History News Network puts current events into historical perspective. Subscribe to our newsletter for new perspectives on the ways history continues to resonate in the present. Explore our archive of thousands of original op-eds and curated stories from around the web. Join us to learn more about the past, now.
Robert I. Rotberg, a member of the congressionally established Africa Policy Advisory Panel, director of the Kennedy School of Government’s Program on Intrastate Conflict, and President of the World Peace Foundation has an important article in today’s Boston Globe in which he argues for a more active American policy toward Africa. I do not want to put myself on the same level as Rotberg, and his piece is in so many ways more substantive than mine, but at the risk of blowing my own horn, I argued something quite similar on HNN last November.
It is in our interest to have a more active, intelligent, coherent, and committed policy with regard to Africa. Even as we have reexamined our inaction in Rwanda in the wake of the ten year reunion of that country’s genocide, and have earnestly proclaimed “Never Again” one more time, it looks like “never again” may well mean “again,” as a number of well-placed observers feel that the Sudan is creeping toward genocide if it is not already there. Meanwhile, Robert Mugabe’s tyrannical megalomania continues unchecked in Zimbabwe. Chad is on the brink of catastrophe. Murderers in Sierra Leone are about to appear in the dock.
As the African Union prepares to meet for its third annual summit, perhaps now would be a good time to put out feelers for a new partnership with African nations. Given the level of distrust many Africans have toward the United States, we will not be able successfully to make grand gestures, but the time seems right to act now, to lay the groundwork for a greater investment that will take a long time to bear fruit, but that might prove of vital importance a decade down the road.
Grant --
I will admit I may have gone over the top in my criticisms of your rationalizations for sitting back and watching Africans get murdered.
You might, however, note that this is not an undergraduate course on imperialism. And that you were using Kipling to justify not stopping genocide. And I'm going to keep at this. You are arguing not to stop genocide. I don't care your reasons. I don't care about your rationalizations. I don't care about your ontological, deontological, or epistemological window dressing for your views. It isn't necessarily philosophy I have a problem with. It is badly written nonsense that argues a way out of doing what is right and what is just that I do have a problem with. I respect you for being here. But don't start crying when your morally vacant platitudes are taken to task. And methinks you need to relearn what begging the question is, because certainly that is not what I have been doing in my copious defense of action in Africa.
dc
Grant W Jones -
7/17/2004
Why does every undergrad taking a course on imperialism have to read Kipling's "White Man's Burden?" To learn how to rationalize genocide?
If you consider philosophy "jargon," then that is your epistemological (more jargon) issue to deal with. As is your view that an ethic of rational self-interest is "amoral" or "immoral." Again, you are begging the question.
You seem to consider this a serious discussion on a very serious matter. On this we agree. So your post of 7/17 @2:59 A:M, referring to "a mongoloid drooling..." can only be taken as ad hominem. If you wish to call it a joke that I was to thick to get, fine.
My "maybe not" simply meant that I don't know you and that such statements maybe a common rhetorical method of yours.
Derek Charles Catsam -
7/17/2004
grant --
Dude, it was a joke. If you take yourself that damned seriously, two suggestions: Go to takemyselftooseriouslyblog.com and participate there. And don't invoke poets to rationalize inaction in the face of genocide. I don't know what else to say. You appeal to philosophy, jargon (deontological!), and then Kipling (strong credentials on Africa, he) in a desperate attempt to bolster an increasingly untenable argument. You make a wretchedly amoral, indeed immoral argument, then whine when called to task for it. Tough.
And by the way, the "maybe not" in your last comment really erases any credibility when complaining about personal attacks. So we'll add hypocrisy to the ongoing list of sins.
dc
Grant W Jones -
7/17/2004
I believe it. Thank you for your civil reply.
Grant W Jones -
7/17/2004
Your personal attacks are beneath you, or maybe not.
Tom Bruscino -
7/17/2004
Grant,
Believe it or not, I have a similar argument with myself about interventions. But I just have to believe, hell, I know, that while it may seem ugly in the short term, stopping genocide where we can will ultimately be judged right by history and whatever other higher power you happen to believe in. There are times and places where realist principles have to dominate our foreign policy. But Americans aren't very good strict realists, and that is something I think we should be proud of even if it gets us in trouble sometimes.
Derek Charles Catsam -
7/17/2004
I posted this earlier. It should have gone under Grant's last comment, so that the line of argumentation is clear.
No, you should be sorry about sullying a discussion about real life things that actually matter and about which hundreds of thousand of lives are at stake by trying to differentiate "duty" and "responsibility" as if they involved a distinction with a difference. Does the English department know that there is a mongoloid drooling near the postmodernists' offices? Between them and the philosophers, isn't there a janitor or something over there? Or maybe a junior profesor?
dc
Derek Charles Catsam -
7/17/2004
Now we are invoking poems to rationalize indifference to the slaughter of Africans. What, no interpretive dancers sprung to mind?
dc
Derek Charles Catsam -
7/17/2004
No, you should be sorry about sullying a discussion about real life things that actually matter and about which hundreds of thousand of lives are at stake by trying to differentiate "duty" and "responsibility" as if they involved a distinction with a difference. Does the English department know that there is a mongoloid drooling near the postmodernists' offices? Between them and the philosophers, isn't there a janitor or something over there? Or maybe a junior profesor?
dc
Grant W Jones -
7/17/2004
No doubt my lack of focus in this discussion reflects my deep ambivalence. My moralistic/interventionist side say, "yes let's send in the Marines to kick ass and take names." My libertarian/isolationist side says, "tut, tut, the U.S. has no interests important enough to merit going into Sudan or many other places that are human rights nightmares. Remember past American interventions to 'do good' that turned into disasters. This reminds me of a poem by Kipling..."
Grant W Jones -
7/17/2004
Tom, "I said we already have." I thought you guys were arguing that America had a "responsibility" towards Sudan. This is not the same thing (far from it) as meaning America has a "duty" towards Sudan. Using two terms that have very different meanings interchangeably in a discussion is equivocation. Hence my breaking out the dictionary.
As I suspected George Bush has some large fish to fry this summer. Apparently 90% of the U.S. Fleet is either deployed or at sea.
Notice the number of Amphib groups at sea. Also the number of submarines. Carrier Battle Groups and submarines capable of launching cruise or ballistic missiles are not naval vessals. They are strategic assetts. The seven carrier groups listed as underway doesn't include the Kittyhawk group. This is a lot of fire-power roaming the oceans. Maybe a group will deal with Sudan. I wouldn't be opposed to an air campaign if it would do the job.
Training exercises of this magnitude, and expense, usual are serving other purposes. My guess is that Bush is going to do some fishing in the South China Sea. The ChiCom sabar-rattling at Taiwan is disturbing and downright scary. Bush is sending a very load messege. I think he means it.
Can 2000 troops (of what types?) make a difference in Sudan. I don't know and neither do you. But, you can bet Powell does. Call it what you like, bet on Khartoum and their allies calling it war.
