Friday 3 June, 2005

Bush and Africa

Filed under: Politics

Once again, it seems that Bush's foreign policy is limited to smokin' out those terrorists and alleged hoarders of weapons of mass destruction (as long as there is an oil interest in the latter).

While Blair and Brown have made some seemingly significant steps to alleviate Africa's debt to the developed world, Bush has indicated that a key part of the plan "doesn't fit our [the US's] budget process". This rationale never seemed to get a mention when the US government kept returning cap-in-hand to the Senate requesting more funding for the war in Iraq.

When Bush was counting on Blair for his support in the Middle East, it was there, at the detriment of Blair's reputation back home. When Blair requests similar support from across the Atlantic, it fails to materialise.

While it's true that Africa has less political clout in the US than it does in Europe (and Bush doesn't have the likes of Geldof to contend with), I struggle with the selective respect for humanity that Bush shows: we'll help out/intervene, as long as there is mileage in it for us. Kyoto will not be signed because it's too tough on the US; African debt will not be addressed because there would be no political benefit in the US.

While this country has a number of positive elements, its selfish, arrogant, insular view on the rest of the world is both scary and depressing. Unfortunately, in November, America voted to keep it going for a further four years.


Posted by dan at 3:20pm | Permalink | Comments (3) | Trackbacks (0)
Comments

I believe Dan is waking up a little here, well said mate!

As is the assumed norm with societies though, it's probably the minority that are spoiling things for the rest of the U-S-of-A. I have actually met a number of folk from there that are equally disgusted with their nation's image and actions abroad as we are.

Shame this can't be translated into a decent government with decent energy, foreign and economic policies.

Shame that for now what happens in the US affects a great deal of the planet. Mind you, used to be that way in the UK. Remember 'Great' Britain? Yup - your time is almost up Uncle Sam!

Posted by Rob 3:19am, Tuesday 7 June 2005

Good point Dan - and all is not lost, Bush did sign up to the Millenium Development Goals in 2000, pre 9/11 - so there's still an opportunity for people to make the US government do what it said it would do!

Check out www.one.org

Posted by Jon, 10:53am, Tuesday 7 June 2005

www.one.org - interesting. And yet nothing much happening, eh?

The bottom line is that unless it's in legislation there's not much chance of action. For legislation we need politicians that will place morals and common sense, and the greater good of their country and even the world above that of the few.

Sadly, as USA and the UK have voted... immoral leaders are OK if they keep the taxes down (ie. keep cash in the voter’s pockets). Sadly the voters don't understand economics and national debt so well.

I have long believed that a government should be accountable. At the moment they can promise anything and deliver nothing with no come back. Hang around for four years by which time these lies will have been forgotten by all but a few, and get voted in again.

Would you buy a product and not return it when it didn't perform as expected? No, I didn't think so - so why accept that from _your_ government?

Until governments are accountable on their key election promises, with clearly defined election promises that must be met in their first 6 months or a year this cycle of BS will continue. Throw the government out, relegate their leader to the back benches and force a re-election after a year if things ain't going as promised!

Posted by Rob 1:06pm, Tuesday 7 June 2005
Add comment (all comments are currently moderated)
Your name*
Enter the confirmation code* authimage
Comments *



* denotes a mandatory field