What About Africa?
Most discussions of foreign policy these days -- in print, on the web, and on radio and TV -- are consumed with the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and the possibility of war with Iran. To the extent that most Americans think about Africa at all, it is often as a place of chaos, violence, and disease, where the United States government and private citizens (like the two Bills, Gates and Clinton) are trying to do what they can to help despite steep odds. This view stereotypes an entire continent based on a list of admittedly intractable problems, but it gives little or no attention to positive activities undertaken by civil society groups in Africa.
As for our government, whatever motivation it may have to help address Africa's problems is rapidly being overwhelmed by a narrow military-driven agenda. My colleague Frida Berrigan has described Africa as the Bush administration's "third front" in the war on terror in her recent article for Foreign Policy in Focus.
From its encouragement of Ethiopia to intervene against Islamist forces in Somalia to its recent discussions about whether to add Ethiopia's rival Eritrea to the U.S. terrorist list, the Bush administration's Africa policy is increasingly preoccupied with military matters.
The latest thrust in this direction was the creation of a separate military command structure for Africa known as AFRICOM. As Rear Admiral Richard Hunt, the Commander in Chief of Combined Joint Task Force-Horn of Africa (CJT-HOA, for those of you who love military acronyms as much as I do), sees it "Africa is the New Frontier that we need to engage now, or we are going to end up doing it later in a very negative way." This begs the question of why the main form of U.S. engagement should be military rather than, say, diplomatic, cultural, or economic.
But military it is -- a recent study by the the Center for Defense Information has documented that Djibouti -- which hosts a miiltary base housing 1,800 U.S. troops -- has received 40 times as much U.S. military aid since September 11th as it did in the five years prior. Kenya received eight times as much over the same period, and Algeria received ten times its pre-9/11 totals. This is part of the Pentagon's strategy to establish close military-to-military relationships with a key network of African states that it can then use as "lily pads" to jump from one part of the continent to another as it sees fit.
Not all African nations are taking kindly to the Pentagon's growing presence in their neighborhood. The South African Defense Minister recently refused to meet with the incoming U.S. head of AFRICOM, arguing that "Africa has to avoid the presence of foreign forces on its soil." A number of other states, most notably Liberia, have been urging Washington to base the new command it their countries -- this may be fine for the governments involved, but it is unlikely to win favor with the citizens of these nations, most of whom see the U.S. as a global bully in the wake of the Iraq war.
So what is to be done? There is clearly a need for some miitary interaction between the United States and key African nations, primarily in a supporting role in the development and deploymentn of regional and international peacekeeping forces that can deal with deadly conflicts in the Sudan, the Democratic Republic of the Congo, and elsewhere. But these kinds of efforts don't require a U.S. military presence on the continent of Africa.
Furthermore, as it becomes clearer that a new security paradigm must rely as much or more on diplomacy, law enforcement, environmental protection, and public health policies as it does on military force, it makes little sense to have the main face of U.S. interaction in Africa be a military one. Investing in improving the lives of people in Africa will do far more to foster genuine cooperation in fighting terrorism than using the continent as a military launch pad. This will not happen, however, unless there is far more discussion of what the U.S. role in Africa is, versus what it can and should be.
It's a little unclear what you mean by "military" presence, and it's also unclear what the scope will be of AFRICOM vis-a-vis State and other US foreign aid. Rather than automatically assuming "military bad", I'd rather see a bottom-up look at what the US, in the peaceful development of Africa as well as potential military involvement, preferably multinational and true coalition. Perhaps AFRICOM should be headed by a senior ambassador, but I see too many "dual use" military resources for a knee-jerk reaction, conditioned perhaps by the military adventurism of this Administration, that some new type of regional command can and should be created. It may have military elements but not have the flavor of a "combatant command".
I agree absolutely that public health, diplomacy, environmental protection, and law enforcement are all part of national policy toward Africa. Of course, when one looks at public health, one finds that Navy Medical Research Unit 3 (NAMRU-3) has been in Cairo since 1942. Even when there was a break in relations between the US and Egypt, the medical cooperation was such that NAMRU 3 experiments continued to be run by Egyptian staff, and later made more joint. The facility is not just US-Egyptian, but is a World Health Organization reference laboratory.