Sorry to sully the discussion with philosophy.
Derek Charles Catsam -
7/15/2004
Arnold --
While I may agree with some of your arguments and disagree with others, my goal here is far more precise and specific. I am not arguing for a generalized type of reform in Africa, What I am arguing for is action, specific action, on a couple of fronts, first and foremost the Sudan. That we may have done wrong in the past is of no moment when an opportunity to do right in the present is before us. In other words, that sometimes actions have led to bad consequences should be less important than deciding if acting in one way or another would be right at the present time. Not only would I say that it would be right to act, I argue that it would mark a point of moral bankruptcy not to act. Indeed, in the period most germane to the issues you are talking about, we often sinned by ommission. If we have the will, the means and the opportunity we can do a very good thing in the Sudan.
On the Zimbabwe front, I would not endorse sending troops into Southern Africa. But i would apply some pressure, and also dangle some carrots, to get Mbeki off of his blind and unjustifiable support for, or at least blind eye toward, Zimbabwe and Mugabe.
In other words rather than try to argue from the general, I am arguing for the particular.
Thanks for reading.
dc
Arnold Shcherban -
7/15/2004
Derek,
I'm sure you can (as well as myself) present a couple examples of the Third World countries where this country
changed the regimes itself or with the hands of its client states or by the native military, establishing
the more or less democratic regimes. However, I, on my part, can you give about a two dozen of an opposite examples, where this country changed(directly or indirectly) the more or less democratic regimes only to establish or/and support or/and sponsor murderous, at the best, reactionary regimes, the nightmares to democracy and human rights. And it did it deliberately, with the damn good knowledge of the "excesses" and character of those regimes.
Over just 50 last years it happened in such Third World
counries, as Iran, Kongo, Vietnam, Guatemala, San-Salvador, Honduras, Nicaragua, Haiti, Argentina, Brasil, Paraguay, Uruguay, Chili, Indonesia, South Africa, Rodesia, Pakistan, Iraq, Saudi Arabia, and others.
Not mentioning here some European countries with openly fascist regimes this country supported and have friendly relations with: Greece, Spain, Portugal (the last two
at the time being colonial powers, as well).
Now, mind you, I don't at all claim that only this country did or doing it, or intend to do that in the future, some other states also did it in different times and under different circumstances.
But right now it is definitely the only one who still continue along its old patterns and who can afford to ignore the will and rights of international community.
But does it justifies the actions of the US towards the Third World nations? One cannot remain an honest person
or an objective historian claiming it haven't happened
that way or does not happen now.
Opinions aside, there is a concrete truth, though not an absolute one.
Derek Charles Catsam -
7/15/2004
While the philosophy department holds a meeting as Sudanese die, the history department seems to be arguing to stop those deaths. The lesson here? Thank God more people read history than philosophy.
Tom Bruscino -
7/15/2004
My bringing up Omdurman was in response to the admonition that sending troops to Sudan was serious business and the British experience pre-1898 was proof. Omdurman was just an example that serious does not mean insurmountable, which was the implication of links that left off Omdurman. The specifics of how and why and when the British defeated the Mahdist Dervishes in the nineteenth century is an entirely different discussion that is only in part germaine to what Derek and I are calling for here and now.
I think it was pretty obvious that I was not talking about available infantry and lift capacity when I brought up semantics. I saved the discussion of capabilities for the next paragraph, which is why it started, "As far as capabilities go, I have said since Sept 11 that we have needed a greatly expanded military to meet the threats all around the world." And in that vein I never said or implied or hinted or thought that "defending one's liberty is a "sacrifice,"" no matter the use of quotation marks on one word out of my sentence.
My point about semantics and jargon went to the declaration that Derek and I would have “to explicitly defend [our] deontological view of ethics as applied to American foreign policy.” I said we already have. The response was: “Proclaiming a catogorical imperative in not same as justifing, or even arguing, the morality of the catogorical imperative. That requires an excursion in meta-ethics. You have not explained how American soldiers have an duty to die for issues other than national security, except with appeals to altruism that I'm suppose to accept without criticism. You have just asserted that [a] duty exists, not demonstrated it.” Again, more philosophical jargon, but fair enough, except that the first paragraph my very first post on this thread concluded about us intervening to stop genocide: “We will have done the right thing, and the people we saved, history, and God can judge us.” Feel free to disagree with that justification, but do not proclaim that it is not there.
Derek Charles Catsam -
7/14/2004
One thing to keep in mind. We currently have 2000 soldiers in Djibouti. Is anyone going to argue that those 2000 troops could not possibly be moved to Sudan? And let's recall the presence of 200 American troops forestalled bloodshed in Liberia just last year. In any case, as I've said, and as Tom has said, we are not planning on war. My view is that we open supply lines and make sure that people whose genocide is coming to them partially through starvation and privation can get food and supplies. Let's also keep in mind that every time we have glared at the Sudanese they have given in. In 1996 Clinton and the world community pressured them to expel Bin Laden. They did. In 2001 outside pressure forced the Sudanese government to the table for talks. It did not last, but it halted the killing for a while. If we show that we will not just sit by, things can change. Hopefrully without shots being fired. If those shots are fired, I think it is worth it to prevent mass murder, mass starvation, mass enforced refugee status.
dc
Grant W Jones -
7/14/2004
P.S. Omdurman is just outside of Khartoum. The victory over the British led army was in the West of Sudan. The Mahdi's followers blundered horribly in trying to make a stand-up fight of it at Omdurman. One can not depend on the enemy on making such blunders in war. And notice that it took the Brits over ten years to send another army into the Sudan. Khartoum fell in 1885, Omdurman 1898. The Brits were wise in not just rushing in.
Grant W Jones -
7/14/2004
Yep, Omdurman. My point, is the United States going to use the 21st century equivalent of Maxim guns, AC-130s, on the Dervishes? If we are not perpared to commit an Omdurman style mass-slaughter, we need to stay out militarily. You and I maybe willing to do just that, but the government isn't. Just like in Iraq they will try to fight a "kinder, gentler" war. The result will be a foreign policy and military disaster. I don't think democracy can be imposed on Sudan. It's enough of a problem in Iraq.
The lack of avaliable infantry (and maybe lift capicity) is not a semantic issue. Nothing would please me more than for the Marines to land, feed the hungry, free the oppressed and smite the evil doers. Unfortunatly, life is rarely so simple. And pleasing me is not the purpose of the U.S. military. Defending the country is.
Proclaiming a catogorical imperative in not same as justifing, or even arguing, the morality of the catogorical imperative. That requires an excursion in meta-ethics. You have not explained how American soldiers have an duty to die for issues other than national security, except with appeals to altruism that I'm suppose to accept without criticism. You have just asserted that [a] duty exists, not demonstrated it.
"Bush's greatest failure in this war that he has not used his position to maintain the necessary will in the American people to sacrifice to win the war." I completely agree. Except with the idea that defending one's liberty is a "sacrifice."
