|
I
read Anthony McIntyre's
article about Rwanda. Why stop at Rwanda? Snap
shot: To totally secure Afghanistan alone would effectively
require 450,000 ground troops. This would require
virtually every deployable Army and Marine Corp member
of the US military to go there. We still have over
650,000 troops babysitting places from post WW2 and
if we removed troops from these and other hot spots,
major wars would flare back up there (particularly
in the South China Sea). So, where would these troops
come from? NATO? Hell, NATO (absent the US) can barely
manage its own back yard (Bosnia and Serbia), which
by every measure is far more civilized than Africa.
Would we use Middle Eastern, African, Gulf State,
Chinese and Latin American troops to acquire the 450,000
needed? Have you checked out the human rights records
of these countries (and their militaries - they are
nearly as bad as the Afghans in many cases)?
The
same guys who call for peace keepers everywhere are
the same ones who block the US from doing the tough
things needed to complete outstanding missions. Irish
republicans would be content to allow the US and Britain
to continue babysitting Saddam until he croaks in
30 years. Except that won't be the case. He must go
or the Israeli - Palestinian situation will never
be resolved.
But
why talk just of Rwanda and what Hutus did to the
Tutsis? Why not Burundi, where 14% are Tutsis yet
they have ruled and oppressed the 85% who are Hutus
for years. Since the 70s, the back and forth fighting
has killed hundreds of thousands (Hutus and Tutsis)
there. The Tutsis invaded Burundi in the 16th century
and they have controlled the economic and political
system ever since then even though they were a mere
14 percent of Burundi's population. They set up a
black-on-black system of apartheid which made South
Africa look saintly in comparison. Likewise, the Tutsis
also invaded Rwanda in the 15th century and have brutalized
the majority who are Hutis ever since then and the
Hutus have responded in kind every few decades.
Between
1910 and 1980 a total of 8,000 blacks were killed
struggling against the South African government. This
is a number surpassed in every other African civil
war in a matter of months. Between 1990 and 1993,
53,000 black South Africans died primarily at the
hands of other blacks. Where are the "Anti-Apartheid"
protesters in any of this black-on-black violence
that constitute some of the most brutal and massive
human rights violations in history? Why not talk about
America,
where the number one cause of death for black men
between the ages of 15 and 34 is murder, by another
black man in 94% of the cases? Where are the civil
rights and anti-apartheid crowd while any of this
is occurring? They are out looking for the few cases
they can find where whites abuse blacks because that
is what sells politically. That's where they are.
Gang
rapes, stealing 10 year olds for combat, forcing kids
to kill family members, slaughtering school children,
slicing throats, decapitation, and ripping intestines
out of living people etc. are all standard norms of
every day warfare in Africa (and Asia) and always
have been. Peace keepers are eventually ALWAYS viewed
as the enemy and targetted for the same treatment.
Moreover, the wars tend to resume as soon as the police
(regardless of form) are removed even if decades have
gone by. Bosnia was a prime example. The USSR acted
as a ruthless cop on the block. When it broke up,
pre-WW1 ethnic wars restarted.
What
about Uganda? Idi Amin (whom the US initially supported
before knowing how insane he was) killed nearly 1
million. When challenged on this, the Organization
for African Unity elected Amin as their president!!
How about Liberia which even practiced cannibalism
in its most recent war. What about Nigeria or Angola?
They've both killed hundreds of thousands. Forget
choosing sides, as each is generally as bad as the
other, as is the case with Tutsis and Hutus - just
depends on which country you tune in to watch them
in and at what time. Beware of the 30 day snap shot
of a long running 400 plus year feud; it will mislead
you every time. Don't worry, each side will convince
you they are the persecuted in an attempt to get you
to fight their enemy. You will be suckered each time.
Civil wars are nasty and there is seldom a singular
victim. The Hutus fled persecution in Burundi to Rwanda
and v/s. What about the civil wars in the Sudan, Uganda,
Ethiopia, Chad, Democratic Republic of the Congo,
Namibia, Tanzania, Zimbabwe or Somalia, Sierra Leone,
Liberia? How about the wide spread slavery still practiced
in the Sudan, Mauritania, Senegal, Ivory Coast, Ghana,
and Niger?