Right now, the US is supporting the African Union peace force in Darfur with C-130 transport flights from Nigeria. El Fasher is the best airport in Darfur, which isn't saying much. Nyala has a less well developed airport, which clearly needs improvement -- especially if the railroad from central Sudan to Nyala gets running routinely. For that matter, the railroad runs into Chad, although that leg is not operational.
Frankly, I'd far rather see a focused airfield improvement effort by a US Air Force RED HORSE organization, then yet another no-bid contract to KBR, or yet another high-overhead contract made available to a small number of companies. One of the wise things the Sudanese government has done is to try to develop its own road and rail building expertise. RED HORSE crews ideally would work side-by-side with people of Darfur to teach their trades, and then the RED HORSE people would fly away, perhaps to another spot needing an airport. My point is that there are very few organizations, outside the military, that can quickly go into an unimproved area and build air terminals.
How do you propose handling air transport for African development, when the necessary capability is not available in a given country? Are appropriate and safe charters available? Are there rough-field destinations that civilian aircraft are not designed to use?
One case study that should be examined very closely is the British intervention in Sierra Leone, taking down the worst of the local gangs while West African regional peace enforcers (ECOMOG) under the Economic Community of West African States (WAS) moved in. I was struck by the similarity to some of Thomas Barnett's work, where a first-world "Leviathan" force took down a major threat, and then handed off to a nation-building "System Administrator" charged with "connecting to the core" of developed nations. The British unit that did this was comparable to a US Marine Expeditionary Unit (MEU) afloat.
Appropriate military forces can stop a coup, as did France in Ivory Coast, and evacuate noncombatants. While US MEUs have the primary responsibility for Noncombatant Evacuation Operations (NEO), things got creative when the regional MEU was committed to an evacuation in Liberia, when a second coup attempt broke out in the Central African Republic.
You quite correctly speak of needing discussion. Let's start it here, but don't confuse improper use of military forces with sane things that could be done with resources working cooperatively. Don't forget law enforcement, considering the chaos funded by illicit diamonds.
--
Howard
*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*
"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it" [George Santayana]
September 21, 2007 1:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
Howard, remember when US forces went to Somalia in 1991? That seemed like a good idea at the time. They were sent to provide humanitarian aid to the starving Somali people. Those excruciating photos of children with scars of starvation. It seemed obvious that the US military with its logistics capability could deal with a problem like that. Only the most hard hearted soul could oppose such an operation. We all know what happened next. After 18 months the US rangers and their helicopter gunships were no more than another warring tribe out to kill as many opposing warriors as they could. Absolutely no good came from that intervention.
Prudence requires that we should equate military intervention with, if not "bad", then at least war.
September 21, 2007 2:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
"There is clearly a need for some miitary interaction between the United States and key African nations, primarily in a supporting role in the development and deploymentn of regional and international peacekeeping forces that can deal with deadly conflicts in the Sudan, the Democratic Republic of the Congo, and elsewhere."
I'm not so sure the need is so clear. Maybe we can just help defray costs and prevent genocide; or, maybe, we should leave the world alone. I'm pretty conflicted on this one.
Ben Cronin
September 21, 2007 3:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
Somalia is a special case of mission creep, and where the inappropriate direction came both from the US and UN. I recommend the McNair Paper from the National Defense University, Lessons Learned: Somalia as a guide for future operations. The original mission was something that could be done, but the scope grew without wisdom. Operational military commanders wore too many hats, but their professional judgment was rejected with respect to the needs of an escalated mission.
Early in the transition from the UNITAF UN mission to the UNISOM II programs, wise men should have stopped and reevaluated, and kept the mission within reasonable bounds -- which wouldn't have solved all the starving children. Ambassador (admiral, retired) Oakley did seem to have a balanced view, but I was not enthralled with the performance of MG Garrison in the planning of OPERATION GOTHIC SERPENT.
Sometimes, the best planned military operations fail under incompetent command. Sometimes, outstanding commanders retrieve efforts that seemed deliberately planned to become a fiasco. Putting an English-speaking reaction force into vehicles with Malay-speaking drivers is an example of the latter, with the quick reaction force led by LTC David seeming to transcend the tactical picture.