Regarding going into Sudan as a part of the War on Islamic Terror, a wise man once said, "one war at a time." Iran, Syria and Saudi Arabia are far greater dangers than Sudan. Do you propose invading those countries, which have their own human rights horrors, at this time?
Robert Wisler -
7/13/2004
Okay, I have to say, that was a marathon read. Grant, I think you need to work on your arguing skills. Derek and Tom argued points you brought up, and many times asked you to respond. Every time you seemed to bring a new argument in. I felt like I was listing to a phone conversation, but could only hear your side of the conversation. It was utterly confusing trying to figure out what you were saying. All I am saying is that you need to argue against points people have brought up, don't make up your own and pretend like it was a point previously brought up.
As for the situation in Sudan, something needs to be done, obviously. Can the U.S. help; Yes. Should the U.S. help; Yes. Should the U.S. spearhead the operation; If nobody else is, who is going to? The problem that I see is that in the last 60 years, the U.S. has become so powerful, and so influential, it seems that many countries are afraid, or unwilling, to do anything without the U.S. leading the charge. Because these countries (no, I don't have specific countries, take your pick) are unwilling to take the lead we end up with problems like Sudan.
As was previously pointed out, most of our military is currently occupied with in Iraq and Afghanistan, and it is therefore difficult to start new operations thousands of miles away.
So, what do we do about it? Personally, now that Iraq has sovereign power, we should be able to rotate some of these personal out of Iraq and into Sudan, and other portions of Africa. Hopefully, taking this lead will help others, especially neighboring countries to be able to join in. I am not well versed in foreign affairs, and am not totally up to speed on the actually goings on in Sudan, but it seems to be a similar situation that has been going on for several years in Africa. Bad man/men takes power, routes food, money, and humanitarian supply away from were it is need and should go, people of country are too scared, or physically unable, to do any thing about it; bad things happen; People try to fight back, they are slaughtered, etc. Is this about right, or am I way off?
Any way, something needs to be done in Sudan, and not just in Sudan, but all over Africa. Africa is a huge Continent, and the entire place is seen as Third World. All to often Africa is forgotten, and not even thought of. The atrocities have become so common place, it doesn't really seem to bother people any more.
As Derek has pointed out, hundreds of thousands have been killed, but how often do you see it on the front page of a newspaper, or a website? Almost never.
Also, if it is Islamofastists that are causing all the problems, and they have ties to Osama, couldn't we say this is part of the War on Terror? After all, terrorist are just in Arabia.
Tom Bruscino -
7/13/2004
[I am reposting this because it linked about nine posts ago for some reason]
As long as we are sending misleading links as supposed proof of what serious business sending troops to the interior of the Sudan is, let's try this one:
The short version: when the British sent a serious but still tiny and enormously outnumbered military force to the Sudan, they won one of the most overwhelming victories in the history of warfare at Omdurman. Funny how the links about Charles Gordon and Khartoum left out that little key bit of information.
Besides, I never said it wasn't serious business that might not require our military to be ruthless at points; I said it is the right thing to do. The semantics and jargon are nice for trying to confuse the issue, but in the sense that words do have meanings, and when those words are strung together into sentences that also have meanings, and Derek and I put sentences together into earlier posts that had meanings, we already have "explicitly defend[ed] [our] deontological view of ethics as applied to American foreign policy."
Of course, then again, we've also repeatedly made the point that lucky for us none of this has to be done "regardless of context, national security, national self-interest or capibilities." Notice neither Derek nor I have called for immediate military intervention in North Korea or China to stop human rights abuses in those countries. The context does not allow it. In both cases the probable cost in return for benefits would be too high right now to do anything. But considering Sudan is full of Islamofascists and a former headquarters of Osama bin Laden, I am having trouble understanding how, if one supports the war on terror, one wouldn't also support acting to try to stablize a country that has been a hotbed of Islamic terrorism.
As far as capabilities go, I have said since Sept 11 that we have needed a greatly expanded military to meet the threats all around the world. The issue of capability is one of will, and it is President George W. Bush's greatest failure in this war that he has not used his position to maintain the necessary will in the American people to sacrifice to win the war. Grant might be right about the immediate benefits of Congressional legislation expanding the military, but if Congress doesn't pass legislation today to double the size of the military, I guarantee it will do the people of Darfar no good. Let's pass the legislation today so we don't have to have the capabilities argument again tomorrow.
Finally, Powell's efforts are noble but most likely futile. I'd love to wait for the rest of the world to catch up with what is right for security, self-interest, and morals, but until then it is painfully obvious that we are going to have to lead the way. And history has shown us that for all the carping we'll hear along the way, our example will be much stronger than their words. Just count the democracies of the world now compared to 1918, 1941, and 1947.
Tom Bruscino -
7/13/2004
As long as we are sending misleading links as supposed proof of what serious business sending troops to the interior of the Sudan is, let's try this one:
The short version: when the British sent a serious but still tiny and enormously outnumbered military force to the Sudan, they won one of the most overwhelming victories in the history of warfare at Omdurman. Funny how the links about Charles Gordon and Khartoum left out that little key bit of information.
Besides, I never said it wasn't serious business that might not require our military to be ruthless at points; I said it is the right thing to do. The semantics and jargon are nice for trying to confuse the issue, but in the sense that words do have meanings, and when those words are strung together into sentences that also have meanings, and Derek and I put sentences together into earlier posts that had meanings, we already have "explicitly defend[ed] [our] deontological view of ethics as applied to American foreign policy."
Of course, then again, we've also repeatedly made the point that lucky for us none of this has to be done "regardless of context, national security, national self-interest or capibilities." Notice neither Derek nor I have called for immediate military intervention in North Korea or China to stop human rights abuses in those countries. The context does not allow it. In both cases the probable cost in return for benefits would be too high right now to do anything. But considering Sudan is full of Islamofascists and a former headquarters of Osama bin Laden, I am having trouble understanding how, if one supports the war on terror, one wouldn't also support acting to try to stablize a country that has been a hotbed of Islamic terrorism.
As far as capabilities go, I have said since Sept 11 that we have needed a greatly expanded military to meet the threats all around the world. The issue of capability is one of will, and it is President George W. Bush's greatest failure in this war that he has not used his position to maintain the necessary will in the American people to sacrifice to win the war. Grant might be right about the immediate benefits of Congressional legislation expanding the military, but if Congress doesn't pass legislation today to double the size of the military, I guarantee it will do the people of Darfar no good. Let's pass the legislation today so we don't have to have the capabilities argument again tomorrow.
Finally, Powell's efforts are noble but most likely futile. I'd love to wait for the rest of the world to catch up with what is right for security, self-interest, and morals, but until then it is painfully obvious that we are going to have to lead the way. And history has shown us that for all the carping we'll hear along the way, our example will be much stronger than their words. Just count the democracies of the world now compared to 1918, 1941, and 1947.
