The Age of Phony Compassion and Fake Hash tag Celebrity Activism

Over the past few weeks, many have been in an uproar over the kidnapping of more than 200 Nigerian school girls in Borno State Nigeria. They were taken from their school as the slept and huddled off in trucks to places in the Sambisa forest outside of Maiduguri and possibly beyond.  Albeit nearly three weeks after the actual crime occurred, the concern is needed and well deserved.  But somehow, I feel that the interest is fake and phony and I will tell you why.

When I was a child, growing up in Memphis in 1960’s, activism was real, tangible and hands on. This type of activism in the age of social media and remote control sedentary decadence is rare mainly because the modern western influenced psyche assumes that action is limited to what one can accomplish with a keystroke or the push of a button. It allows one to be reticent and hidden in their personal urgency to acknowledge and even confront evil in any form or manifestation it may engender.

The #bringbackourgirls is just the recent example of this artificially contrived concern for a criminal act that in all honesty, many did not care about either through ignorance and not being informed or because it did not gain traction until some famous person they idolized brought it to their attention. Consequently making it retro chic to be concerned and to care and thus promote the hash tag. Otherwise there would have been a concern for all the past ill and crimes committed by the Islamist organization Boko Haram. But the record and fact exhibits and documents such was not the case.

There was no #dontburnourboys hash tag when just this year in February, the same Islamist attacked a boarding school in Potiskum, Nigeria in the northeast of the nation that resulted in the killing 29 students and one teacher. All of which were burned alive. Likewise, there was no #stopkillingourchildren when Boko Haram leader Abubakar Shekau and his band of militants opened fire on students in their sleep at a secondary school in Nigeria's troubled northeastern Yobe state, or when they set fire to a locked dormitory in Damaturu, Nigeria and then shot and slit the throats of students who tried to escape through windows during a pre-dawn attack in which 58 students were killed. And I would be remiss if I didn’t mention the attack in June in the village of Mamudo which left 22 students dead. In all of the above attacks, all of the dead were teenage boys or young men between 10 and 18 years old.

Now again, the attention pertaining to the girls is deserved, but why was their no attention to the aforementioned attacks on students the same age?  Was it because they were males, was it because they were burned alive and had their throats slit which may be less appealing for attention than kidnapped children? I cannot answer any of the prior queries but I can assert that something is amiss. Either in the west we feel more attached to women in need more so than boys or men in need, or either we are stupid creatures of the moment caught up and motivated by celebrity trends of the day and actually do not really care what happens in faraway places like Nigeria, regardless of religious affiliation or gender.

Now before you say I am making excuses, missing the point or just “hating”, I must add that I lived in Nigeria for more than a year when I was doing my post doc. Moreover, although I lived in Owerri in Imo state and Lagos more than half of my time there, I have been to and worked outside in the LGAs around Maiduguri and the Sambisa Forrest where I did onchocerciasis eradication (river blindness). It was so thick we had to park our land cruisers and walk miles to our target LGAs. Not to mention I have worked and stayed in Calabar, Jos, Kano, Benin, Kaduna, Onitsha, Afkipo, Afikpo South, Port Harcourt, Ngor Opala and too many other places in Nigeria to name. So for me it is personal.  I know about Boko Haram and personally, they are just like Uganda's cult-like Lord's Resistance Army with the only difference that the latter is Christian. And while Boko Haram has repeatedly targeted Christian institutions such as churches, most people killed in attacks have been Muslims. I understand that Boko Haram was created in 2002 by a radical Islamist cleric in Maiduguri, Borno state, after he was expelled from two mosques in Maiduguri by Muslim clerics for propagating his radical views.

So to me, the attention is well deserved, but to be honest we must admit that it is fake and phony. If such were not the case, we would have hash tags for this week’s bombing that killed 130 people, or the bombing the following day that killed scores more – but we did not.  Just like we don’t care, don’t know, and don’t want to know about what is going on in the Central African Republic where Christians are chopping up and beheading and even eating Muslims left and right.