Should the UN have passed Resolution 837 without a clear idea of its feasibility? Should the US commanders -- and I'd have to go look at the book to see Gen. Çevik Bir of the Turkish Army was in operational control of a multinational force with inadequate common languages.
--
Howard
*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*
"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it" [George Santayana]
September 21, 2007 3:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
But obviously Africa doesn't want to get engaged militarily. Probably Iraq and Afghanistan (and Somalia) don't turn Africans on to the US way of doing things.
Colin Powell is apparently feeling a little guilty (as he should) about Iraq so he's talking like a statesman now, emphasizing human development rather than war.
"What is the greatest threat facing us now? People will say it’s terrorism. But are there any terrorists in the world who can change the American way of life or our political system? No. Can they knock down a building? Yes. Can they kill somebody? Yes. But can they change us? No. Only we can change ourselves. So what is the great threat we are facing?
"I would approach this differently, in almost Marshall-like terms. What are the great opportunities out there—ones that we can take advantage of? It should not be just about creating alliances to deal with a guy in a cave in Pakistan. It should be about how do we create institutions that keep the world moving down a path of wealth creation, of increasing respect for human rights, creating democratic institutions, and increasing the efficiency and power of market economies? This is perhaps the most effective way to go after terrorists."
http://men.style.com/gq/features/full?id=content_5900&pageNum=3
In the meantime, China has discovered Africa. Malawi's largest ice-cream factory is Chinese-owned!
". . .in the past five years or so, as hundreds of thousands of Chinese have discovered the continent, setting off to do business in a part of the world that had been terra incognita. The Xinhua News Agency recently estimated that at least 750,000 Chinese were working or living for extended periods on the continent, a reflection of deepening economic ties between China and Africa that reached $55 billion in trade in 2006, compared with less than $10 million a generation earlier."
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/18/world/africa/18malawi.html?th&emc=th
Isn't it ironic that capitalist America excels in the design, manufacture and sales of military equipment, plus the armed forces to use them, while communist China concentrates on ice cream makers, co-generation equipment and public works. Which model do Africans favor? China. Who wouldn't.
September 21, 2007 5:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks for this information, Don. I added it to a post in the Darfur thread, suggesting that selective investment, as the Chinese did in Malawi, may be far more effective than nationwide sanctions and divestment, and threats of a distant ICC. South Sudan, definitely African-identified, is eager for investment, and offers opportunities that don't necessarily take money from the North -- unless the North becomes obnoxious enough that the South exercises its option to secede in 2011.
I'd note that South Sudan increasingly is exercising its own foreign policy, including significant cooperation with Uganda. While Uganda is no paradise, for Africa, it has made the most of debt relief and has built an economy that is attractive to foreign investment.
Drawing too sharp a contrast between American military force and Chinese business may not, however, be the simplest explanation. Consider how many businesses in China are owned and operated by the Peoples' Liberation Army, certainly an unusual historical precedent but one that is very real.
--
Howard
*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*
"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it" [George Santayana]
September 21, 2007 7:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think the US should stay out of Africa because our intrusion there is mostly about oil and other resources. I was appauled to learn that "US aide to Africa" was conditioned on the purchase of "genetic modified crops" which can't be replanted each year-- a situation that makes Africans dependent on foreign help. There was also the "Nigeria Drilling and Killing" episode. And, based on brief research, my memory remembers that the US liked bombing pharmaceutical factories that produced "patent protected drugs" at a fraction of the price.
As far as I can tell, Chomsky is dead on when he claims that the US goes into other countries under the veil of humanitarianism in order to loot local resources.
I don't have the time to dig up references, but I remember the NyTimes reporting that over 90% of the aide destined to Africa never gets there so Bill Clinton seems to be mostly good at redistributing aide as political pork.
As far as Bill Gates goes, I don't think he has demanded any real reform and he seems to be happy with the current corruption especially since Microsoft Wants Software Patents and, thus, he probably supports selling seeds with "terminator genes" to africa and "overpriced drugs" that nobody can afford without a wholesale liquidation of natural resources.
To boldly go...