Derek Charles Catsam -
7/13/2004
Grant --
I daresay both Tom and I have earned our stripes so as not to be patronized by yopu about words having meanings, especially when you then resort to the freshman in college writing his first paper technique of giving us a banal dictionary definition. Thanks but no thanks.
We disagree aboiut the extent of troops that would be required to stop genocide. the thing is, you're wrong. You are right that it would take a huge amount to overthrow the Sudan. We are not proposing that. What we are proposing is a handful of thousand troops who would go in, open up supply lines and prevent mass murder. then you keep those lines open and make sure humanitarian aid gets through. but unlike the blue helmets in Rwanda you make it clear that if the bad guys fuck with us, they will lose. They will be shot. They will be killed. And the guy next to them will be killed. Because that is how it works when you cavort with genocidistas. Opening supply lines and making sure people do not kill each other is precisely what we can do, sanctions as a threat as long as we assure that the South gets what they need might well work also. Then we bring along allies. There are lots of African nations that would provide support but that simply cannot pay for the brunt of it. there are European nations that would go along. but only we are powerful and capable enough of initiating what needs to be done.
"Deregulation" is neither good not bad until we have a context. What deregulation, precisely? Much regulation has been a good thing. Much has been nightmarish. Much deregulation has resulted in catastrophe. Others have only made sense. Until we have some examples, we're just writing bumper stickers.
dc
Grant W Jones -
7/13/2004
Tom, sending ground troops into the interior of Sudan is serious business:
I also seriously doubt if the U.S. would be willing to be as ruthless as necessary in supressing the barbarians. Sudan could make Iraq look like a cakewalk.
And significant ground forces will be needed to stop the neo-Mahdists. Where are they to come from? I notice neither of you are able to provide specifics. If Congress passed legislation today to double the size of the military, and to drastically change its mission, it would do the people of Darfar no good. Powell is doing all he can in attempting to shame the shameless into taking political, economic and military action.
Words have meanings. "Responsibility" implies that the responsible party is, "1. Liable to respond; accountable; answerable 2. Able to respond or answer for one's conduct and obligations; trustworthy" It implies a cause and effect relationship. It would be more accurate, and honest, for you two to state "America has a duty to save victims of Genocide, regardless of context, national security, national self-interest or capibilities." Then you would have to explicitly defend your deontological view of ethics as applied to American foreign policy. Good luck with that project.
Bond prices have more to do with interest rates, exchange rates and the behavior of the Fed, than American foreign policy adventures. The one thing that the U.S. military does for the world economy is maintaining the shipping lanes. Islamic terrorism by attacking U.S. warships and air transport is a far graver danger to commerce than the crimes in Darfar.
The strength of the American economy has more to do with regulation than taxes. Deregulation would much more helpful than the lowering of taxes. At least that was my experience as a small business owner.
Derek Charles Catsam -
7/13/2004
Tee hee.
Tom Bruscino -
7/13/2004
Yes, just not taxing too much or spending too much on the wrong things. And those are the places where we disagree, because Derek's not very smart and he smells funny and no one is reading this far down anyway.
Derek Charles Catsam -
7/13/2004
My last post should have come after Grant's, as it was a response to his most recent one, and I am not certain how it was placed where it is. Generally, I agree with Tom. We disagree on taxes. And if course there is a bit of false dichotomy, as he asserts and I acknowledge. But in that large, if too broad framework that I posed, I think it at least is worth re-examining the idea of taxing and spending as in fact being a good, responsible, and noble thing.
dc
Tom Bruscino -
7/13/2004
Let me make my point more clearly: I think intervening, even militarily, to stop genocide or mass starvation is the right thing to do. That is reason enough. But in an increasingly interconnected world, it is also in America's strategic interests to promote stability around the world. In the situation of Sudan, where Osama bin Laden and his lackeys have spend a lot of time and money, it is obtuse to argue that we have no strategic interests there.
The answer to your last question, sarcastic as it was, is yes. That is exactly Ferguson's point--foreign investors from places that do not or cannot provide for their own stabilizing foreign policy (like, say, Japan) will not be as inclined to help underwrite the American economy if we are spending all of the money on domestic programs and not on needed diplomatic and military interventions.
I am with Derek again, but I think he provides something of a false choice in saying that we have to jack up taxes to pay for all the programs. I'm fine with paying taxes, too, but within limits. My point is that we do not have to raise taxes in order to have a larger military. We can streamline government spending at home, and accept some deficits temporarily. We are, after all, at war. This is not unprecedented.
Derek Charles Catsam -
7/13/2004
Grant, once again, against whom are you arguing in your last line? This is becoming like a bad SNL skit -- you keep raising these arguments that don't come from anyone on this list, not from me or Tom certainly. Who said anything about not buying or buying US bonds? What does this have to do with the cost of lives in Sudan?
You know what, sometimes the US has to be the world's policeman. And in any case, reducing what is going on in the Sudan with simple police work once again reveals that you either do not get it (genocide is either happening or is on the brink of happening) or worse yet, you do not care. This is not a matter for police work. This is a matter of stopping something we've continually vowed to stop in the past, yet we let it happen again. If fighting evil really is something the US does, I'm sorry, there is no worse evil out there than the Sudan, a country which, by the way, does support the Islamofascists. So it probably is not a cunning idea to let them consolodate their reign of terror.
So here is my specific proposal: money and support for troops that actually have autghority to act among a coalition of the willing, namely African nations and European ones. If we cannot do that, then yes, we find a way to send troops. My student who is in the reserves and who is leaving for Iraq? He is not in Iraq yet. And no, we would not necessarily have to overthgrow Sudan's government. The first goal is to stop the genocide. Stop people from murdering other people by the hundreds of thousands. Why you oppose any effort to do this is confounding. And yes, once you vow "never again" you have a mortal responsibility. And any time genocide is on the table, we all do.
I await your next argument to things I have not written and do not advocate, since that is clearly your modus operendi.
I will however say that my problems on this front are not with powell, whose frustrations with his bosses in the exacutive have been pretty legion for the duration of the administration. Largely because if the Powell doctrine is not dead, the administration is doing all it can to remove it from life support. (Although the doctrine was flawed, especially post-9-11.)
As for my findamental difference with Tom, I see four (admittedly rudimentary) approaches to spending:
Tax and spend. It is what liberals are accused of, but it is what I nonetheless support. Shockingly, I believe that if you want stuff, you've gotta pay for it.
There is tax and don't spend. Not really plausible, and if this were happening I'd be first to line up behind tax cuts.
Don't tax, don't spend. Many conservatives pretend this is what they want, then they spend anyway.
Don't tax, do spend. This is what we have now with this administration, and is easily the least desireable of these four options.
