In 1994, the world turned its back on Rwanda. In 100 days, some 800,000 Tutsis and moderate Hutus were slaughtered while the international community did nothing. The Security Council sold UNAMIR down the river, events in the Balkans taking precedent over one of the most horrific and systematic acts of genocide since the Second World War.

But make no mistake; those that did nothing had their reasons. The French were flying some of the individuals involved in the masterminding of the genocide out of the country, even while it was occurring. They also supplied the Rwandan military at the time with arms. One of the revolving seats on the Security Council at the time was actually occupied by Rwanda, allowing those in power in Kigali a front row seat from which to observe the world’s response. The United States, gun shy due to previous events in Somalia, refused to intervene.

All of it led to the hobbling of any real, concerted effort that the UN could have taken. Thus, a skeleton force led by General Dallaire remained, despite the fact that the Security Council had ended UNAMIR’s mandate. Dallaire, and a handful of others, chose to remain and, at the very least, protect those that they had already given sanctuary to. In the end, they were able to save the lives of some 30,000 people without really firing a shot.

Now, consider what could have been accomplished had there been a real UN presence on the ground.

During a recent stop in Rwanda on his current tour of Africa, President Bush said the following…

“Evil must be confronted,” he said after touring the Kigali memorial.

He said the UN’s response to the crisis in Darfur “seems very bureaucratic to me, particularly with people suffering”.

Indeed it does, Mr. Bush. And being that your country has one of the most predominant voices on the Security Council, one has to wonder why more isn’t being done? True, UNAMID has been instituted, but the time for half measures has come and gone. The Sudanese government, with which your government has worked covertly, may refuse the presence of a substantial UN force in Darfur, the Chinese may very well fight you tooth and nail to stop a concerted intervention, but at least have the fortitude to make the issue one that is utterly unavoidable. Breath into it, sir, the urgency that it deserves.

There is the truth and then there is talk of it. In the case of African events of this nature, talk is all that is ever produced. The reality is that were an event comparable to Darfur to take place in, for example, the Balkans, the Western world’s actions would be considerable. In fact, it would become an issue that would dominate the headlines the world over. Unfortunately, when it comes to African nations, the horrible truth is that while the killing is occurring the world does nothing, and only after the fact laments it.

In comparison to UNAMID, UNMIK, empowered by UN resolution 1244, has been active in Kosovo since 1999. UNMIK is provided security by KFOR, which is a NATO led international force. In April of last year, KFOR’s numbers consisted of some 16,000 soldiers from 34 different nations – nine years after UNMIK’s mandate began. At its height, KFOR had 50,000 personnel in operation. As of January of this year, UNAMID, the joint UN-AU mission in Darfur, has a mere 9,065 personnel in place, of which 6,880 are soldiers, 645 are military staff and observers, 1,400 are police officers, 285 are civilian personnel, 552 are local civilian staff, and 63 and UN volunteers.

UNAMID’s actual mandate, as passed in UN resolution 1769 in July of last year, allows for - “Up to 19,555 military personnel; 6,432 police, including 3,772 police personnel and 19 formed police units comprising up to 140 personnel each; and a significant civilian component”.

So where are they?

Perhaps they’ve been employed writing speeches for the likes of Mr. Bush and other world leaders that use the issue when convenient and ignore it when it’s not.

In 1994, while the world was struggling to come to terms with the untimely death of Kurt Cobain, almost 1 million people died in Rwanda. Most of them, if not all of them, had never heard of Nirvana.

A suicide bombing has killed a women and wounded nine others in the Israeli town of Dimona. Nothing can justify such an action, not even what has befallen Palestinians in Gaza because of the recent blockade, though I am sure that was the impetus. While some might think it justifiable, I’ll not condone such actions; just I do not condone the Israeli blockade and the miserable sufferings that it has caused, which is something considering conditions in Gaza prior to its institution. It should also be pointed out that the attack was not the work of Hamas, but rather that of Fatah’s military wing.