I won’t say that we don’t care (black people) because the victims are black, but I will say for most in the west, there may be some sort of shame and guilt over Rwanda’s genocide, or the exploitation of child soldiers in Uganda and the killings in Darfur, Sudan; for we know the record indicates conservatively speaking, since 1996, 6 million Congolese have been killed. And in all of these cases we know that our President, who looks like us black folk, has turned a blind eye to Africa. First when he waived the ban on sending military aid to nations that use children as soldiers in 2013, and specifically with respect to Nigeria, when the Obama Administration, after John Kerry took over as Secretary of State, the U.S. Ambassador to Nigeria, Terence P. McCulley, accused the Nigerian government of “butchery during a confrontation with Boko Haram terrorists in Baga, on the shores of Lake Chad, and in May 2013 threatened to withdraw U.S. military aid from the West African nation.”

So the way II see it, I am glad of the attention, yet at the same time I know it is fake and phoney and comes with barely an iota of concern and compassion. But such is the standard in this new world of hash tag diplomacy and celebrity activism and a sad standard it is indeed.

14 years of the same ISH

Sometimes I feel as if I am in a bad dream, it is as if President Obama and President George W. Bush are one in the same, for the policies I was vehemently against while GWB was in office, I am still against and have been put in effect a lot more viscerally under Obama.  What I saw with Bush: the incessant wars, taxbreaks for the wealthy, the banks and Wall Street getting wealthier without any threat of prosecution for criminal wrong doing and war mongering, I see two times in President Obama.

Bush did not place U.S. domestic issues as being our main priority, and nor does Obama. Bush was preoccupied with Iraq, and Afghanistan and Mr. Obama, Somalia, Yemen, Pakistan, Syria, Libya, and now the Ukraine. Currently the latter is more like some dystopian Fourier reality, that for him is dynamic and fascinating, but for the majority of Americans, wasteful and unnecessary. It is as if the Ukraine and parcels of land 99 percent of Americans will never see or set foot upon, deserves more attention than the millions of Americans with major financial needs like the hungry, the homeless, or the millions who can’t pay their rent or mortgages or whom need jobs at living wages.

There is no valid reason to be occupied with the Ukraine when what we face at home is a true national security threat economically. Just this past week, Federal Reserve Chairman Janet Yellen informed the Joint Economic Committee of Congress that under current policies the federal government’s deficits “will rise to unsustainable levels.” Unemployment, depressed wages and unadmitted inflation is killing us. We are over our head and drowning in deficit spending so all we left with is printing “mo money, mo money and mo money,” to use a phrase from “In Living Color.”

Why is the U.S. economy more of a national security issue than the Ukraine? First, at last count, about 5 trillion or approximately 47% of U.S. debt is owned by foreign investors, the largest being China and Japan at (plus $1.1 trillion each). Unlike us, the Russian government expects to have a budget surplus according to the IMF. Add to this, Russia also has a trade surplus which increased to $18.86 billion while the U.S. trade deficit continues to fall. If anything, maybe the U.S. wants a war so it can rev up its dire economic prospectus. For it is clear that what we observed when George W. Bush invaded Iraq in 2003, the same can be noted, applied and said for the Obama Administration – the economic and financial need ­of conflict with another energy rich nation.

Why else make a big fuss about nothing? Obama in his neoliberal caricature resembles Balzac’s master criminal Vautrin more than the leader of the free world as the U.S. has been coined. Big oil and Wall Street made a killing under Bush. The U.S. invasion of Iraq crushed that country, destroyed Iraq’s state-owned oil industry, and grew the price of   crude from $20 a barrel to $147 a barrel in 2008 (needless to state Exxon Mobil’s most profitable year ever). The point being whenever sanctions are placed on an energy rich nation, U.S. plutocrats get paid. Obama is just extending the Bush playbook and we saw such in 2011 when sanctions were placed on Iran and Sudan. And when they don’t work, we have good ole NATO, who implemented an undeclared war on Libya, not to forget the CIA efforts in Syria. Thus, it doesn’t take a high school graduate to foresee the impact or likely impact the disruption of the flow of Russian energy to Europe would mean for big U.S. oil companies.