September 22, 2007 8:48 AM | Reply | Permalink
"While Uganda is no paradise, for Africa, it has made the most of debt relief and has built an economy that is attractive to foreign investment."
and foreign investment isn't all that wonderful, as an alternative, if "the investors" leave the place polluted, etc...
To boldly go...
September 22, 2007 8:54 AM | Reply | Permalink
Did you have specific examples of recent environmental damage by foreign companies in Uganda? If so, I thought you would have mentioned them. As written, it comes across as a generic "foreign investment bad".
--
Howard
*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*
"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it" [George Santayana]
September 22, 2007 9:00 AM | Reply | Permalink
Part of what you mention is quite a while back, such as the cruise missile attack under the Clinton Administration. It might be helpful if you got a bit more detail on this and some of your other accusations.
The attack was based on misinterpreted intelligence. CIA personnel had sent in environmental samples from around the plant, and the laboratory identified them, correctly, as potential precursor chemicals in the production of nerve gas. Unfortunately, the chemicals were dual-use, and had perfectly legitimate uses in synthesizing veterinary drugs.
Again, I'm getting a sense that you share Chomsky's belief that America is automatically wrong, especially if business is involved. Again, you have no specifics to complain about.
I agree that if genetically modified seeds, which will not produce new seed stock, are used for routine crops, that's wrong. Some of the genetically engineered seeds, however, produce much more useful harvest than the traditional ones, so they are a viable economic proposition because harvest profits allow new seed to be bought and still have a better profit; US farmers do this.
Other genetically engineered seeds have built-in insect resistance, so there is less pollution, as well as better yields because the bugs don't eat the crop. In other cases, especially with rice, the plants are engineered to produce vitamins normally deficient in the particular population.
So, whether to used genetically modified seeds, in a developing country, is not black and white. I might note that Uganda, which I was discussing, is setting up an advanced virology laboratory. While I wouldn't say this is true for the majority of African states, Uganda may, within a reasonable time, may be able to do its own genetic engineering.
In Afria, there is a very real problem with corruption and aid not reaching its intended people and businesses. Some countries, Uganda being one of them, have reduced this drastically, although it's still present. Nigeria is pretty bad in this area. I'd make the observation that countries are monitored after debt relief, and future aid and investment goes to the countries that are least corrupt. Note that I didn't say corruption-free, just as Katrina rebuilding contracts may not have been issued in the most objectie way.
You do seem to make quite a few assumptions. Gates is increasingly out of Microsoft operations and involved in his foundation. If you have a reference that
please provide it, or come across again as someone that just wants to damn American involvement, whether it's useful or not. As I pointed out, the plants with terminator genes (really not a good biological term; they are more often sterile polyploid mutations) may produce enough additional yield to pay for next year's crop. There may be very good reasons for saying that such seeds are a bad idea for a particular country, regional ecology, and economies. Chomsky-style "America bad" doesn't identify such reasons.
I leave you, however, with a quote from Chomsky himself, in which I find him more open than usual to case-by-case solutions.
Incidentally, with respect to your not having time to look up references, finding the Chomsky quote took less than a minute, and I've bothered to study Africa and agriculture enough that I can make reasonable statements from memory. If you have the attention span for it, analyses of the pros and cons of genetically modified crops are available.
--
Howard
*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*
"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it" [George Santayana]
September 22, 2007 9:19 AM | Reply | Permalink
OPERATION GOTHIC SERPENT? Fits perfectly with the policies of rancid reactionaries who insist on fighting 21st century wars with medieval strategies and tactics. (SERPENT was thrown in to give it biblical stature.)
Then there's Bush who lives merely for the opportunity to blow across the upturned barrel of his Colt .45 - the sum total of the Bush Administration's 'foreign policy.'
It might be that for now Africa would be better off without us.
September 22, 2007 9:36 AM | Reply | Permalink
I lived in Yemen, a fifth-world country at the time, in the mid-'70s. Not a large country, yet the 'aid', mainly food stuffs, was off-loaded at Hodeida, the main Red Sea port and there it sat to either rot or to be rifled through by the not-necessarily deserving locals.