President Bush has unveiled the largest budget proposal in US history - $3.1 trillion dollars. As one might expect, the national security budget is being increased while other areas are being deceased, such as healthcare programs like Medicare and Medicaid. Today the Pentagon is also revealing its 2009 budget which, if approved in its entirety, and when adjusted for inflation, will be the largest of its kind since the Second World War.

The situation in Chad continues to deteriorate.

The legal team representing Canadian Guantanamo detainee, Omar Khadr, have asked that the charges against him be dropped. Khadr was only 15 years of age when he was taken into US custody, which, given precedents, made him a child soldier at the time. France has also recently claimed that the case against Khadr is suspect because of that very reason. US military prosecutors disagree, of course, claiming that Khadr ‘conducted surveillance in civilian clothing’ and that he was not a member of any recognized force, but rather a terrorist organization.

A US Surge in Afghanistan may be in the works.

The US Military has killed nine civilians during operations south of Baghdad. An internal investigation is, of course, underway, which will, as is usually the case, lead to nothing more than an apology and monetary compensation. Local witnesses claim that the death toll was, in fact, higher, and that a significant number of them were members of a single family.

There is new emerging evidence that Philip Zelikow, the head of the 9/11 Commission, had to ‘go through Karl Rove’ despite the fact that the inquiry was passed off as being independent of White House scrutiny.

Lastly, tomorrow is Super Tuesday. Should be interesting.

I’m tired. Not a lot of sleep last night. I spent it in one of those semi-states of sleep, the sort where you’re aware that you have to be mindful of something that requires that you remain somewhat conscious but are still trying to sleep at the same time.

It’s clear and sunny here again today, as it has been this past week. In fact, it’s been uncommonly beautiful for this time of year, even given the chill the wind provides here on the West Coast that has the annoying ability to cut through everything that you’re wearing and go straight to your bones. We share that phenomenon with the UK, where it’s routine business as well.

I’m rambling, and I’m aware of it. I’m rambling because I’m having one of those mornings that I’m finding it difficult to concentrate. I’m having one of those mornings because, as has been the case over the last month, the list of things to touch upon grows so quickly every day that it seems almost impossible to retain it all and then translate it into something cogent.

Just off the top of my head there’s…

The recent revelation that the Canadian Armed Forces have stopped the transfer of prisoners to Afghan authorities because of a report of abuse on the 5th of November of last year despite the fact that last May, after a scandal broke regarding the Canadian transfer of prisoners to Afghan authorities that were known for their use of torture, the government claimed that it was taking steps to immediately rectify the situation.

The recently released Manley Report, which, although critical of numerous aspects of the mission in Afghanistan, has basically provided the government with what can only be viewed as a blank cheque with regards to Canadian combat operations in that country. Of course, the report is non-binding, but its ramifications on a political level are extremely convenient. Canada, of course, is only one of three nations involved in direct combat operations in Afghanistan, and of the three represents the smallest contingent. That being the case, our losses, compared to those of the United States and the UK, are wholly disproportionate. The debate, however, remains transfixed on our continued support of the mission’s objectives, to help stabilize the nation and provide it security, even though other members of ISAF, with considerably larger forces in country, continue to refuse to have their contingents involved in direct combat operations. There is also the concern that even though our efforts are aimed at ensuring democratic stability in Afghanistan, that its implementation is, in effect, the representation of Western regional aspirations, and therefore not dissimilar to Soviet regional aspirations in the 70’s when the USSR was responsible for aiding in the supplanting of a pro-Soviet regime in Kabul. Thus, the real test of Afghan democracy will come when the nation has been secured and Western exploitative practices begin in earnest.

That is certainly not to say that the Taliban should be allowed to run rampant and plunge the nation into complete chaos, only that precluding the possibility of negotiations for the purposes of resolution is counter productive. Ultimately, there are always going to be those that support some, if not all, of the Taliban’s agenda, which raises a very important question: must those that do be wholly eliminated before progress can be made? And if they are not, what assurances do we have that there will not be a resurgence in the future that could seriously threaten the stability of the country, even after it possesses a well trained and equipped military? Given that, is it not fair to say that Western military involvement, on even the smallest of levels, will be required in Afghanistan for years to come?