Obama and Bush are in policy, one and the same person, the only differences are gang, I mean political affiliation and ethnicity. The U.S. I suspect see the Ukraine as a means to grow and escalate military spending across Europe, making the U.S. military industrial complex more loot on behalf of U.S. oil interest. See, what corporate U.S.A and Wall Street know is that war drives capital into the United States, which keep U.S. banks the main feature of the global economy by cutting the deficit and artificially propping up the dollar. This is the only conclusion that is both reasonable and logical for as German MP Alexander Neu noted, “Not a single NATO country is in any way threatened,” by the actions in the Ukraine. Plus, what would we expect, there are more than 6000 German companiesactive in Russia with more than $27 billion invested in the nation. Meaning just like Iraq was no threat, or Libya, or Syria, Obama economic and foreign policy is no different than his predecessor with the exception it is on steroids.

 

Gold Digging: Will Mali be Obama’s Afghanistan?

When I think of Mali, or any part of West Africa, I often say to myself, I had a ball when I was there in 1992 and 1993. At the time I was living in Owerri, in Southeastern Nigeria. And if you have ever seen the Sahel, what sticks out from a geo-political locution is that it runs from the Atlantic Ocean to the Red Sea.

But the country, inclusive of the history of the Dogon and those who inhabit the Mopti river region of that great historic place, may be the location of America’s next war of western imperialism and neocolonial fervor. To top it all off, it will be carried out via the instruction of the first African America President in the history of the United States.

It seems that Obama drone wars will have to find a new country to target since the US will be ending its occupation of Afghanistan soon. And since the Administration’s war on terror has not ended, the obvious next place to send US and UN troops is Africa, specifically Mali. Now I know we have US troops in the Congo, Uganda, Somalia and several other nations, but I have an inclination that Obama will be in this West African nation soon.

All of this would have been unnecessary if the administration had not taken the actions via the UN it did in Libya. In fact, Mali was a stable democracy for the last few decades until we destabilized. Not only did it lead to arms from Libya flooding the northern region of the nation, it also leads to the influx of al-Qaeda affiliated Islamists in the North.

Some would say that I am making this entire up. However, I would say that they have not been reading or paying attention or worse, they do know evaluate historical actions that would make the suggestion that the Obama Administration would be supportive of Western military forces in Mali. The US in concert with the UN has conducted armed interventions (with support from Obama). We saw such in Libya where via the UN; Obama although in direct violation of the US constitution, never consulted congress to overthrow the leader of a sovereign nation. Even though it required supporting militarily, Islamic fundamentalist militants and Al Qaeda and resulted in the — ethnic cleansing and lynchings of thousands black Africans.

We also saw such when the Obama Administration and the UN aided in the violent overthrow of the President of the Ivory Coast although the nations highest court that he had won the election. He was subsequently replaced by a UN hand-picked Muslim central banker. This too resulted in the death of thousands most of which were Christians.

We are already hearing the administration and UN drop little hints about al Qaeda having set up in northern Mali, right next to Boko Haram in Nigeria. Not to mention the Islamic Maghreb, al Shabab in East Africa. Especially if the story is being laid out by Robert Fowler of the UN. In addition, Last year the UN Security Council unanimously adopted a resolution “determining that the situation in Mali constitutes a threat to international peace and security.” The resolution also noted that the UN was ready to deploy an “international military force” to invade the country if such is seemed necessary.

Stranger is that this is all coming from the urging really, of the Obama State Department – that is the ideal of invading Mali - to prop up the interim government. The Obama administration has also been increasing military aid to leaders of ruling countries around Mali in preparation for the upcoming intervention. Not to mention that last year, President Obama ended all of Mali’s trade privileges with the US, citing backtracking from democracy in the annual assessment of benefits conferred by the Africa Growth and Opportunity Act (AGOA) program. Funny, the way I see it, taking the limited benefits they had under the prior arrangements will only punch prospects for democracy farther away. Especially given he approved such with the South Sudan, who is in conflict with Sudan. Mali only exported about $7 million from precious stones, gold, art and antiques, while imports from the U.S. exceeded $40 million. But that’s right; the South Sudan has the plentiful Abyei oil region.