I am sorry, but I see the first option, whatever its bumper sticker power as an acusatory slogan as both the realistic one and the most viable. And if you oppose it, and you got any sort of aid or funding to go to a public institution, or if you drive on federally supported highways, or if you live in one of the many states (almost always conservative, interestingly) that gets more than it gives in the old "tax deficit," or if you are not currently living under Nazi Germany or Stalinist Russia, or if you get satellite television brought to you by NASA-derived technology, or if you ever have had anything subsidized by the federal government at all, then you just want to suckle at the teat and yet not pay. Me, I'm willing to pay. especially knowing that there will never, ever be consensus on cutting domestic spending, and believe it or not, i do agree with Grant, at least as he phrased it, that government's job is to help those in need where other ways of helping have fallen short or proved insufficient. And blame the baby boom if we like, but this is only going to get worse before it gets better.
dc
Grant W Jones -
7/13/2004
Derek: what is it, exactly, that you think America is in a position to do? Specifics, please. I just don't think the military assets are there to do this job right. I also don't think that U.S. security should be compromised for "peacekeeping." The chances of another terror attack on American soil will increase the closer we get to the election.
Even if Bush started soaking the rich today, that wouldn't equate to new military power for quite some time. Which would be too late for the people in Sudan. Powell may very well be doing all that can be reasonably expected.
I don't think the Powell Doctrine is dead. At least I hope not:
The situation in Sudan would require a full blown invasion, overthrow of the government and "nation building." You say that we have a moral responisiblty to save Sudan. We do not. The U.S. is not the world's policeman and the American people don't want it to be.
"What's the problem intervening in Africa?" Americans who join the armed forces swear to defend the United States Constitution from all enemies. They do not join to act as an armed International Red Cross. There are people starving and dying all over the world, how did they become the U.S's responsiblity? In any event, not just "morally retarded yahoos" have concerns about America intervening in areas as difficult as Sudan:
"To help those in need," is the purpose of those big government domestic programs you don't like, Tom. Helping those in need is NOT the purpose of the United States Armed Forces. You are proposing an open ended venture. How much blood and treasure should the American people donate in order to engage in world saving.
If the U.S. doesn't sacrifice its blood and treasure in the Sudan, foriegners will stop buying U.S. Bonds?! You have got to be joking.
Tom Bruscino -
7/13/2004
You guys are having your fun, but I'll just say that I am with Derek on this one that it is our responsibility as the greatest power in the world to help those in need. At the end of the day it won't matter much that the less bright folks on both the left (screaming "What right do we have?! We are just as bad or worse!") and the right (whining about cost or strategic interests or how the complainers on the left hurt their feelings) opposed doing the right thing. We will have done the right thing, and the people we saved, history, and God can judge us.
Where I disagree with Derek a bit is on the cost, and here's one of those fundamental differences between him and me. I think we should keep taxes low and spend less on domestic programs. Well, actually, I would rather we just cleaned up the waste and inefficiency in all of our spending, but then I might as well wish the planet would stop spinning, then start up the other direction. Which is why I don't like big government programs. Except the diplomatic corps and military, in the interest of defense.
In any case, since we are on a war footing, we should have a larger military, and even if we kept all of our big inefficient federal government domestic programs and expanded our military, it wouldn't be that big of a deal. Let me briefly and badly summarize one of Niall Ferguson's brilliant points in "The Cash Nexus": it is okay for a stable, solid country like the United States to carry a debt for defense purposes for two interrelated reasons. One, the folks that are loaning us the money know we are good for it, so they aren't going to crash the American economy. Two, the folks that are loaning us the money are relying on us to provide the stability that our large military provides. If you want to be cold about it, our military helping to stop genocide in Africa promotes stability. And it's the right thing to do.
I'm getting confused, what's the problem with intervening in Africa besides some close-minded and morally retarded yahoos at home and abroad complaining that we shouldn't do it?
Derek Charles Catsam -
7/12/2004
Grant --
There you go again.
Have I learned to differentiate between crimes of ommission and crimes of commission? The question is, what in the hell are you talking about? I never said we were as bad as the French. I think you have serious reading comprehension difficulties. I do however say that when we are addressing a post in which I assert that we have a responsibility to act, that French inaction is not germane. I don't care. I expect certain things from the French. I expect more from us. I am assuming, Grant, that you are reasonably bright. So please show me where I have said what you said I said. Have at least that much intellectual integrity. Please. If you can.
Um, of course I do not assign equal blame to Powell or Bush or Cheney or anyone else as I do to the perpetrators. Once again, that is not the issue as I raised it from the get go. There you go yet again arguing against something no one actually said. Is this how you conduct all of your work? Do you always raise arguments in objections to things no one has raised but that makes you feel good for knocking down invisible enemies? Are you always this intellectually dishonest? Because you keep doing it.
No, I am sorry, it is not reprehensible to sit here and watch you blame everyone else and yet not yet pose a single solution to the problem. It is not reprehensible to accuse you of playing cheap point scoring international blame games while watching folks die. My solution, which I keep re-raising, is that we are the most powerful and affluent nation in the world, and we find a damned way to do it, even if it means that maybe multimillionaires get slightly less of a tax break than they hoped for so that we pay to install the relatively small number of troops that it would take to prevent a human ctastrophe. My solution is that the US finds a way to act, or else we admit that we are abdicating any right to say "nevr again." My solution is not to make excuses, but then blame other countries and institutions when they do the same.
Speaking of opaque, what the hell do you mean by "And that this is evidence on the nature and morallity of the 'world community.'" You simply aver that we are in no position to stop genocide, then you make simplistic generalities about "the world community" without bothering to say exactly what that means. What is the world community? If it is the UN, you have already derided them as feckless and incapable of acting. So what, precisely do you mean? What other world community body is out there? What other countries cannot also make excuses? For me the reprehensible thing is to sit aside and say that we cannot possibly act as genocide continues. We can do something. Why you are so reluctant to admit as much is beyond me. Why you try to deflect balme is utterly incomprehensible. Why you make generalizations that conflict with your other generalizations reveals the utter imprecision of your approach. This all started off with you criticizing the French and UN and AU. Yet we too were not doing anything. This is not about allotting equal blame, it is about saying that as Africans die, it seems rather distasteful to be whining about who should be doing something and then as a citizen of the richest nation in the world make excuses as to why we are not doing anything.
We agree on Iran and Syria. THAT is progress. Not your stupid assertions that I have moved from a "meme" that I never actually asserted.
So, Grant, I look forward to the next comment in which you argue against things never said, ascribe words never written, and continue to fiddle while Sudanese are dying.
dc
Grant W Jones -
7/12/2004
So, have we moved on from the "U.S. is as bad as the French and U.N." meme? Have you now learned to distinguish between "crimes" of omission and crimes of commission? Progress is made.
"Whose fault is that?" Why don't you start by assigning guilt to those committing these horrendous crimes and those actively abetting them? Hint: it isn't George Bush or Colin Powell. Yes, being in the middle of two campaigns, the U.S. has put itself in the bad position of not being able to fight a third one. That is Bush's fault, as I've already stated. But, it is more the fault of Iran and Syria who are purposely tying down American troops in Iraq. There are those who are able to move on this crisis, but refuse.