Of course, all of that doesn’t even touch on the realities of the Pakistani frontier and the support covertly supplied those in opposition to the current Afghan government by elements within the Pakistani military establishment itself.

The possibility that Kenya could explode at any moment despite last minute attempts at political reconciliation aimed at stemming violence. As it stands now, the country is already in the early stages of a humanitarian crisis and also on the cusp of what could quickly turn into a genocidal event.

The recent disparity of global markets.

The continuing unrest in Pakistan.

The case of Canadian Guantanamo detainee Omar Khadr, who has been held at the facility since 2002. Khadr was captured at the age of 15 and, as the French Foreign Ministry recently pointed out…

“…all children associated with an armed conflict should be treated accordingly. As a minor at the time of the events, Mr. Khadr must be given special treatment — a point on which there is a universal consensus.”

The Canadian government has refused to intercede in Khadr’s case.

Gaza. While many have taken to illegally entering Egypt so that they can attempt to get food, fuel, and other sundries, Israel’s position remains steadfast, that being that the blockade is a move against the continued rocket attacks emanating from Gaza into Israel. The majority of the United Nations Security Council has labeled the blockade a violation of international humanitarian law and a collective punishment against the entire population, but the United States refuses to support that position without the inclusion of language that supports Israel’s concerns regarding the actions of Palestinian militants. Caught in the middle are, as usual, the 1.5 million residents of Gaza itself.

The firing of Linda Keen, President of The Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission, hours before she was to appear before a House committee in Ottawa. Keen was fired, according to Federal Natural Resources Minister Gary Lunn, due to the government’s ‘lack of confidence in her leadership’. This, of course, happened after the Commission’s attempt to have the Chalk River facility closed due to safety concerns and government’s decision to ignore the Commission.

The realities of the sanctions against Iran.

The ruinous economic reality of America’s imperialist adventures.

The frightening resurgence of Donald Rumsfeld and Paul Wolfowitz.

Media attacks on Heath Ledger following his death.

The Jose Padilla affair.

The continued humanitarian crisis unfolding in Somalia.

The Sudanese government’s decision to make Musa Hilal, a man accused of coordinating the Janjiweed militias in Darfur, an advisor to Federal Affairs Minister Abdel Basit Sabderat.

And So Forth

In truth, that’s just the tip of the iceberg. Iraq is, of course, absent – primarily recent events in Baquba - as is the ever-evolving telecommunications scandal in the US and the Sibel Edmonds affair, the unrest in Zimbabwe, and events in Chiapas.

Last, but certainly not least, there are also those voices that tend to make excellent arguments on a routine basis, such as Robert Fisk, Stephen Zunes, and (for your viewing pleasure), the always brilliant Chalmers Johnson…

I first read Joseph Conrad’s novella, Heart Of Darkness, when I was fifteen - being that it was the premise for one of my favourite films, Francis Ford Coppola’s Apocalypse Now. I would revisit it again in my late 20’s after reading an article in which Conrad’s time spent as the captain of a steamer in the Congo was highlighted. For those of you that haven’t read it, I would recommend that you do for numerous reasons, the foremost being Conrad’s commentary on the human condition with regards to the depths and limitations of human psychological endurance and corruption.

There is, of course, dark colonial aspects to the piece that are also of import, but being the son of a man that was born in colonial India, and whose family lived there for over a century, the realities of that mindset are nothing new to me. I was, even at a young age, aware of the sort of racism and arrogance found in the colonial mindset, and brutally exposed to it when one of my great uncles would visit from South Africa.

That said, my mention of Conrad’s story is in response to Kurt Langmann’s recent editorial in the Abbotsford News in which my position on Afghanistan is questioned and he suggests that I read Heart Of Darkness.

The article is somewhat geopolitically narrow, as it wanders through an ambiguous argument that relies on a variety of contextual dissimilarities while attempting to unify them by pointing to the inevitability of violent outcomes. Our role in Afghanistan turns to UN involvement in Africa as a measure with which to address the ineffectuality of UN peacekeeping operations, attempting to abridge the two. In doing so, Langmann offers up numerous examples of the inability of the United Nations to effectively address past and ongoing conflicts in Africa while using my mention of the need for a more astute UN mandate in Afghanistan as pretext.