Funny, Mali used to be Africa’s democratic success stories, now it may be the next Somalia, or even worse – Afghanistan. If the President does involve US military forces in Mali, it will be a tacit confession that his actions in Libya failed and really served to undermine international peace and security., It will reveal to history that his Libyan interventionist policy was his biggest foreign policy mistake and that helping Africa is the farthest thing from his policy perspectives when compared to the old imperialistic agenda of raping the continent of all its natural resources while killing million via war, starvation, poverty and drought in the process.Yes Mali may be Obama's Afghanistan and all because there is gold in them their hills. Afterall, Mali is Africa's third largest gold producer after South Africa and Ghana. Mali produced 53,7 t of gold in 2009.

sUdan comes before sYria

First I want to give a shout out to all the African Americans out on the front line protesting against the horrible atrocities in the Sudan, especially those who have written diligently and criticized the President for his lack of attention toward that war torn nation. Not to pat myself on the back for writing about Obama and his lack of attention toward Africa, not to mention its descendents who helped him get in office, I have pressed the issue vehemently but only have received comments suggesting I stop “finding” stuff to complain about regarding our current commander in chief by his coterie of folk who protect him simple because of the color of his skin.
Last month, it took a wealthy White man to bring attention to what was occurring in Sudan. I was glad of the attention but was hurt at the same time that no one that looked like me was on the front row of this issue. I’m sure there will be many now, since the uncle tom gene that many of us possess is not a recessive gene and always stands out when Master does something to say it’s ok for us to follow masters lead.

This week, Sudan on Tuesday carried out new airstrikes inside South Sudan in around the village of Tashwin. This after Khartoum vowed that it would use "all means" against a three-pronged attack it said South Sudanese forces had launched against South Kordofan state, including its key oil-producing region of Heglig. These are a continuation of skirmishes that happened last month along the undemarcated and disputed frontier in the Heglig area, with each side blaming the other for starting the fighting.

The last time I heard the President even speak of the problems in Sudan was June of 2011. He was at the United Nations as his top envoy prepared to travel to the region to address the political and military crisis concerning the peaceful division of Sudan into two states. It was right after he had met with his top Sudan envoy, Princeton Lyman as representatives from northern and southern Sudan continued talks in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia. All he did was talk and give some warning and photo ops.

It is clear the focus and interest for the present administration is Syria for they turn a blind eye toward Sudan and Africa in general. I am certain that they are aware that Khartoum fought one of Africa’s bloodiest and longest civil wars against the south - a 22-year conflict, which began in 1983 and left more than 2 million people dead.

This is what is so troubling, the visible inconsistency of Obama’s foreign policy. He says nothing for example about Omar Al Bashir, the dictator of Sudan and one of the worst mass murderers of our time who has committed genocide for longer than any political leader living currently. Obama is either hiding or intentionally avoiding this. On the one hand, it is easy for him to state that Hosni Mubarak , Muammar Qaddafi and Syria’s Bashar al-Assad must go but not Al Bashir, the tyrannt right next door to a ruler who was way less dangerous to his people comparatively speaking and way less monstrous -Qaddafi. When reality in the form of displacement, deaths and rapes supports that chasing Qaddafi and not Al Bashir is like “going after Mussolini instead of Hitler. “
Last March I wrote, “Not to beat a dead horse, but this Libya example is almost comical. The reasons proffered for intervention are even more fanatical, when we look at and examine the desire to protect the innocent. Maybe the innocent dwellers of lands endeared with oil reserves, but not solely the innocent. By that logic, worthy locations would have our attention. The Sudan where millions are having been displaced and tens of thousands butchered. The Ivory Coast, where more than 500,000 have been displaced and a civil war looms.”

Just last October, the President issued a series of waivers for the Child Soldiers Protection Act (a 2008 law that is meant to stop the United States from giving military aid to countries that recruit soldiers under the age of 15 and use them to fight wars) for Yemen, South Sudan, Chad, and the Democratic Republic of the Congo. Not forgetting that as of 2010 the allocation of U.S. foreign aid from USAID to Sudan was in excess of $420 million. A continuance in the pattern of continuous involvement with foreign aid to Sudan for many years in which more than $250 million was given to the nation between 1977–1981.