Fact
is, Rwanda reflects most of Africa for most of its
history. In fact, the truth is South Africa "under
apartheid" (bad as that was) was one of the most
successful, peaceful eras in Africa's history (when
compared to other countries there and the rest of
its history).
Do
you have a few million men you could send to police
Africa? I'm sure you would not mind it that soon after
your idealistic arrival, you would be viewed as the
enemy. Your mates would be taken hostage, drugged
to their deaths, chopped into pieces and thrown back
at you while you were attempting to feed them in a
soup line (as occurred to Americans in Somalia). You
could then enjoy being spat upon by those you try
to feed whom refuse to eat your food from any place
but the trash cans (after hours). Your crime would
have been attempting to take away their arms which
they had been using to deny their fellow countrymen
access to food. Of course their fellow country men
would hate you as well for feeding their enemy. In
fact hatred of you might be the only thing which unites
them.
Till
then, they can always feed outlandish lies about you
to the press in attempt to run you off and your so
called friends can always be depended upon to circulate
them as truths regardless of how outlandish or unsubstantiated
they are.
While
not as bad, you might spare a 100,000 troops to police
Latin America as well. What do you mean Ireland can't
supply a few hundred thousand troops who are willing
to be treated like dirt and killed to stop people
they've never met from killing each other! So, you
might try and find a half way decent group of combatants
to support and train to fight their own wars so the
war could be ended. But in that case beware, because
your so-called friends in Europe will then claim you
"started the war" and write all sorts of
cute bedtime stories about how once upon a time there
was this magical kingdom until Ireland sponsored a
war there. Moreover, beware of "half way decent
combatants" in foreign countries because they
can turn out to be some truly rabid dogs.
Now,
if you decide to skip the military aid and just provide
humanitarian assistance, beware, in virtually every
case crooks will distribute it there ... 2 for them
... one for their country .... then you will be accused
of supporting a dictator there by friends who know
little about it but should know you better than to
spread the sort of crap Europeans (and Ireland) spread
in their press about the US.
You
might want to send millions of dollars to Ethiopia
as the US did in the 1980s during their war induced
famine. Then be criticized for not sending more by
their president (Mengistu), who expects you to pay
the 100 million dollar tab for his 10th anniversary
celebration of their socialist revolution. What about
Nigeria, which is the world's seventh largest oil
producer yet due to massive corruption they are one
of the world's poorest nations? Their government even
stole money given to them to repair their four major
oil refineries. The refineries remained down for months
and Nigeria was unable to even supply its own countries
oil needs. This describes pretty much every country
in Africa. They are run by military dictatorships
and self appointed presidents for life. In spite of
being blessed with natural resources the GDP of the
entire continent of Africa is less than Germany's.
Of
course, Europe tends to respond to things like Rwanda,
Sierra Leone, and the Sudan, by supporting their appointments
to sit on the UN Human Rights Commission and International
Courts so they can pass their values on and sit in
judgement of countries which actually have fairly
good human rights records! European sophisticates
will tell you they believe treating these leaders
as if they are normal will induce them to conduct
themselves normally. Well, there is a 60 plus year
record of trying that method through out the cold
war. Africa, Asia, and Latin America still have the
human rights records from hell and totally flunking
economies. At what point do you reconsider a failed
policy?
Finally,
you might get smart and when there is not a real combination
of national interests involved keep out of the fray
by developing the "wild cat" syndrome. I
rescue wild cats, tame them, nurse them to health
and find them homes. However, in a few cases the cat
claws the shit out of me one time too many (out of
fear), and I just have to declare that one "coyote
bait" (coyotes come into the town in the fall
and eat any cats they find).
If
I ever support the deployment of any American peace
keepers to Africa again, the rules of the game will
have to be rewritten to show the international community
takes the human rights of non-whites seriously beyond
scoring a few political points here and there and
occasionally requesting a fireman to put out fires.
They could start by demanding democracy and a restructure
of their governments rather than celebrating cultural
differences as a thin cover for the support of dictators.
They could hold their leadership just as accountable
for their actions as white leaders are held for theirs.
Human Rights organizations could at
least make half the effort to condemn the Rwandans
as they do a few beards being shaved at Guantanamo.
To date that has not occurred.
Index: Current Articles + Latest News and Views + Book Reviews +
Letters + Archives
|