First, let me say that my mention of a clearly defined and commanded UN mission in Afghanistan is one steeped in the need for any such force to be complimented by personnel from states within the region itself, as I have mentioned on this website before. But, of course, that alone would not detract from the reality that UN forces would face the same sort of dangers that NATO troops now face.

The rules of engagement with regards to UN forces are, obviously, different than that of regular conventional forces. In the simplest of terms, they are only permitted to return fire when fired upon, or when the lives of those under their protection are threatened. That said, they are not traditionally meant to be aggressive in nature, merely a presence to deter violence in hopes of providing stability. But that is not to say that they do not represent a military force themselves. As anyone with an understanding of UN peacekeeping is aware, when soldiers under the UN flag are included in an operation, they are equipped to deal with military occurrences. Counter-insurgency, on the other hand, is not something that falls within their mandate.

That said, and as I have written previously, the rubber stamp provided by the UN with regards to operations in Afghanistan was simply procedural, lending credence to the actions of those that invaded the country in response to 9/11. Like the Bush administration’s refusal to join the ICC, or its disregard of the 53rd Article of the UN Charter with regards to the illegal invasion of Iraq, the United States and other permanent Security Council members have always used the UN as a plus-minus apparatus with regards to their own objectives. It should never be overlooked that the Council’s five permanent members constitute the world’s five most prolific arms dealers, and that theirs is one of the most hypocritical positions with regards to passing judgment on the use of truly effective interventionism in locales where they do business or have a vested interest in a particular outcome.

Langmann points to Sudan as an example of how a UN mandated force would not change the bloody outcome of what continues to transpire there. And while the AU has recently committed 26,000 peacekeepers to help further deal with the situation, an undertaking that has been criticized by the UN due to the lack of training received by those being deployed and the inability of the AU to effectively impact the situation in the past, one has to examine the undertones of what has transpired there with regards to the Security Council itself and the unwillingness to directly confront Khartoum with regards to the allowance of UN forces in the country.

At the height of the genocide in Darfur, the Chinese were able to block numerous initiatives because of their economic dealings with Khartoum. For over a decade the Chinese have sold the Sudanese a considerable amount of arms, and are also the foremost exporter of Sudanese oil. Unfortunately, it doesn’t end with the Chinese. The United States, which has actually classified what is transpiring in Darfur as genocide, recently enlisted the help of the Sudanese government in recruiting operatives to use as moles to infiltrate Salafi Jihadi groups in Iraq. That would be the very same government that has been guilty of supporting the Janjiweed militias who have been largely responsible for the murder of countless innocents and the displacement of millions.

The reason why the UN is ineffectual when it comes to peacekeeping is, ironically, the body within it that conducts the oversight of security. And within that reality, the policies and objectives of those that hold permanent seats surpass the realistic needs of those that require that very body to act on their behalf. If ever there was an example of the complete and utter failure of the Security Council as measured against the priorities of some of its foremost members, it would be UNAMIR. While the world was glued to the conflict raging in the Balkans, Roméo Dallaire was being sold down the river, forced to watch a genocide of immense proportions occur in front of his eyes while being denied support from the very body that sanctioned the mission to help stop it.

The truth? The Security Council had no vested interest in Rwanda. The French were known supporters of the Hutus and the rotating seat on the Council at the time was actually filled by the Rwandan government responsible for backing the Interahamwe. The United States, worried that there would be a repeat of events in Somalia the year before, vetoed Dallaire’s request that a mere 4,000 troops and reasonable logistical support would significantly deter the situation. And thus, over 800,000 Tutsi and moderate Hutus were massacred in 100 days.

Langmann writes in his article…

“A couple of years ago my little brother, Mark, was dispatched to central Africa. His mission? To repair the bullet-riddled bodies of UN “peacekeeping” helicopters, operated by blue-helmeted UN forces that were trying to enforce the ceasefire imposed on the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC). And not only were the “insurgents” firing on “peacekeepers,” the latter were shooting back. That’s right, peacekeepers have guns and they use them.”