"We need to find a way to do something." Such as? Bombing Khartoum, maybe. Do we have the air resources for a long term campaign? I don't know. Since Africans don't trust Americans (you say), we are in no position "to make grand gestures."
Derek, when appeal to authority doesn't work, you then move on to attack my motives: "You are willing to sit back and watch the death of hundreds of thousands on the principle that others ought to be there instead." How reprehensible on your part. No, I've written that the U.S., for whatever reason, is not in the position to do much in this crisis. But, that there are others who could stop the killing, but refuse to do so. And that this is evidence on the nature and morallity of the "world community." Is your failure to make this distinction the result of a general opaqueness on your part?
Derek Charles Catsam -
7/12/2004
No Grant, I am not being obtuse. This is just the first time you've actually bothered to make an argument that rang as even vaguely coherent.
First off, I would have no problem with us being involved in unilateral action against Sudan just as I had no problem with unilateral action against Afghanistan or Iraq had unilateral action been the only action available. But the problem is not that we are in Iraq, it is that our current administration has bungled it so badly that we now no longer can move on a crisis in which genocide either is happening or is about to happen depending upon whom one believes. Yes, we are stretched too thin, but largely because this administration stuck to its guns on minimal troops. Now we do not have enough for that job in Iraq, never mind in the Sudan. But whose fault is that? It isn't that Bush went top war in Iraq that is his problem, it is bungling almost every single thing related to that war before and after we invaded. Incompetence ought not to be rewarded.
As for the UN, when have I argued in its defense? You are heroically striking at a Straw Man, Grant. Huzzah for you. But it would make more sense to argue against things that people have, you know, actually said rather than to pretend that anyone here has advocated the UN as some sort of paradigm. Because no one has. Cite if you have evidence here to the contrary (hint: save your time. No one has.)
So when you are not arguing against yourself and mysterious invisible web gremlins, we are left with the great Homer Simpson campaign slogan, "Can't someone else do it?" It won Homer election, to be sure. But then look what happened. So we're back at square one: Genocide in Sudan. I damned well think we need to find a way to do something. You are willing to sit back and watch the death of hundreds of thousands on the principle that others ought to be there instead. How, precisely, do you get to proclaim virtue here? inexplicable.
dc
If this doesn't work go to the main website and look for today's (7/11) on the Arab League's obstruction in the U.N.
Grant W Jones -
7/12/2004
Are you saying the United States should move in unilaterally and topple a rogue/terrorist regime? For which, no doubt, Bush will be castigated for "starting" a war "for oil."
You miss my bigger point. Why does the U.S. continue to pretend that the U.N. is part of the solution, when it is part of the problem? France and the Arab League are using the U.N. to block what little the U.S. wants to do about this disaster. If you can't see the difference, then I must ask if you are being intentially obtuse. And why do you continue to evade that fact that American military resources are already stretched far too thin?
Why can't those that refused to support the War on Islamic Terror do something about Sudan, not as part of the war but for humanitarian reasons? That is the very purpose of the U.N's existence. If it can't do the job, then another body is needed. So the U.S. and other civilized nations should pull out of the U.N. and use those resources to form a useful agency. That is the long term solution. In the short-term the U.S. doesn't have a few spare divisions to deploy in a backwards, landlocked region. There is nothing to be done now to change that reality. All Powell can do is try to shame the "world community" into doing the right thing, which is a long shot.
The problem with your palpable outrage, Grant, and your sanctimonious preening, is that it seems to ignore the main, actual, outrage: the death of tens of thousands of Africans. That is the point. Not who can vent their spleen the most effectively. And so the question on the table as I posed it is what do we do, and my answer was that we need to work hard to form a partnership first, to have a role in Africa that can lead to something mutually beneficial. Foaming at the mouth about the UN and France (Note -- no one has actually disagreed with you on these overheated irrelevencies, so I'm not quite sure where the righteous outrage comes from. Had you actually read my recent comment [you know, the one acknowledging, and I'll quote, "Of COURSE the French have been feckless. Of course the UN has been ineffectual. But we have too."] you might note that really this is not the issue on the table.) We get it. We get it about the French. We get it about the UN. And as someone who writes a great deal about Africa, I get it as professional imperative about the AU. In the meantime, though, you don't address the issue of why America should also be taken to task -- certainly if a nation state like the French should be, and as you might note, we're a little more powerful and noble than they are. Because the fact is, we've said "never again" before and it is happening again, and rather than blame others who are not doing anything, maybe we should be doing something. Further, if you actually read the two pieces cited in the text of the blog entry, including mine, you might see the drawing of links between the radical Islam in Sudan and how it just might be in our interest to topple it. I imagine you're aware of terrorist ties to Sudan. So we can keep taxing our ability to use adjectives by repeating the same damned thing about the same damned groups because it proves some sort of bona fides to God knows who, or we can move the discussion forward. I'll throw my ability to conjure up garishly purple prose with you if you'd like, but how about advancing the discussion a little instead?
dc
Grant W Jones -
7/9/2004
You miss my point. If something is to be done about Sudan, it will have to be the U.S. going in alone. That does not imply that America is obligated to take action in Sudan. The U.S. is a single nation that is at war and whose forces are fully occupied.
What's is the U.N.'s excuse? Dealing with situations like Sudan is the very purpose of their existance. The French have no problem interferring in Africa, unless it affends their Arab masters. The AFRICAN UNION is suppose to represent Africans, not mass-murdering dictators.
The FACT that the America would have to contemplate unilateral action demostrates what a useless, contemptable organization the U.N. really is. The French and U.N. are far, far worse than "feckless" and "ineffectual." All Kofi Annan and his parasites at the U.N. are good for is moral puffery directed at the West. They are the same scum that did everything in their power to protect Saddam. They are the enemy of liberty and human rights.
Derek Charles Catsam -
7/9/2004
Wait a second Grant. I at least am going to call you on your 180. Explicitly you said that the Americans would have to go in unilaterally if these other countries and institutions failed. I did not deny that they had failed, but rather that we had failed too, and that hoisting others on a petard when one could as easily be reserved for us is pretty hypocritical. Now suddenly you make an argument almost utterly in opposition with your initial post, likely because you realize the abject silliness of that post. You are fine to argue with yourself if you would like. But at least show us the common courtesy of understanding that we are all capable of going back and looking at your first post, which argued almost the opposite of what you are now saying.
