Clinton threatens Eritrea action

[Matter-Eater Lad]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/8186781.stm

 

US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has warned that the US will "take action" against Eritrea if it does not stop supporting militants in Somalia.

 

She said after talks with Somali President Sheikh Sharif Sheikh Ahmed in Kenya's capital, Nairobi, that Eritrea's actions were "unacceptable".

 

She also said the US would expand support for Somalia's unity government.

 

Eritrea denies supporting Somalia's al-Shabab militants, who are trying to overthrow Somalia's government.

 

Al-Shabab is growing in strength and 250,000 Somalis have fled their homes in fighting between militants and government forces over the past three months.

 

Wreath-laying

 

Mrs Clinton was holding the talks with the UN-backed Somali leader, a moderate Islamist, on the second day of her African tour.

 

I have an idea, lets keep our noses out of everyone's business and stop trying to police and control the world. Where is the "Change" we were promised?

[chuck kottke]

Ka-ching! Here's the change for that fried policy!;)

First of all, her name is Hillary Rodham Blythe:laugh3:, and secondly, maybe it's worth it, if we can stop another bloodbath before it gets going. I just hope Hillary uses all diplomatic and peaceful means first to prevent a genocide type event, as a military solution often isn't one.

But remembering Rwanda's genocide, it would have been better to have had a presence as a peace-keeping force - either the Belgians, or the US, or the UN - had we had more troops there, and had acted to cut off some of the radio broadcasts, and established peaceful negotiations, it might have turned out differently - but each situation calls for a different approach. Steering clear of it all sometimes is allowing a powder keg to ignite..

Getting the economies of Africa on a strong footing, and removing the huge debt burdens would go a long way towards making life improve and relieve some of the cycle of poverty in the African states, IMHO..

[Matter-Eater Lad]

maybe it's worth it, if we can stop another bloodbath before it gets going.

 

Didn't Bush use that excuse in Iraq?!!!

 

But remembering Rwanda's genocide, it would have been better to have had a presence as a peace-keeping force

 

Sounds like Bush's policy, how is this change?

 

Africa is a mess partially because of the US and Europe messing with it all the time, if it wants to get better we need and Europe to pull out.

[chuck kottke]

Bush used that as an excuse to cause another bloodbath, a poorly executed one, where all peaceful means and containment were not tried first. I am a strong advocate of applying intelligent means to pressure regimes into changing, and giving time for the people on the ground to find a solution (containment seems to have worked with Colonel Kadafi, and a few bloodless revolutions, like Chile's and Czechoslovakia's). Only after absolutely all else has failed, after all deliberation, and with careful planning and preparedness, should we venture forth using military force, for peace-keeping objectives. What Bush tried was preemptive, and did not allow the patience of containment and incentives for change from within to work; Bill Clinton's mistake was to choose to bomb Iraq's civilian infrastructure (water, sewage treatment, electric plants, etc.) - hurting the people, but not the regime. Hopefully, the new administration's leaders have learned from these massive blunders..

But watching a genocide begin and then unfold, killing 800,000 in Rawanda, or 300,000 as in the Balkans, isn't such a nice thing either. I remember my days at the University, and I recall one of the foreign exchange students from Rawanda asking me for help - anything to get our government to stabilize the situation - but there wasn't anything I or anyone could do - public opinion was against action after the US - Somalia attempt to assasinate the warlords had failed miserably, and George Setphanopolus was reading approval ratings to determine the level of administarion actions; so it happened - while we all watched the horror of it all, unfold before our eyes on TV. Most of the latter analysis suggests strongly that had the UN had more troops, or the Belgians had keep a stronger presence, or the US had sent in troops, and had taken out a radio station or two, the whole mess might have been defusable, and with economic improvements and efforts to secure equity between the groups, the fighting stoppable. True - why didn't other African nations do more to help prevent the disaster?? That is a good question as well. But the fact is that nobody acted, and 800,000 innocent civilians died as a result. A fire from the cycle of revenge is an awful thing to let loose, when it can be contained.

[Saffire]

The fear, of course, isn't for the well-being of the Somali people. Because as time marches on, their quality of life continues to improve sans government.

 

Having an anarchic territory eventually pull itself up through spontaneous organization would be bad PR for governments everywhere.