Langmann’s statement is a given, of course, and should come as absolutely no surprise to anyone. UN forces have been attacked in a variety of locales over the decades and, given their mandate, return fire when fired upon if ordered to do so. To suggest that people don’t understand that is somewhat naïve. In the case of insurgents firing on them, that too is to be expected, that’s simply a reality of peacekeeping.

Unlike the UN response to the conflict in the Balkans in the 90’s, UN forces in the DRC have not been favoured with the sort of considerable backing that those in the Balkans were. For example, MONUC, The Mission of the United Nations in the Democratic Republic of Congo, has seen extremely minimal support from most of the permanent member states of the Security Council. The UK? Seven observers. France? Three troops and three observers. In fact, the only permanent member of the Security Council to actual devote a significant number of ground forces to the operation has been China, with 218 troops and 13 observers. The majority of the contingent, with regards to troops being on the ground, come from, of all places, India, Bangladesh, Nepal, and Uruguay.

It’s here that the question has to be asked – why? And the answer is quite straight forward – the bottom line. In the 90’s the United States helped directly build the arsenals of eight of the nine nations involved in the Congo conflict. Since the passing of a UN resolution banning arms sales to those involved, it has since stopped, or at least gone dark, but the fact remains that business is business and proper intervention cannot take place, or be supported, where it might possibly threaten business. With regards to Darfur, the same is true with regards to China’s position, as well as past US involvement in financing and arming The Sudan People’s Liberation Army and their current need to placate Khartoum, despite their past support for the SPLA, given their recent overtures regarding covert intelligence operations in Iraq.

So what is the point of using the United Nations as a mechanism with regards to foreign intervention? That’s a very good question, but one that cannot be dismissed because of the stranglehold that the permanent members of the Security Council enjoy. If we are to abandon the existence of an international organization created to safeguard the welfare of nations and those who inhabit them, not to mention a basis for the safeguarding of international law, then the only option left us is to completely accept the bilateral and unilateral actions of the world’s foremost powers as both inevitable and justified simply because of their military might. Thus, it is up to nations such as Canada to demand that our inclusion in foreign military interventions be tempered by not only the tenets of an organization that exists to represent the equality of global security, but the compliance of those in a position to dismiss it to act according to its purpose for the sake of creating a just, respected, and professional force that will be taken seriously whenever it is deployed.

My jaw feels like a leg hold trap that has been accidentally sprung and left clamped and rusted for the winter. I had a night guard made this week, and have used one before to little effect, but suppose I will try again. My whole face feels like one giant ball of tension, reminiscent of that scene in Casino in which Joe Pesci has that one fellow’s head in a vice.

The news rolls, overwhelming in its gravity and enormity. Iraq, Iran, Palestine, Sudan, Somalia, Venezuela, Afghanistan, Burma, European Ballistic Missile Defense, Sub-Saharan Africa, Guantanamo, the War On Terror, economic exploitation, environmental rape and disregard, the disintegration of democracy and civil liberties, the never ending blindness that allows it, self serving political punditry that does nothing but placates its own existence – the list is literally endless.

I was wondering last night what sort of fruit the privatization stipulations included in the 2005 G8 debt relief package that cancelled $40 billion dollars worth of debt for the world’s 18 poorest nations is bearing. At the time, Bono declared it a massive step forward. Unfortunately, more people tended to listen to him and Bob Geldof than to men like George Monboit, who decried at the time…

“Far from challenging the G8’s role in Africa’s poverty, Geldof and Bono are legitimising its power.”

Thankfully Live8 was able to provide the likes of CTV massive ad revenues while making everyone feel as if they’d done something significant despite the fact that the fine print proved otherwise. Sub-Saharan Africa remains one of the most lucrative investment regions in the world, and the stipulations attached to that agreement will see the G8 make more through the exploitation of those countries than the debt they forgave. That is an inescapable truth, like it or not, rock concerts to the contrary or not.

I’ll not condemn the likes of Bono and Geldof for trying, for caring, or for going out of their way in an attempt to see some justice done. But the unfortunate truth is that when you willingly lay down with serpents, providing them photo opportunities that then reflect on people all over the world and their perception of progress, you, yourself, must, at some point, recognize your own serpentine inclusion.