But for the Obama administration, the fledgling democratic movement of the Sudan must be defended and preserved even at the cost of millions lives of innocent and defenseless civilians—children, women, and men. When he was a senator, in 2007 and 2008, Obama, was extremely critical of George W. Bush's administration for engaging with Khartoum. Obama even advocated for a no-fly zone for Darfur. Even his current U.N. ambassador, Susan Rice advocated military intervention with personnel on the ground. Also in 2008, then candidate Obama joined in a statement in which he demanded "that the genocide and violence in Darfur be brought to an end and that he would "pursue these goals with unstinting resolve." Not to mention a year later it was Mr. Obama, in a statement released by the White House who said “As the United States and our international partners meet our responsibility to act; the government of Sudan must meet its responsibilities to take concrete steps in a new direction.”

The Whitehouse lacks an official policy toward the Sudan and to this date has not keeping his campaign promises, although Obama once said, "Sudan is a priority for this Administration" and "There must be real pressure placed on the Sudanese government." Barack Obama says that the US will apply more pressure on Sudan but his administration has caved to a flawed election. I guess assuming that such is better than no election at all. The fact is that the present administration ignorance and inaction most likely end in a new civil war. The last north-south civil war in Sudan ended with a fragile peace in 2005, after some two million deaths.
What is our administration’s foreign policy when it comes to dictators, tyrants, Africa and democracy? Obama claims he went to war in Libya because NATO was afraid of the threat of government genocide, while we see such real time in the Sudan. Now the Administration is turning its attention and rhetoric towards Syria; which I am certain is for the benefit of Israel.

I just want the president to come correct and say openly that he has no interest in addressing what is going on in Africa with the Sudan. That he and his administration has a lack of interest in the slaughters of Africans whenever it involve people with darker skin. The numbers reported that I have seen pertaining to Sudan is greater than those in Libya or Syria, yet the White House seems not to notice. Even in the dictionary, Sudan would come before Syria.

Obama Administration Policy on Middle East and Africa all over the place

If one has followed President Obama’s statements and position on the middle east and North Africa prior to his policy speech on the region last week, you like me probably have no clue to the reasoning behind his words. After reading his remarks last Wednesday, I am even in more of a stupor of consternation.

What I can say is that his approach and policy alike are whimsical or fickle at best and unprincipled and inconsistent at worse – thus the rarefied stupor I alluded to previously. For example, I recall how initially in Egypt, he proclaimed his support for Hosni Mubarak in word, but fleetly altered this position upon the observation that President Mubarak did not have the support of the military. Similarly in Bahrain, he offered effeminate words of support for the long ruling leadership yet at the same time; he attempted to protect the leadership and longtime alley for the sake of the fleet anchored in its harbor. Even as the Monarch, with the aid of Saudi Tanks and military, killed unarmed protesters, the administration and its figure head turned a blind eye to the citizenry desire for democratic rule and liberty. This same behavior and action drew harsh military reprisals and words from Obama via NATO requesting Muammar el-Qaddafi leave office.

In Libya, our military are protecting the innocent, but we do no such protection for those in Yemen, Syria or Bahrain. In his speech, Obama commented, the “humiliation that takes place every day in many parts of the world – the relentless tyranny of governments that deny their citizens dignity. “ He added “we can – and will – speak out for a set of core principles – principles that have guided our response to the events over the past six months: “In fact the President eludes to hearing the calls for help, but strangely it is only in the middle east and Libya but no other parts of Africa.

The problem for me is that there is not one standard stated; for there isn't any unifying principle that guides this new policy. Meaning, that any effective policy for unstabilized governments on our behalf will require coherence, which thus far is lacking. Will he treat all attacks on the general populations the same? Will King Abdullah of Saudi be held to the same standard of Qaddafi? What makes a distinction to have different positions between Qaddafi and Syria’s president Bashar al-Assad? He did not even mention Bahrain or Saudi Arabia in his speech.

The Obama administration is all over the place, for to say we hear the calls for democracy yet cover our ears from similar cries from the Congo, Uganda, Sudan and other nations is disingenuous and fails the litmus test of reality and consistency.

nullius in verba

From my earliest writings of the past thrity odd years to now, the careful reader would be able to discern my disparagement for politics, politicians and the aggregated affect such nuance has had on the folks not fortunate enough to use conquest to be on top of others. Most likely it is the thinker, the scientist in me that mandates the preference for the belief “nullius in verba” – take no ones word for anything.