Adding to the problem of not being able to distribute it was the problem of how it was containerized - peanut oil in 5 gallon cans, powered milk in 100 lb sacks foreinstance, with nobody to re-package the stuff for distribution.
Adding to that problem, the locals hated the taste of peanut oil, put it on their hair, and water being precious made powered milk redundant.
When we learn that 90% of the aid destined for
Africa never gets there, my small experience with aid programs rather confirms same.
September 22, 2007 10:40 AM | Reply | Permalink
In the most recent Pew Global Attitudes Survey, the sole region of the world whose citizens had generally positive views of the United States was sub-Saharan Africa. Sub-Saharan Africa is also the only part of the world that has never seen a substantial US military intervention - with the exception of Somalia, which was not in the Pew survey, but where attitudes towards the US are now broadly hostile.
If we want to keep sub-Saharan Africa pro-American, the best thing to do would be to keep our military the hell out of there.
"All governments lie, but disaster lies in wait for countries whose officials smoke the same hashish they give out." - I.F. Stone
September 22, 2007 11:18 AM | Reply | Permalink
I'd be very interested in your experiences there. Reasonably often, I correspond, or know in person over here, people from Sierra Leone, Guinea, Kenya, Sudan, South Africa and Guinea. Sadly, I've lost track of some Nigerian student friends, who insisted that my Szechuan cooking was the closest thing they had in the US that was like good home cooking there.
You make some very good points about the starting point for distribution, much less getting things to the village level. Some parts of Africa use peanut oil for some things, as do many in the Sierra Leonean clan I think of as extended family.
One of my friends in the clan has built a small home business in the US, importing palm nut oil and home-style dried fish. Now, for typical American genetics, palm oil is about the worst natural fat available. Since I sometimes help them with medical matters, it's fascinating that their genetics let them eat lots of palm kernel oil, but have very safe values of cholesterol and related substances. My looking at the bottle can make me think about a trip to the ER.
I mention the small business here to suggest that things should go both ways. The Nobel Peace Prize to Muhammad Yunus, the Bangladeshi banker who is the world's guru of microloans, was well deserved. Starting small export businesses, even just to your relatives in the US and elsewhere, is something that microloans help. The clan here has its own informal microloan agreement, as its members sequentially start businesses with capital raised, week by week, by family and friends.
In no way do I disagree there is a major problem with distribution in aid programs, and in aid programs sending things that are culturally unacceptable. This strikes me as something to work on, rather than treat as a lost cause.
Are there any Yemenite things, grown or perhaps handmade or manufatured, that might find a market in the US?
--
Howard
*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*
"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it" [George Santayana]
September 22, 2007 11:26 AM | Reply | Permalink
On Chomsky, do you have specifics to complain about? If you disagree with Chomsky then you have the obligation to document your specific differences with his findings and conclusions. Chomsky's main thesis is that the American policy to dominate the world economically and militarily has led to foreign policy disasters which actually threaten the US, besides the destructive results in the countries where the US has done its evil deeds.
September 22, 2007 11:35 AM | Reply | Permalink
Bush, hopefully, will soon be ugly history, along with his partisans. While the initial part of GOTHIC SERPENT (and the name, but operational names aren't supposed to mean anything [Note 1]) came from a US command, the overall Somali command was multinational. Some directives from the UN Security Council should either have been ignored, or sent back with a reality check of "exactly who and how is going to do this?"
In that particular operation, there were some things that would be equally stupid in the 21st or 12th century. In another post, I cited a good reference on lessons learned, which include being more aware of limitations.
When you say "Africa would be better off without us", at least in Somalia, the US was not running the whole show. When the US force, idiotically sent in during the day, without a clear plan for things going wrong, the relief force that got them out had US, Pakistani, and Malaysian troops.
I expect most operations in Africa, military and not, should be multinational. While the Somali operations were a fiasco, there have been actions in other African nations, sometimes involving US forces and sometimes not -- perhaps the best example was British -- to evacuate civilians or to restore a democratic government.
There are going to be situations that have to be recognized as not easily soluble, certainly not by conventional militaries. Darfur is a good example. The UN force in Rwanda, had it been allowed to take some actions that the Canadian commander, Romeo Dallaire, could do with his mostly Belgian troops, might have reduced greatly the slaughter that broke out.
