South African Defense Minister said the American’s,US strategic command in Africa (Africom)should not be based in any African country.
Briefing the media yesterday, Lekota said the Southern African Development Community (SADC) defence ministers had, at the summit in Lusaka this month, decided that no member states would host Africom and more armed US soldiers.
He said this was also the “continental position” of the African Union.
Lekota also said that there will be consequences,should any African country allow the US a military presence.
He warned strongly that any country that did not abide by the view that US soldiers should not have an enlarged presence in Africa as part of Africom would have to consider the consequences. These could amount to neighbouring African countries refusing to co-operate with them.
The S.A.D.Minister understands all to well that a U.S military base(s) might will impact relationships between sister countries.
What’s with America and military bases,enough all ready?
Before anyone blows a gasket,this post is not a defense of the Sudanese Government nor is it a denial that atrocities have not taken place in and around Darfur,indeed they have.
Wars by their very nature are reprehensible,the majority of the victims are in most cases innocent civilians,usually starting with children,women and then the aged.
Just as in Iraq the same is so in Sudan.Although the Sudanese situation even though the body count is far less than in Iraq,it,Sudan comes in for a particularly drubbing.
Mostly by people from countries that are themselves involved in the Iraqi,or some other debacle.For example the U.S,the U.K and Israel.
With that in mind I hope reader will read the following article, from which the following few quotes were taken…
Darfur;Pornography for the Chattering Classes
Normally, when one of Britain’s stuffy media watchdogs decrees that some public figure or broadcaster has said something less than honest, it causes a commotion. When the Advertising Standards Authority said earlier this year that Gillian McKeith, TV’s self-styled healthy eating guru, should stop using the title ‘Dr’, the media had a feeding frenzy.
However, one recent judgement – and an important and potentially deeply embarrassing one at that – has caused barely a ripple of reportage in the serious British media. Last Wednesday, 8 August, the UK Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) upheld a complaint against the Save Darfur Coalition, an American-based collection of campaigners and celebrities whose aim is to raise awareness about the alleged genocide being executed by the Khartoum government in the western region of Sudan.
The ad claimed: ‘SLAUGHTER IS HAPPENING IN DARFUR… 400,000 innocent men, women and children have been killed.’ The ESPAC said the claim of 400,000 innocent dead was based on speculation, and therefore this was a case of false, or at least misleading, advertising (1).
Also check out “Saving” Darfur
At least thats is supposed to be the purpose of all the calls for International intervention.
The irony is the call is mostly lead by Western countries,the same ones who invaded Iraq.
Evading the bloody involution of the American crusade to liberate Iraq, a swathe of Western politicians, human rights groups and liberal intellectuals have tried collectively to regroup around Darfur (3). Dictated by a desire to cohere the agenda of international interventionism,
While at the same time,many of these same advocates of intervention simplify and over look certain fact …
these groups have systematically portrayed the conflict in Darfur as a genocide launched by racist, fanatical ‘Arabs’ against victimised ‘Africans’ (4). For the incoming governments of Gordon Brown and Nicolas Sarkozy in Britain and France, a joint focus on Darfur – complete with a promise to visit the refugee camps – has helped to dissociate them from the disaster of Iraq, while simultaneously affirming their moral authority to dictate affairs around the globe (5). This skewed presentation of the conflict has warped its dynamics, by offering Darfuri rebels the tantalising prospect that they could opportunistically convert international sympathy into military intervention in their favour. According to a State Department official a few years back, the rebels ‘let the village burnings go on, let the killing go on, because the more international pressure that’s brought to bear on Khartoum, the stronger their position grows’ (6). Transfixed by the moral gaze of the international community, the Sudan Liberation Movement splintered, with various factions jostling for advantage and demanding international guarantees and troops,
This Mag,has an interesting post up in regard to vulture funds and debt relief.
There’s always someone willing to get down and dirty,and it would seem debt cancellation does not mean what it implies.
If that were so, how could one still collect on the debt?
I guess Sir LancelotBono’s work is not yet done…
