It's really self depreciating to listen to Barack Obama--or even his deputy of questionable intellectual prowess, Joe Biden, railing on endlessly about America's commitment to ending human rights violations around the world. In spite of Biden's forward attitude, which went as far as to naively endorse the use of American soldiers to end the crisis in Darfur during the 2007 Youtube/CNN debates for Democratic candidates, neither elected official has actually moved towards deploying soldiers, whether they be from the home soil or out of the barracks of the United Nations.
But Darfur is only a small fraction of the larger scaled problem. Genocide exists, all but ignored by the international community in Zimbabwe, Rwanda, Botswana, and South Africa. Heads of state in these nations, once applauded as the harbingers of democracy, have now crossed over to the very depravity which they formerly decried, committing unspeakable acts while still diplomatically cordial with the modern world. Spitting in the face of the United Nations and the international forces which supply their nations with relieving monetary aid, leaders like Robert Mugabe, Paul Kagame, and Sharif Amhed are all presently allowing criminal acts to occur under their tenures.
It might be viable for the Administration to argue against involvement based on funds available, but it still fails to explain why none of its pro-UN rhetoric has actually foreshadowed firm military action against any of these nations. Nothing can be made of the point that these miniature powers would be difficult to overrun; in fact, their militia groups could be made short work of by advanced foreign troops. Most analysts--including the generally less astute Joe Biden have noted that a small brigade of special forces would be enough, at least in the case of Darfur, to incapacitate Omar Sharif and neutralize his radicalized government institutions.
We as a nation can try to propel ourselves into a depth of reason and philosophy to oppose any course of action which is not strictly based on national interest, but the question still must be raised; how are any of these countries not in our best future outcome for foreign conflict and trade? Any of these entities, charged by a force of capitalist government and renewed through democratic process could easily become meaningful trading partners with the United States, and possibly, valuable allies in the War on Terror.
The issue at stake in recent years has been the government's refusal to create new allies in more secure areas of the world. Africa in particular is not a dramatic ally today, but its strengthening by the Western World could monumentally restructure the focus of international disputes which are ongoing today in a positive manner. If one looks at the populations of many of these nations, documented within the CIA's World Factbook, they rise considerably and offer large forces of able bodied men in the present time, giving an entirely feasible channel of soldiers to bolster coalition forces around the world today. Were only a few sections of these bodies of force to stand alongside the United States and fully fledged allies, the wars in Afghanistan and other potential conflicts would be less costly to solely the manpower of America and Great Britain.
Combating extremism about the globe should not be as narrow sighted as to require the use of the only the largest nations and their military forces. With a supplemental help from smaller countries, which would benefit by receiving economic ascensions through their participations, the burden of any conflicts would rest not only on the United States, but more evenly on the remainder of the free world, a goal which we must all strive for.
Michael Veramendi
National Alliance Vice President for Foreign Issues
No comments:
Post a Comment