Sunday, July 17, 2005

Clintons in Africa - "Too wittle... too wate"

Ira Magaziner, who heads the Clinton Foundation HIV/Aids Initiative, said in New York last week that the visit to Mozambique, Lesotho, South Africa, Tanzania, Kenya and Rwanda would seek to "reinvigorate political will" in those countries for scaling up Aids treatment programmes.


The Clinton Foundation's work in Africa has concentrated on helping governments design and implement AIDS treatment programmes, with a special focus on children, rural areas and widening access to affordable Aids drugs.

The Clintons in Africa. I can't help feel nauseated when I visualize Clinton in Rwanda. Anyone who has ever read my dissertation knows how I feel about the UN and their repeated botched attempts at just about everything they touch.

But little compares to the
UN and Clinton's failures to intercede in the 1990s genocide of 500,000-800,000 people in Rwanda. I should think he'd be lucky to find many children, with or without AIDs, there at all since he remained mute while the Hutu targeted children most especially in their efforts to wipe out the Tutsi. His 1998 visit to the country, and apology, does not nullify his cowardice and refusal to become involved.

Therein lies the problems of WH admins listening to the drumbeat of the NYT's and ilk. Even then, the New York liberal rags were anti-war, anti-compassion.

An April 13 Newsday editorial asked, "What is to be done?" and recommended "nothing." The New York Times was scarcely more subtle: "No member of the United Nations with an army strong enough to make a difference is willing to risk centuries-old history of tribal warfare and deep distrust of outside intervention."

Later, in support of the administration's position, the Times wrote: " enter this conflict without a defined mission or a plausible military plan risks a repetition of the debacle in Somalia."

Little has changed in a decade. Even now the UN follows the same path, refusing to use the "genocide" word for the Sudan in Darfur. The NYT's and other liberal MSM still pound the anti-war drums steadily... afraid to involve the US military/NATO troops, and citing "quagmire" with pious omnipotence.

However this time, unlike Clinton, the US administration is among those in dissent on Darfur. It is little details like this that highlight the US relationship with the UN as one in need of firm attentions, and demands for change.


Dave Marco said...

What are you suggesting we should have done in Rhwanda? I don't know anyone who has proposed a viable intervention plan with any hope of succeeding. Like Iraq, if we tried to do something within our means, we would have done little more than contributed to the chaos. No lives would have been saved, just more lost.

MataHarley said...

The world intervened in WWII, Dave. Are you suggesting that world action contributed to the chaos of genocide? And do you have any visuals of what life would be today had Hitler not been defeated?

It is also notable that, in our more recent times, the UN has often chose to intervene in cases of genocide. It is one of the few legitimate reasons that body should exist... and trust me, I'm not much of a UN fan for all their bungling.

Witness Bosnia and Kosovo, just to name a couple of recent memory. Thus, why not Rwanda? Should the world stand idly by as despots systematically erase cultures?

You have now come to what the entire WOT is about. Muslim fanatics wish to commit genocide on infidels that occupy their desired caliphate. Which, by the way, encompasses from Spain to China.

Does this suit you?