fraud would not be created. Proposition 52 Election Day Voter Registration State of California 2,745,473 / 40.6% Yes votes 4,019,211 / 59.4% No votes
I agree with DaDakota and Glynch (never thought I'd be saying that!!) that consistency is the key to our foreign policy. What I don't agree with though is getting in the middle of a country's civil war. Imagine if another country had gotten in the middle of our civil war?? We would never have resolved the issues and been able to move on. The majority must rule, and usually end up doing so as long as minority parties aren't sponsored by other governments.
Ok, the Right rebuttal is going to be: no national security interest. To which I say: then what about Pakistan and Saudi Arabia? Respectively Osama's landlord and banker/recruiter, one of which has an intelligence agency that trained and armed him and a whole mess of nuclear weapons? We have a strong national interest there, Pakistan admits to having nuclear weapons and a whole mess of fundamentalists who want to use them on us, and the Saudi connection to September 11 is, shall we say, a little less tenuous than the Iraqi one? Right rebuttal: yes but they have friendly regimes that are trying to accomodate us and contain them Me: yes, but who cares? If national security interest is the paramount concern, then whether a regime is friendly, like Pakistan, or bad, like Robert Mugabe, then who cares? All of Musharaff's good wishes aren't going to be worth jack if AlQ gets their hands on a bomb. And he can't even keep Osama from running around his own country. So since preemptive wars are justified now, let's take down Pakistan and eliminate this threat, and Saudis too as the home of all this fundamentalist nonsense Right: well sam let's agree to disagree on this.
Sorry, but there is no reason to register to vote on election day. Granted it would make it easier for some, but what is so difficult about registering to vote? You know you should register and generally it is a one time thing unless you move. Elections don't 'surprise' people. You should know well in advance when an election is upcoming. If a voter is interested enough to want their voice heard, they ought to be interested enough to get registered prior to an election.
Well what u have to understand is that Africa is a third world continent.Most countries are ruled by corruption.So just "throw money at them and hope for the best" is the worst solution ever. I have lived and worked in Africa for many years,and I can tell that what these ppl need is support from Occidental countries.By that I don't mean just economical help!What they need is a "Big brother" to be their model. I just don't see US being that,because the administration only gives "help" to countries that give them something back. ALA
*flame r****dant suit on* Most of the world's civilizations, from the Far East to Europe, has been refined and evolved through time to its modern state. But Africa seems to be the exception. Slave trading, cannibalism, mutilation, genocide, disease, continuous fighting to the extreme is not acceptable. I'm not advocating this as white man's burden, but some sense of morality needs to be instituted into the culture by those who are able to help. We definitely need to make an investment to educate the people. Maybe teach them Confucian principles, golden rule, or just not to hack off other people's hands. If we don't help, Africa might forever be the global leper.
Congo and Liberia hasn't figured our the plan yet to get US intervention. 1st you develop WMD, or at least try to then claim you have it 2nd, point the bombs in our directions 3rd, if that does get any attention, try some ME terrorist tactics on US soil Then walla, kill a few Americans, we roll in, bomb them to sitherens, then spend 100 billion to reconstruct their country. 15 years later they will have their very own spot on the UN council trying to dictate US policy and trial our troops.
Do realize what you are suggesting in regards to Pakistan & Saudi Arabia? Are you willing to give a serious discussion of what foreign (Western) intervention in Saudi Arabia & Pakistan would entail and the consequences of that type of action?
Yes, all the world will think that the US is an arrogant, unilateral, imperialist nation... a big change from now, when they think the US is an arrogant, unilateral, imperialist nation. Seriously, what have we got to lose? But strictly speaking, I don't sanction wholesale invasion and occupation, just intervening when and as necessary with no respect for sovereignty. I'm serious. All it takes is for a certain number of Pakistanis to lean a certain way and I am as good as vaporized. That's a far greater threat to me personally than Iraq and its elusive WMD program.
I don't think you understand what significant military action in Pakistan really entails. Pakistan is a country of roughly 150 million and the US military has an active duty force of roughly 1.4 million. A Special Forces Operation against a few specific targets is an entirely different matter and has probably been planned for. There has been <b>speculation</b> that the US military has already positioned itself to prevent Pakistan from using its Nuclear Weapons to lessen the danger of the Pakistan - India dispute over Kashmir from getting out of control. I haven't seen any confirmation on that speculation and doubt that we will ever know until the situation actually arises. Currently, Pakistan lacks the delivery systems to send nuclear weapons beyond that part of the world........so the danger of something going wrong in that scenario would be more limited to the Indian subcontinent and Southwest Asia. Still, that is not an appealing idea for for people living in those areas. <b>Saudi Arabia</b> OBL used the presence of US troops in Saudi Arabia to rally people to his cause. The US is starting to get its forces out of that country because the need is no longer there. For the US to actually use military forces against the country of Saudi Arabia is something that would be beyond disasterous on a public relations basis.
I'm not worried about Pakistani ICBMS, I'm worried about some nut or nuts giving/lending etc Al Q a bomb for nonconventional delivery. Given the sad state of port/coastal security, I don't see this as an improbable situation. Saudi Arabia? the House of Saud is abunch of corrupt, thieving thugs who rob their people and who let the fundamentalists foment hatred in order to allow them to continue thieving. Chaos in Saudi Arabia is coming when the house of Saud falls, a it inevitably will. You think Afganisthan was a terrorist hideout? Just wait.
Actually they do have morality in their culture. It may not be the morality you are used to, but it is morality. The idea of taking a whole village to raise a child, is an African moral concept. I understand the idea of helping to educate an impoverished people, and even sharing different ideas of morality. I just felt it was wrong to claim that they need a sense of morality instituted in the culture wasn't the best way to phrase it. It sounds as if you feel their culture has no sense of morality which is inaccurate.