--
Howard
*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*
"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it" [George Santayana]
September 22, 2007 11:38 AM | Reply | Permalink
Not that I know of. As I flash back to my weekly food shopping trips at the local souk, other than very utilitarian baskets of poor quality and silverish arm bracelets, roughly made, I can think of nothing. Most goods are, or at least were, imported. (Yemenis are by nature bedouins - some say the original bedous - and they continue to live ready to load the camel and hop on the ass even though their wandering days are basically over. Nomads have no use for the superfluous so are blessedly stuff free.)
They do make a huge,ferocious looking dagger called a djambia - worn to threaten more than to be used. A 'novelty' item for belligerant Americans? Once known for their Mokka (mocha) coffee, cultivated in terraces on small properties at very high altitudes and on irrigated land, it is apparently unique in the world. As far as I know, they no longer export it or maybe even grow it. Too bad, as it would be a great export item.
Of course, my picture is 30 years old. It was an extremely poor country. (A World Bank person walked into our house in the Tihama (countryside) one evening and said in a very somber voice, "And I thought Bangladesh was bad."
Sounds pretty bleak but there is a magnificent beauty to the place. Afterall, it was known in ancient times as Arabia Felix and it was the home of the Queen of Sheba and the home of algebra so its history alone should attract the TOURIST.
September 22, 2007 1:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
Be careful who hears that last bit of history. GWB might decide the sinister al-Gebra makes Weapons of Math Destruction, and invade.
--
Howard
*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*
"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it" [George Santayana]
September 22, 2007 2:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
The attack was based on misinterpreted intelligence.
and I don't buy this excuse since the CIA is always "misinterpretting" intelligence. that's why we're in Iraq-- "supposedly bad intelligence." as far as I can tell, you're trying to put lipstick on a pig.
Again, I'm getting a sense that you share Chomsky's belief that America is automatically wrong
charges of anti-americanism is an overused Bush smear, and you know it.
I think Chomsky gets it right: "the united states is abroad out of selfishness and not humanitarianism."
In a recent post, you noted that a friend of yours almost shot at a car full of Iraqis at a checkpoint and you begged us to see the nuance; you didn't mention that Kofi Annan declared the Iraq occupation illegal so your friend was in Iraq illegally and shouldn't have been there, etc... so, from my viewpoint, you color things according to your viewpoints.
if you want, you can read stuff about the African Oil grab here:
In recent months, the Movement for the Emancipation of the Niger Delta – MEND – has intensified its conflict with the Nigerian government and its largest commercial partner, the oil giant Shell. [SOURCE]
I would post links about the fights over "genetic modified crops" but I can tell that you'd argue for their usefulness over the economic rights of the farmers who suffer because of issues like cross-pollination and the court enforced rules that make it very difficult to switch back to normal crops.
Some of the genetically engineered seeds, however, produce much more useful harvest than the traditional ones, so they are a viable economic proposition because harvest profits allow new seed to be bought and still have a better profit; US farmers do this.
actually, if a farmer's field becomes cross-pollinated with GM crops, the farmer will probably be sued and accused of not licensing the seed. and only time will tell if "genetic modified crops" actually produce bigger profits. here in minnesota, we have lots of pollution left over from 3M-- i.e. they used to use chemicals to increase profits but, in today's world, we're left with a priceless mess. people also used your argument that hydrocarbons were good because they increased profits but now we're facing the consequences of global warming.
thus, until the shit hits the fan, I don't think anybody knows if "genetic modified crops" will have a positive or negative impact on the DNA of plants and the animals which feed on them.
So, whether to used genetically modified seeds, in a developing country, is not black and white.
but the "black and white issue" is that poor people are kept poor through a GM tax. the "black and white issue" is about "sufficient profits" versus "excessive profits" collected at the barrel of a gun or other coercion (read economic hitmen).
If you have the attention span for it, analyses of the pros and cons of genetically modified crops are available.
you're as arrogant as usual howard.
To boldly go...
