Africa a continent and a basket case.

I assume you are referencing sub Saharan Africa. There are two major problems that are interrelated, public health and political stability. The first is in part a product of and cannot be solved without addressing the second. Unlike the Middle East I think this region is an appropriate theater for military intervention.

Acquiunk
Military intervention in Africa would make the action in Iraq look like a walk in the park.
In any event how could this be done and by whom. The continent is vast and the problems mirror it's size. How does one overcome the centuries old tribal hatred,
tradition of corruption and apparent lack of concern for life?
The EU is surprisingly quite on the subject when they should be in the forefront of those giving aid, considering the fact that a good part of the problem stems from their most prominent member nations colonial rule and exploitation of that continent.

We cannot solve all of the problems with military intervention but we can reduce the chaos with selective intervention and the help of some of the more stable African states. In our case the intervention in question would be Liberia. The French do better than the rest of the world gives them credit for in this regard. The British are a major problem here. The goal should be to reduce the level of violence to the point where the second problem, pandemic disease, can be addressed. This problem has three parts, medical economic, and social. It is a much more intractable and expensive problem than the military intervention but ultimately it is for our own benefit. Those diseases ultimately end up here. It is not going to be either easy or cheap, but Africa's problems are in the long run more pressing and dangerous than those of the Middle East.

au, Don't expect this administration to understand anything before they make a decision to get involved. That's been proven over and overn again; their lack of understanding on anything they pursue is legend. c.i.

I'm not sure about the superstition angle. Certainly the "tribal warfare" notion is relevant in many sub-saharan African countries; countries whose borders were defined not by putting similar people
into their own jurisdictions. Rather, the colonial powers (British, French, Dutch, Portuguese) drew boundaries without any regard for
the folks that lived there. It's too late to do anything about that.

With regards to corruption: yes, it is blatent. We in the "developed" world are much more subtle and sophisticated.

So Mr Bush will go to Africa tomorrow. He will see nothing of the real Africa, of course. He will call on people to embrace the notion of democracy. He will tout the money that the US spends in the region. And then he will come home and Africa will be off the table.
I'm no fan of Mr Bush, but this goes beyond this administration.

Africa was referred to as "The Sleeping Giant" a few decades ago.
The connotation was positive. I'm not sure that is the case anymore.

Yes, the problem of natural/tribal boundaries competing with political boundaries imposed by colonial powers is probably the underlying one. The fact that "corruption and superstition" are often used to describe Africa -- with a broad brush -- only heightens the impression that most in this country (at least) know very little about Africa. Many kinda think they're talking about one political unit. RealJohnBoy, you make a great point about degrees and kinds of corruption! You are too polite to snarl out of the side of your mouth, as I tend to do, about fundamentalism in this country which is superstition and corruption and racism tied up in one gorgeous, corporate-designed American package!

We probably need to get a little more knowledgeable before we can discuss intelligently the political subdivisions of the vast continent of Africa. Oh, and let's make sure racism isn't a component of the discussion...

IMO, the main problem is not in exploitation. The fault of the UK and France is that they gave access to the modern weapons to the tribal leaders whose mentality complies with standards of 10-th century B.C. If the Middle East Muslim nations got stuck in 14th century AD, social retardation of sub-Saharan Africa is much deeper. It has nothing to do with genes, the same Black people can have great achievements while permanently living in the Western milieu.

You are referring to what especially?

To the French and British peace troops in Africa?
The Africa-Aid of the EU?
To the EU (and Europena national) develpment aid?

Yes, you are right, it could be more - and indeed, it had been more.

Walter
If I am not mistaken it was the British, French, Germans and Portuguese, did I miss anyone? That carved up Africa. IMO it is now for those nations to repair the damage they have wrought. If peacekeeping troops, food and funds are needed that is where they should come from.

Yes, you listed just one half and missed the Italians, Belgians, Dutch and Spaniards. (Going back in history, there are some dozen more states. And not fogetting the missionaries from other states as well.)

I'd just like to mention the Arab and American slave trades removing whole villages of young working people.

Seems to me many non-African corrupt and supertitious people, including our ancestors, had a hand in screwing up that piece of real estate (a term which many Americans use in discussing other countries). Of course the US has had no interest in either the diamond trade or oil exploration. No no.

walter
I guess that constitutes the entire role call of the"Old Europe"Let them stand up and be counted. At this point the US is in no position to take on another task. Nor IMO should they.

Oh, Europe got newly standarsized?

As far as we knew up to now, the UK, Spain and Italy belonged to 'New Europe' (at least said be the creator of this meassurement, Rumsfield, origianally from Sulingen, Lower Saxony, Old Europe).

Tartarin
As much as you would like to demonize the US they had no part in the colonization of Africa. I know in your mind this nation [The Great Satan] is responsible for all the ills of the world. But it ain't so.

I should also add that the black African kings and tribal chiefs collected and sold the slaves to the Arab slave traders.

au

I've tried to point out this earlier in other threads: when the colonilisation of Africa was nearly finished, the USA were still a very young nation (and when it started, they even weren't discovered).

Walter

Sorry, I can't keep track of who is old and who is new Europe. Up until recently it was Eastern and Western Europe.

Right. It's their fault we had African slaves?

Au, This nation doesn't need further demonization from me -- it does it quite well without my assistance! But I don't think we're demons, just very rich and very powerful and apt to describe ourselves a good folk, very responsible. Therefore, like it or not, we're expected to very responsible. Seems fair enough.

au

Ask you administration about that. It's them, who classify the world.
(Turkey obviously changed very quickly from 'New Europe' to 'rough state' now!)

( Puerto Rico, Guam, U.S. Virgin Islands, American Samoa, Northern Mariana Islands, Midway Islands, Wake Island, Johnston Atoll, Baker, Howland, and Jarvis Islands, Kingman Reef, Navassa Island, Palmyra Atoll:
Arbitrary governments may have territories and distant possessions because arbitrary governments may rule them by different laws and different systems.... We can do no such thing. They must be of us, part of us, or else strangers. -- Daniel Webster )

Walter


I know that but shush don't say that to loud it will disappoint some of the blame America crowd.

I am under the impression that they believe we the US invented the concept of slavery.