Little Holes For The Light To Beam Through

I finally sat down and figured out Suburbia acoustically. It’s rather nice.

We’re going to launch the streaming of the entire album here on the website on my birthday, the 29th of the month. Just so everyone is completely aware, you won’t be able to listen to it by track, it’s either the whole thing or nothing.

For those of you in the States that keep asking me to tour down there, I’m going to do my utmost to make it happen. That said, being that I’m in Las Vegas for a month, I might do a little campfire thing without amplification, etc, sort of like I did when I left my old apartment. So if you’re in the area, or can get there, drop me a line at vegasthing@matthewgood.org. Like last August’s apartment show I will have to limit the number of people, so if you’re seriously interested then best to respond as soon as you’re able. We can make it a bit of a pool party, I’ll play some tunes, and maybe even preview some of the new release. Being that it’s in the high 30’s during the day, I’ll most likely do it in the evening when it cools off a bit. As for the date, I was thinking of doing it on my birthday, the 29th.

According to The Associated Press, some 113 civilians have been killed in heavy fighting between Ethiopian troops and ICU fighters over the last three days, though that number was increased by 60 today according to the BBC. In all, some 321,000 Somalis have fled the fighting creating the largest refugee crisis in the country since 1991.

The UN Secretary General, Ban Ki-moon, has suggested in a recent report that a ‘coalition of the willing’ (how I despise that term) may ultimately be needed to enforce the peace in Somalia…

“In a report to the Security Council made available on Friday, Ban called on the 15-nation body to consider in June whether a conventional U.N. peacekeeping force could succeed in the lawless East African country or something more was needed.

Ban said a U.N. force might work if fighting stopped in south-central Somalia and all or most armed groups and communities signed up to an agreement allowing for outside monitoring.

In that case, U.N. involvement “would primarily focus on technical assistance to the reconciliation efforts, as well as on reconstruction and development, supported by an appropriate United Nations peacekeeping presence,” he said.

But if the political process fails and violence gets worse, “alternative options, including peace enforcement, should be considered,” he said.

“An operation, mandated by the United Nations, mounted by and composed of a coalition of the willing with the appropriate capabilities to deal with the high paramilitary threat, would be better suited” to such a situation.

The term “coalition of the willing” refers to a group of like-minded countries that decide to take action in a trouble spot but are not under U.N. control.�?

And under whose control do you think that might be if the UN is unable to secure the peace through the suggestion of alternative means? Well, looking at the members of the Security Council, who has been supporting the Ethiopians in their military efforts in Somalia?

This timely report, given the recent creation of AFRICOM, is transparent in my opinion. The fact that the Secretary General of the United Nations would use the same terminology as the President of the United States with regards to a ‘coalition of the willing’ is also rather interesting. What is even more telling is that the report includes the suggestion of the use of independent forces in a brief that clearly sets very restrictive parameters with regards to a purely UN controlled intervention. The last I checked, the mandate of the United Nations wasn’t to promote the use of independent force by its members in a foreign conflict while attempting to make headway as an organization that is supposed to represent more than just the wanton needs of certain members of the Security Council. The inclusion of such language is little more than context for ensuring the legitimacy of independent military action in the future, and that should be a grave cause for concern.

Examining the Secretary General’s position regarding Somalia is interesting it that no such consideration has been given the UN’s inability to impact the genocide occurring in Darfur.

In July of last year the UN passed Resolution 1706, which called for 22,500 UN peacekeepers to help bolster the 7,000 massively under funded African Union troops that had been operating in the region to little effect. The resolution was, of course, roundly rejected by the Sudanese government. Then, in September, when the AU mandate was set to run out, the United States let slip that the AU might extend its mission, which it officially did on October 2nd because of the failure to implement Resolution 1706.

The UN’s current position regarding the situation in Darfur is that African nations should ultimately take the lead under the UN umbrella to help deter the Janjiweed militias. But not surprisingly, despite the fact that an estimated 450,000 people have lost their lives, with a further 2.5 million people displaced, there has been no mention of a ‘coalition of the willing’ to solve the problem.