September 22, 2007 2:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
There are indeed pollution problems in the US, from poor regulation in the past. Christine Whitman left EPA because the current oligopoly wanted to leave their friends alone. I expect responsible environmental regulation to become active again, as people learn the full scope of Bush/Cheney cronyism. Please provide a pointer to any place where I said "hydrocarbons are good". Not only did I not say that, since I trained as a chemist, I'd say something a good deal more specific. Methane is indeed a hydrocarbon emitted by cattle, giving us the pleasant prospect that controlling literal bullshit would stop global warming. Carbon dioxide is much more of a problem, and it contains no hydrogen. Perhaps. Perhaps I'm working from facts and reasonable engineering projections, rather than your assumption that everything is bad. I'm reminded of executives that demand their system administrators have fifteen years of experience with Windows XP. Any technological decision has potential benefits and potential hazards; you balance them as best as possible, introduce them gradually, have them monitored by independent regulators, and encourage the good while cleaning up the bad. -- Howard
*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*
"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it" [George Santayana]
September 22, 2007 3:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
This strikes me as something to work on, rather than treat as a lost cause.
Bill Clinton and others, who run NGO's, wouldn't allow the system to be rolled back. Foreign aide has become a spoilage system similar to the 35,000+ "washington lobbyists."
Even in the US, the "Red Cross" has lost its reputation as people have learned how the "Red Cross" stashes donations and even the MSM has reported that "Billions of Dollars in Donations Post-Katrina, Yet Very Little Relief" and CNN reported that Mexico Red Cross in crisis after corruption charges.
An episcopal bishop was recently in town and wanted donations for a compound in africa that would house NGO's, an AIDS hospice and a church.
When asked if the place provided "protease inhibitors," the bishop said that "abstinence" was the only intervention they used-- surely a policy that will ensure that the hospice will be filled with victims forever and a place where NGO's will find continual funding.
To boldly go...
September 22, 2007 3:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
I won't call them revolutionaries,
chomsky is a linguist who analyzes culture. I wouldn't call him a revolutionary. chomsky might be a nietschian priest who tries to answer the question "what does the concept of good mean to us?"
Try thinking outside your local environment. What would be the point to an agribusiness suing a farmer in Africa, who have no real assets to confiscate.
you can read this about how europe doesn't want GM based foods and how the US does and Africa gets stuck in the middle if they want their food certified as "GM Free."
The main problem was that US "food aide" could contain GM based foods and seed and that was problematic for trade.
I've heard about Canadian farmers trying to sue and having a difficult time. When I have more time, I'll look and see if Africa had similar problems.
you balance them as best as possible, introduce them gradually, have them monitored by independent regulators, and encourage the good while cleaning up the bad.
a very 21st century attitude based on beauracracy. that's why you don't like chomsky.
chomsky is much more philsophical than you are, a linguist, and would readily admit that the word "good" is abstract and means nothing.
To boldly go...
September 22, 2007 3:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
I see that you can complain about everything, and indeed a lot of things are lousy. What I don't see from you are any proposals to do things better.
You claim both foreign and domestic emergency aid are flawed, and I don't disagree. I propose at least some approaches, and you dismiss them as "bureaucracy". You do not, however, have any alternatives of your own.
As far as the bishop, I agree that abstinence isn't an answer. You don't have suggestions. In other threads, I posted data on the surprising effect that male circumcision has in decreasing HIV transmission.
I'm not sure where you pulled out protease inhibitors as the treatment, but the general rule in HIV therapy is to use multiple drugs. Fixed combinations of, for example, a protease inhibitor and either a non-nucleotide or nucleotide reverse transcriptase inhibitor have a better chance of working, even more in a 3-drug mix, and is starting to be available in the Third World. The standard of care is Highly Active Anti-Retroviral Therapy (HAART). It seems that I take the trouble to do that, but you are content with complaining at the bishop.
--
Howard
*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*
"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it" [George Santayana]
September 22, 2007 3:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
Again, I hear a litany of complaints, and who is wrong and should be punished or banished. That's one of the things I don't like about Nader -- he's eager to litigate against things he doesn't like, but tends to be short on alternatives.
I'd be tempted to cut to the chase and observe that to me, it is Chomsky that means nothing. What you've just described is a post-modernist philosopher, who, by your definition, cannot seek good because it is meaningless.