Of COURSE the French have been feckless. Of course the UN has been ineffectual. But we have too. Maybe we have reasons, but if anything, we should hold ourselves to a higher standard than the French and the UN, not a lower one. We both agree that unilateral action should be on the table, though I bet we could get some other countries to join us -- I bet, for example, that Chad might well like to see the refugees coming across their borders stopped and soon as this is causing them to slip into their own humanitarian crisis -- but let's not paint the world as one in which all others who don't act do so out of vice, avarice, or cravenness, and yet when we do not act it is out of virtue. I made my case for the US in my first response to Chris above, but let's not be so blinded by patriotism that we warp the reality on the ground, which is that Sudanese are dying, and the French, the AU, the UN and yes, the US are sitting back and doing virtually nothing. There is enough shame to go around. It is not a limited resource.
dc
Derek Charles Catsam -
7/9/2004
Chris --
I think we simply disagree about the United States, its role in the world, and what we believe it to represent. We've read enough of one another's stuff to realize that neither of us is going to change our minds, and maybe this is not the ideal forum or topic, as I think we both agree, the focus is going to be or should be on Africa here, not the US, though we cannot entirely separate the two.
I do think you put your finger on a very important point when it comes to African leaders and the AU. It would be naive to separate the AU from those who compose it, which is to say, the AU is made up of these very same despotic countries you and I hope to see change. We hope to see that change preferably from within. If not from within, then at least from within Africa. But if the body has as a large proportion other despotic leaders who rob from their people and kill dissidents, how can we possibly expect such a change? This is where, as a last resort but one in which I am willing to engage, I can validate outside change beyond the continent. How that would manifest is difficult to say. But I at least place it on the table.
By the way, I did not tell you, but I am very jealous that you are in Cape Town. My hope is to return over Christmas (though I might visit my brother who will soon be starting a job in Honduras) or else almost certainly next summer. I do hope you are well.
dc
chris l pettit -
7/9/2004
First Derek...the system is broken...it needs fixing. The US is no longer anything other than the largest military force as lone superpower. There is no more moral standing (I would say the presitge was a myth for the most part anyway), no more economic standing (once the housing bubble pops we will be right where we were when the stock market bubble popped), we starve and manipulate other nations (See Cuba, Iraq, North Korea) without truly using means that might actually work in causing changes. Yes there are despots in the world in Sudan, North Korea, and there was one in Iraq, but why not actually try solving problems instead of continuing to use methods that historically have proven to only exacerbate the problems. As an aside...I will be travelling to Dafur in about 2 weeks so I will give you a full update on how the US and UN are failing the regular folk there. Maybe if Rick will allow me, I will write an article on what could and should be done instead of the arrogance and blindness that currently prevades international diplomacy.
I am proud of the foundations of my country as well Derek...it is the government, the lack of education or miseducation, the ignorance, the insulated nature of the society, the arrogance, the blind acceptence of positivism and Machiavellianism that I can't stand. These values are un-American, and more importantly inhuman. We should always remember that we are human beings no different than anyone else...and simply having been born or lived between a certain two invisible and pointless lines on a map does not make us any better than anyone else in this world. Nationalism is a dangerous and ignorance driven thing in most of its forms and usually leads only to hubris and discrimination.
And no...I would not want to revert to some sort of communist state that would be as oppressive as the authoritarian capitalist oligarchy we currently have. Just give me universal health care, free education through university for those who want it and maintian good grades, pay police, teachers, and firefighters the money they deserve and pay CEOs the salaries the teachers earn currently, let workers own the companies and have a bigger stake in them, tax the hell out of anyone making more than $150k a year since no one needs that much and anything above it is simply arrogance and excess, tax the hell out of churches since they seem so eager to stick there noses into politics...let the Christian Conservatives, Jewish radicals, and whatnot pay their dues since they seem so eager to impose their viewpoints on everyone else (my mother always liked Carlin's "keep your religion to yourself" commandment)(by the way...hope there is no offense Dr. Luker and I apologise if there is...just my personal opinion about the institutions...not the individuals, of whom there are many honourable ones such as yourself), lets have a Supreme Court like the one here in RSA selected by a large independent panel representing a large section of society instead of the worthless judiciary in the US that is nothing but political appointees and partisanship, lets recognize the "minimum core standard" articulated in the UNCESCR and recognized by most of the rest of the world, amend the Constitution to require the courts to be human rights protectorates and curb the excesses of the executive and legislature and also require them to examine and take heed of international law when making decisions since we are on the wrong end of international law in most every instance at the moment...I could go on but you get the idea...one last thing...gives students the options and provide grants and stipends to go abroad and learn about other cultures and systems of governments to demonstrate the goodnesses in all of them and erase this ignorant belief that the US is somehow the best system so we should be satisfied and not change.
You already know that I am not a big Mbeki fan. I hope that the AU will stand up to the despots...except that from DRC to Rwanda to Uganda to Sudan to Sierra Leone to Zimbabwe and even to Nigeria there seem to be atrocious leadership regimes that only portray there own self interests. While I agree that there comes a time to take responsibility...one also cannot deny the influence of colonialism and the fact that many countries still meddle in the the affairs of their colonies (US in Liberia to give our example). The effects of this interference should not be taken lightly. Once again I would advocate for a true international system to govern such matters. I hope that the AU can get its act together and become somewhat like the OAS in efficiency. Of course having the US get out of the OAS was the best thing the Americas ever did...and they still have to battle all the problems due to our economic meddling, military excursions and diplomatic blackmail. yes, there are problems with some leaders and such in SOuth America as well, but again on the whole it stems from those bodies actually able to affect things on an international scale.
Sanctomonious? Moi? The French and Kofi Annan could give lessons on that topic. Seriously, how did saving Africa from itself become the job of America? Or is the U.S. the world's policeman only when our national interests are not involved?
Is it not the purpose of the UN to solve such problems, as opposed to profiting by them:
I did not think it possible that my contempt to the genocide enabling UN and Kofi could increase. If the UN can/will not do what's necessary in Sudan, why does that institution exist?
The French have done a great deal more than "nothing."
Since, as Ralph notes, US forces are a little busy at the moment why can't other nations send troops? Because all of Sudan's neighbors, the UN, the AU, France, China, the Arab/Moslem block don't give a shit, that's why. I suppose that's also America's fault.
Ralph: you make some good points, Bush should have told the American people that the times call for more guns and less butter. He should have recruited several more light infantry divisions after 9/11. Water under the bridge, I suppose.
Ralph E. Luker -
7/9/2004
Right. If we disagree, it isn't by much. I do think it's important that we be candid with the public about what we're doing. The commitments to the new regime in Afghanistan have already been unmet. It is far from clear that it's possible to nurse a new regime into a position to defend itself against insurgency in Iraq. And to do justice to The Sudan, you're really talking about regime change there, as well, because, as you note, Darfur is only one element of larger struggles there.
Derek Charles Catsam -
7/9/2004
Ralph --
Again good points. I suppose we could quibble about the Muslim character of Iraq, which was a secular state, but that may well be a distinction without a difference. But then do we simply leave Sudan to its own devices? Do we say, well, we cannot pick on the fundamentalist Islamofascists any more, so do what you will -- our hands are tied! Of course I think your ultimate critique is toward Iraq and how that has tied our hands.