The reason?

One of the permanent Security Council members to abstain from the Resolution 1706 vote was China, who maintains mutually beneficial agreements with the government in Khartoum with regards to the exportation of oil (China purchases two thirds of Sudan’s oil exports) and the importation of arms (which since 1995 have included ammunition, tanks, helicopters, and fighter aircraft). The Chinese have made attempts to soften Khartoum’s position on UN involvement in the crisis, largely empty overtures to placate those that have condemned them for their continued involvement with Khartoum.

The result? There will be no ‘coalition of the willing’ coming to the rescue of those that have, in the millions, flooded refugee camps along the Chadian border, nor would the Secretary General dream of even mentioning it.

Welcome to the world we live in.

Of interest, for those of you that are interested, or, for that matter, interesting, is a piece by Conn Hallinan from the 15th of this month about the some of the finer points of AFRICOM, America’s newest military command. AFRICOM came into being shortly before the United States used the Ethiopian armed forces, supported by US air power and small teams of special forces, to destabilize the Islamic Courts Union which had stabalized of most of Somalia and, for the first time in years, brought a semblance of normalcy to the country. The United States would go on to back the very same War Lords that, a decade ago, it had worked to undermine.

An excerpt…

“The White House’s plans for Africa, which reach far beyond the Horn, are part of a general militarization of U.S. foreign policy. A recent congressional report found that “some embassies have effectively become command posts, with military personnel in those countries all but supplanting the role of ambassadors in conducting American foreign policy.�? The United States is already pouring $500 million into its Trans-Sahel Counterterrorism Initiative that embraces Morocco, Tunisia, and Algeria in North Africa, and nations boarding the Sahara including Mauritania, Niger, Mali, Mauritania, Chad, and Senegal. A major U.S. base in Djibouti houses some 1,800 troops and played an important role in the Somali invasion.

With Africa expected to provide a quarter of all U.S. oil imports by 2015, a major focus of AFRICOM will be the Gulf of Guinea. The gulf countries of Nigeria, Equatorial Guinea, Gabon, Angola, and the Congo Republic all possess enormous oil reserves. Some of them are plagued by exactly the kind of “instability�? that AFRICOM was created to address.

Nigeria, for instance, is the world’s eighth largest oil exporter. “Though all the eyes of the public seem focused on the atomic ambitions of Iran, Nigeria is at the greatest risk of oil disruption today,�? according to Peter Tertzakian, chief energy economist at ARC Financial Corporation. A year ago, the Movement for the Emancipation of the Niger Delta (MEND) shut down one-fifth of Nigeria’s oil production through a series of attacks on pumping stations and oilrigs.�?

Like a secret river flowing below the headlines, US actions regarding Somalia have garnered little attention since they began. As Eric Margolis reported in a piece on the 16th…

“In a striking irony, F-18 fighter-bombers from the carrier “USS Eisenhower,” deadly AC-130 gunships from the US base at Djibouti, and Special Forces units attacked Somalia from sea, air and land. Other US units and FBI agents deployed on the Kenya-Somalia border. As America’s latest foreign war began with air strikes from the giant carrier that bears this great president’s name, no one seemed to recall President Dwight Eisenhower’s magnificent farewell address in 1961 to Americans in which he warned against foreign entanglements and the growing political influence of the military-industrial complex.

Very few Americans understood their nation had just invaded another in an act worthy of the late, unlamented Chairman Leonid Brezhnev.

Much of Somalia has already been occupied by Ethiopia’s powerful, US-financed army which invaded that defenseless nation, with Washington’s blessing, under cover of the Christmas holiday.

It is an open secret in Washington that the Somalia operation is to be the Bush/Cheney Administration’s new model for war against recalcitrant Muslims. The White House failed to convince India or Pakistan to rent their troops for occupation duty in Iraq, but it has succeeded in using Ethiopia’s army in Somalia. Ethiopia’s repressive regime was only too happy to invade Somalia and received large infusions of aid from Washington. The Administration is duplicating the British Empire’s wide scale use of native troops (”sepoys” in India; “askaris” in East Africa) in colonial wars.