I'll take a somewhat earlier philosopher and writer, Sartre, who said "the only serious philosophical problem is suicide." In a value set such as you've ascribed to Chomsky, there really isn't any reason to go on, is there? Most oral euthanasia protocols recommend 3 grams of pentobarbital, perhaps washed down with vodka.
Personally, I might sip a bit of Lagavulin as I try to find ways to improve situations. That's not to get drunk; I like the taste. As a specific, I am working with several Africans in improving Internet access there. Since it would just transmit words and images, and there is no such thing as good on Noam's Ark, I suppose you will say "why bother"?
--
Howard
*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*
"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it" [George Santayana]
September 22, 2007 3:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
What you've just described is a post-modernist philosopher, who, by your definition, cannot seek good because it is meaningless.
well, unlike America, good has yet to be discovered-- as far as I know.
However, I do have hope that, as monkey's at a typewriter, we'll eventually figure out what "good is" but, until then, it'll remain a mystery.
I'm thankful that Chomsky, like MLK, has the courage to remind people that "the unexamined life isn't worth living." He's a good Nietzschean priest who uses spiritual warfare against the ruling class and shows that they are naked!
To boldly go...
September 23, 2007 12:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
But America was not "discovered", except in a very loose, Eurocentric way. The continent certainly was present, and the natives, perhaps earlier travelers across the Bering Strait Land Bridge, certainly knew where they were -- they certainly didn't call it America, just as Christopher Columbus did not. Columbus never set foot on the mainland, thought he had found the East Indies, and it wasn't named America until an admirer of Vespucci did that a few years later.
We must not forget Leif Ericsson, and I rather like the name Vinland.
The monkey experiment, known as the Internet, failed. Research funds are being sought to determine if an arbitrary number of good ole boys with shotguns will emboss, on road signs, either the works of Shakespeare, or the meaning of "good", in Braille.
Chomsky isn't unique in reminding people about examining life. When I find that my examinations of the same subject lead to different conclusions, I seek more congenial guides. Some are historic, such as Aquinas, some more contemporary, such as MLK, Thomas Barnett, or Timothy Quill.
--
Howard
*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*
"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it" [George Santayana]
September 23, 2007 12:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
I see that you can complain about everything
these aren't complaints, they're observations. I don't know why you viewed them as complaints. however, people sometimes believe that observations are complaints if their beliefs (read worldviews) are being challenged.
What I don't see from you are any proposals to do things better.
you know that I lean libertarian so I don't believe proposals are needed. "Free Trade," so far, hasn't been about freedom but, instead, about resource extraction.
I'm sure that you heard what Alan Greenspan said: "Iraq is about oil and I wish people could admit that."
Was Greenspan's comment a complaint or observation?
To boldly go...
September 23, 2007 12:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
To be more specific, I read your observations as complaints, with no constructive suggestions. Even in terms of the bishop, I offered specific information. The bishop didn't.
It was Huey Newton, IIRC, who said "if you're not part of the solution, you're part of the problem." Leaning libertarian doesn't mean things will happen spontaneously. Wise leaders at least set principles, make resources available, and let local initiative flourish.
--
Howard
As a chemist, I was trained that if you're not part of the solution, you must be part of the precipitate. Looking at American politics, however, I sense a fair number of gels, suspensions, and aerosols.
September 23, 2007 12:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm not sure where you pulled out protease inhibitors as the treatment
the person who asked the bishop about abstinence asked the bishop if he supported "protease inhibitors" and he feigned ignorance about them.
As far as the bishop, I agree that abstinence isn't an answer. You don't have suggestions.
my suggestion was that priests should recognize modern medicine instead of deny it for political reasons.
and, personally, I belive in abstinence but AIDS is also spread through blood transfusions, shared needles, etc...
To boldly go...
September 23, 2007 12:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
To be more specific, I read your observations as complaints, with no constructive suggestions.
my suggestion has always been: "make local donations only." for example, I donate my time each month to serve meals to homeless folks.
throwing money at a problem usually doesn't work and Africa hasn't been an exception to that observation.
To boldly go...
September 23, 2007 12:57 PM | Reply | Permalink