Vita per Africa

Mayhap  it's too predictable to discuss the desperate need for international action across Africa, but in this case the dire consequences of not doing so are all but totally compromising. For years after its ravaging by the colonialists the cluster of diverse nations has suffered from poorly drawn boundaries which incite ethnic uprisings and governments with little intent but to better themselves financially while the population suffers. Throughout the strife, possibly the worst factor is that those who might reach and positively influence the outcome to be better often fall silent when given opportunity, as if they can do nothing more but authorize the check necessary for funds to the region.

At the core of Africa's struggle is the lack of water supplies available to the populace in many regions, and therein lies the point at which the West can make a meaningful impact to save lives and defeat the dreaded history of anarchic policy throughout the continent's provinces. While much of south-central Africa is vegetated and ideal for growing crops, the northern tier is smothered with a blanket of deserts which make development of agriculture difficult beyond passive attempts at pastoral habits with few yearly gains. Families in this region who are not supported by a small business or government employment often end up staggering to last in the harsh wastelands of the Saharan plain due to skimpy natural resources.

To the northeast, the Nile provides sustainment for the civilizations about it, yet the western side of the continent still reeks under the hot sun and loses much of its potential as the weather acts adversely alongside elected officials to prevent progress. So the Western powers of the 21st Century must unite to construct a river through western Africa for the good of its people and long-term security. The channel would most logically run from the Western Saharan straight through northern Mauritania, the northern part of Niger, and Algeria, thus allowing for more cultivation of earth through irrigation techniques.

This "river of life" would work because unlike general aid projects, it might actually institute security for the future that no allied power can begin to comprehend. Even the occasional check from America or Europe can  hardly begin to change things in Africa, yet a body of water changing the scope and conditions of the problem would certainly turn tables on those who prefer the continent remain sunken in the past.

Like anything else, the river would need to serve the West's purposes in order for its to realistically gain support, yet the reasons for its benefits are immediately apparent. In Italy, the government has maintained a long struggle to prevent excessive immigration from North Africa, but this river project would reverse the need for so many refugees to live. After all, a land where a man can farm and stand by himself is more likely to be attractive than a ravaged and restricted province.

Difficult as it might be for the West to fathom, its reach is not unbeatable or everlasting. Eventually new leaders will rise up, yet it should be in the interest of those today to establish the basis for fundamental transformation in the places which today still lag behind. Africa should not have to--and likely will not remain stagnated, but it is up to those who act in the name of democracy to assist with that movement as much as possible.



Michael Veramendi

National Alliance Vice President for Foreign Issues

Inexcusable Neglect

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