But is Somalia really a “hotbed of terrorism” as Washington claimed? The US-Ethiopian invasion of Somalia was sparked by last fall’s defeat of corrupt Somali clan warlords. They had recently been armed and financed by the CIA to fight the growing popularity of local Islamists.�?

[…]

“A handful of African Al-Qaida suspects in the 1998 bombing of US Embassies in East Africa may have been in Somalia, but going to war against a sovereign nation to try to assassinate or capture a handful of suspects is like using a nuclear weapon to kill a gnat and is sure to generate more anti-US violence. Air strikes by carrier-based US F-18’s and AC-130 gunships killed between 50 and 100 Somali civilians but, apparently, no al-Qaida suspects. The real aim of the US air attacks was to destroy remaining fighting units of the Islamic Courts and clear the way for the US-imposed Somali figurehead government.�?

There isn’t anything surprising in Margolis’s piece with regards to the funding of suspect governments to act as regional proxies. It’s as old as the crucifixion, really. And the United States certainly isn’t the first world power to employ lateral tactics to assert their influence. They are, though, the only world power to unilaterally invade another country in contravention of the UN Charter of late, not to mention setting a massively dangerous precedent with regards to the declination of human rights standards on a global scale.

In the shadow of The War On Terror, initiatives elsewhere are routinely overlooked and massively propagandized. Colombia, for example, continues to receive considerable US military assistance, aiding in the training of forces that have committed serious human rights abuses.

When Jean-Bertrand Aristide made a bit of a fuss regarding the privatization of Haitian industry, drug lords and thugs from the Dominican Republic dubbed “freedom fighters�? were armed and used to help mask the coup d’état that removed him, one in which Canada was wholly complicit.

Likewise, fearing the nationalization of the oil industry and a spark that might engulf Latin American in a new, democratically elected, socialist wave, the United States used a variety of organizations, among them the National Endowment For Democracy and USAID’s Office of Transitional Initiatives, to help fund the campaign that attempted oust Hugo Chavez by way of a public referendum. It failed, of course, but it’s simply another example of external influencing gone largely unnoticed and unchecked.

Then again, it is somewhat difficult to keep your eye on the ball when, as was the case yesterday, over 230 Iraqis violently lost their lives in what has become the preeminent disaster of this decade and (thus far) millennium.

One waits with bated breath to see how Iran’s piece of the puzzle fits and if, in the end, the natural world itself will actually out strip us all and simply cast us off into the deep like so many rats from a doomed ship.

AIDS has taken the lives of 25 million people since it was first identified in 1985. In 2005 alone it took the lives of an estimated 3 million people, almost 600,000 of them children. The World Health Organization estimates that in 2005 between 3.4 and 6.2 million more people were infected, and that more than 64% of all people living with AIDS are located in Sub-Saharan Africa (76% of all women with the disease are found in the same region). In 2005 there were an estimated 12 million orphans with AIDS living in Sub-Saharan Africa alone.

There is no denying that AIDS is a global epidemic and that its eradication should be the focus of a serious and highly urgent global effort. So isn’t it heartbreaking to think that globally over a trillion dollars a year is spent on armaments to kill perfectly healthy people?

Perhaps the earth is simply tired of us. Of all the animals in creation, we serve the least purpose, and our lack of humanity tends to demonstrate that on a daily basis when it comes to the fight against AIDS, especially in those parts of the world where help is needed most. If there was ever a greater need for a world super power to unilaterally and preemptively invade a region of the world, surely this cause is of far greater import than most. The ground troops of such a force could be populated by medical personnel, the stated goal of the mission to help the dispossessed who have thus far suffered under the ignorance of those who refuse to deal with the realities of this epidemic. That is an invasion that I would support, illegal or not.

Perhaps the earth is simply tired of us. Perhaps that is why the Ross Ice Shelf, which is the size of France, could, at any time, simply break off of the Antarctic continent causing global water levels to rise dramatically. Not that that should deter us from making any radical changes in our lives. Not that it should stop us from spending a trillion dollars a year on fascinating new ways of killing one another.

I have always found the acronym ironic – AIDS.