It also probably does a disservice to those millions of Christians and Animists in the Sudan to characterize their country as simply a Muslim state, especially when the Muslim leaders to the north are tyrants and murderers and thugs subverting the will (to put it kindly) of a sizeable minority (Plurality?) of the population. In the end, I doubt we can make the case as I would like it, but the US should make it clear that we stand not against Islam, but rather against killers, mass murderers, genocide and those who would commit it. If Muslims don't want to be lumped in these categories, perhaps they ought not to be driving hijacked planes into buildings (and Afghanistan ought not to be harboring them), murdering Kurds and others by the tens, indeed hundreds, of thousands, and murdering and making refugees of hundreds of thousands or Sudanese. It's the same argument I have been making for a while -- a muscular foreign policy predicated on human rights. Or what I am still pretty convinced has been the best of liberal foreign policy goals since sometime after the turn of the century.
dc
Ralph E. Luker -
7/9/2004
Yes, exactly. I am reminded that 90% of _all_ available troops are actively committed in Afghanistan and Iraq and that now 40% of troops in Iraq are reservists and national guardsmen. I suppose that I might differ with you, however, in thinking that there is reason not to put American troops in yet a third Muslim country. That is, unless we are prepared to give Muslims yet additional reason to think that the war on terrorism is an extension of the Crusades. It might be reason to think that a serious engagement in Afghanistan was merited, but Iraq might, at most, have been a truly multinational effort; and had that been the case we would now have the credibility, reserve strength, and resources to do something significant in The Sudan.
Derek Charles Catsam -
7/8/2004
Ralph --
Very good points. This goes back to the administration's horrible planning of this war, however. recall rwanda, where a couple of thousand troops by all accounts could have stopped genocide. One has to wonder what a few thousand troops would be able to do in Sudan. i surmise a good deal since we are trying to prevent specific actions -- genocide -- and not rebuild the country. That we do not have those troops available is a remarkable commentary on the administration's planning. One has to think that if ever, say, North Korea had designs on South Korea, the fact that we can argue that we don't have a thousand available troops for preventing genocide might make seoul a pretty ripe target.
Of course on top of all of this we are hamstrung by ill-conceived tax cuts. And to think, conservatives have to defend this administration. Real, honest conservatives must be sick to their stomach having to do so.
dc
Ralph E. Luker -
7/8/2004
Isn't it fairly clear that the United States's modest commitment of troops and resources to Afghanistan and its major commitment of troops and resources to Iraq renders it virtually impotent to do much materially in the Sudan? That is, unless those who advocate material action are prepared to call for a re-instatement of the draft and tax increases to moderate the inevitable budget shortfalls we are incurring. The parallels to Viet Nam begin to recur to me. Lyndon Johnson also tried to fight a war without committing his administration to requiring sacrifices of us to pay for it. That fed an inflation that strangled the economy for another two decades.
Derek Charles Catsam -
7/8/2004
Grant --
All fair points. But so far, it is hard to see where your sanctimony comes from. We have not done anything about the Sudan crisis either. The AU, which I've already lamented as so far feckless, has sent 300 more peacekeepers than we have. How 300 ascribes less moral authority than zero is an accounting I'm afraid you are going to have to explain. Ditto snide comments about the French -- they are an easy mark, and it is fun to mock them, to be sure. But they have done nothing and we have done nothing. How does zero equal more than zero? How is the UN giving Sudan more time any worse than the US giving them more time? I'm not disagreeing with the premise stated in your subject heading -- go it alone if necessary. But we have not done that. So why are you not criticizing the US as opposed to all of these other easy targets? Money where our mouth is. Otherwise don't lament the inaction of others as we, the most powerful nation on earth, sit back and watch which way the wind is going to blow as Sudanese die.
dc
Grant W Jones -
7/8/2004
In Sudan the African Union says it is going to send a whopping 300 peacekeepers. Meanwhile the UN is working on another resolution and advocates giving Khartoum more time to finish their genocide. The French, of course, deny there is a problem. From all the Arab/Moslem nations, nothing, as usual.
Derek's observations about the AU summit's ignoring of the Sudan and Zimbabwe reminds me of ASEAN and its deep hesitation to say or do anything about Burma. I imagine that much the same dynamics are at work. Mostly former colonial states wish to project the unity Derek speaks of; but there is also the desire not to point fingers because they don't want fingers pointed at themselves. To establish a tradition of interference in domestic affairs opens the door to repeated interference in domestic affairs. We just don't have mutual understandings about what would justify or compel such interference.
Derek Charles Catsam -
7/8/2004
Chris --
While I disagree with your prescriptions -- Overthrow the whole system? You're joking, right? And replace it with what? A worker's paradise? A dictatorship of the proletariat? A daisy armes peace brigade bearing rainbows and unicorns? I happen to love my country and for all of its flaws see it as the best hope and model out there. -- i think we both agree that more attention ought to be paid to Africa.
Rotberg is an admirable guy, and his piece that I cite here is first rate. He's more idealistic than I am in a lot of ways, but he is sharp and he knows his stuff.
I am disappointed witht he AU summit already -- how can they possibly downplay both genocide in Sudan and Mugabe's insane reign of terror? African leaders need to come to the realization that they have the central role to play on the continent but that enough is enough with this unwillingness to criticize, condemn, and punish those who would do so very wrong by their people. Enough blaming colonialism, awful as colonialism was. Enough of this nonsense that Africans must convey unity throughout the continent lest they somehow be seen as weak or divided -- if a stance against Mugabe is not worth taking, precisely for what do African leaders stand?
I agree -- here's to human rights. But here is to African leaders and their responsibility to uphold them. Africa needs as much support as we can give it, but the nations of Africa can also determine their own fate to a large degree. Removing dictators, murderers, and thugs, by diplomacy if possible, by coercion if necessary, by force if they must, would be a good start.
The West ahs done wrong by Africa. But too many kleptomaniacal despots have exacerbated those wrongs and then hidden behind them to avoid culpability. It is time for Africans themselves to say "enough!"
dc
chris l pettit -
7/8/2004
Hey DC! Just want to second your admiration for Dr. Rotberg. He has actually written extensively on Sri Lanka as well and I had the opportunity to work with him on my projects for the Weeramantry Centre. A brilliant scholar.
On that note...I will be around the next AU Summit as it is being held in South Africa, and I arrived back at UCT Tuesday. I tell you...nowhere feels more like home than Cape Town...boy I love it. Nice cool weather...beautiful women...good wine...it never ends. At least you can relate with me.
There is a darn good reason Africans distrust our nation...maybe we should do something right for a change...but I doubt it since both choices in the election are trash and trashier...isn't it time we just overthrew the whole system and started over from the Declaration of Independence and Constitution? 200 years is a pretty long shelf life for an empire. Funny thing is...I used to only be half serious saying that and seem to get more serious every day.
Here's to peace and human rights...I will raise a glass of Amarhula for you this evening.
