Liberia
So as you might have heard, there's a major civil war going on in Liberia. Bloodshed, mischief, mayhem, soap -- all sorts of nutty goings-on, with much death and destruction.
How does this concern us? Good question. Other than the fact that Liberia was founded by an early-nineteenth century movement in the US, which raised money to buy slaves' freedom and send them to Africa (get it? Liberia?) -- well, nothing. Other than that many Liberians want us to intervene. And, funnily enough, France, Russia, the UN... take it away, Neal Boortz!
That’s right, France and the U.N. are asking the U.S. to possibly send troops to Liberia, presumably to dethrone [Liberian president] Charles Taylor.Let's put the issue of whether we should get involved aside for a moment. Doesn't the Talkmaster raise a good point here? The US has taken no initiative to get involved in this, the internal affairs of a sovreign nation, and here come the people who fought us tooth and nail against our intervention in Iraq (which probably had a stronger legal and moral basis for our intervention, given the associated UN resolutions and the tryanny of Herr Hussein) -- and now they want us to play world's policeman? You gotta wonder why. You gotta wonder what "principles" they held last time (when it was our initiative) that don't apply this time.Why Liberia and not Iraq? I guess France doesn’t have any huge oil contracts with Taylor that need to be preserved. Then again, maybe because America would presumably be working with, instead of against Muslim insurgents.
Here's some reading material, all pertinent to the issue (study up -- you'll be quizzed on this later):
Security Council diplomats continued to look toward the holdout in the growing drive for an international force in Liberia -- the United States, which European and African diplomats say should be taking a larger role in efforts to end the escalating three-year war in the American-founded nation.Kofi Annan!
"Our collective interest and our common humanity demand urgent and decisive action from the Security Council. We cannot be oblivious to the warning signs of an imminent possible catastrophe," Annan's letter said.And a report from the Washington Times: Iraq policy critics now want U.S. in Liberia.In a clear reference to the United States, which has so far declined to act in a country with which it has close ties, Annan said the force should be "under the lead of a (U.N.) member state."
The New York Times, which ardently opposed Mr. Bush's Iraq policy, said in an editorial yesterday that "the United States cannot send troops to pacify every international conflict or relieve every humanitarian emergency."But the paper added that Mr. Annan "makes a compelling case for dispatching an American-led international force to Liberia" and said the rationale is both "humanitarian and geopolitical."
Posted by Matt at July 2, 2003 9:57 AM