The more I read and observe what is happening within the beltway, especially as it pertains to other nations; either the blatant disrespect of sovereignty by war and occupation, or the feculent avoidance of barbarism and human mistreatment by nations our government consider our friends, the more it is obvious that our legacy as a per supposedly western nation is one of shame, deceit and brutality. laws do not change, just their names, for action and inaction alike has the same consequence historically.

Not to beat a dead horse, but this Libya example is almost comical. The reasons proffered for intervention are even more fanatical, when we look at and examine the desire to protect the innocent. Maybe the innocent dwellers of lands endeared with oil reserves, but not solely the innocent. By that logic, worthy locations would have our attention. The Sudan where millions are having been displaced and tens of thousands butchered. The Ivory Coast, where more than 500,000 have been displaced and a civil war looms.

It reminds me of the Monroe Doctrine which in 1823 gave the United States to use military force anywhere in our immediate region if we felt such was necessary. Not for the sake of nobility or civility, but rather, whim and fortune. The same approach we use now, similar to when we sent more than 20,000 troops to the Dominican Republic to keep the murderous and torturous regime of the Trujillo family in power over democratic change in the 60's. Just as we supported the Duvalier’s in Haiti for years and their practice of regular and seeming ritual practice of mass executions.

But what should the astute historian expect form a nation with a similar history? It is as if we get off on supporting the immoral and persecuting the good. President Franklin Pierce, who even with signed and crooked treaties with Indians desired the extermination of the people on the land before them is a reflection this belief orientation. Even thepronounced President Roosvelt was of the same vein, afterall he unfaltering made the choice to drop atomic bombs on Japan when they had already surrendered – an action that was unnessary and only demonstrated the action of a tyrant.

I am only writing this to assert my fear of what we have become as a public. All to quick to settle for convience and to lazy to question what we are confronted with whether or not it comes ffrom our elected figure heads or what is spouted on television. If we do not return to what makes us as individuals both powerful and great – being self informed, well read and unwilling to accept without query – we may as well start digging our own graves.

Obama's State Department Turns Away From and ignores Sub Saharan Africa

President Obama is quick to join the protest against Republicans both inside and outside the Beltway. Likewise, his “on the job training” in dealing with social unrest in North Africa and the Arabian Peninsula is also prominent, especially when it makes him looks grand standing on the side of Democracy In Tunisia and Egypt. This is in stark contrast to the manner in which he deals with similar issues in Sub Saharan Africa.

There are several troubled spots in Sub Saharan Africa currently that neither the media, President Obama or his State department have addressed publically. Most prominently are what is occurring in Uganda, The Ivory Coast, the Sudan or even what is occuring in Zimbabwe. If Fact until today, Obama has been basicaly quiet on what is occuring in the Ivory Coast.

In Uganda, President Museveni, the formal rebel leader has been in power ever since he took control of the nation twenty five years ago. He is a very close ally of the United States and receives 100s of millions of dollars in Aid annually – while the populating is gripped in extreme poverty and joblessness. Obama has never addressed or spoken about the dozens of deaths over since 2009 occurring during youth protest against the government. Even this week, thousands took to the streets of Kampala but they are ignored and portrayed as invisible by the present US administration.

In the Ivory Coast, after free and fair elections, Laurent Gbagbo still refuses to step down after losing the presidential elections this past November. Although this past December, President Barack Obama urged Ivory Coast’s incumbent leader to cede power to the “legitimate winner” of the polls, he was not as forceful as he has been with his counterparts in North Africa or even in Iran. The United States has agreed with Ecowas that sanctions should be put in place but outside of that has shown no leadership on the issue. Mean while, Ivory Coast's incumbent leader has seized four major international banks that had shut down operations because the banks did not respect the law and closed without proper notice. The banks included offices for Britain's Standard Chartered, France's BNP–Paribas and Societe Generale along with U.S. bank Citibank.

In the Sudan, students, mobilized by online social networks, rioted in Khartoum, throwing stones at police cars and chanting. Unlike the recent uprising in Tunisia and the ongoing one in Egypt, but there is also the issue of southern Sudan's recent referendum vote, which approved secession from the north. As Khartoum is located in northern Sudan, it remains unclear what relation, if any, the uprising has to the recent referendum. One thing is clear, however: the winds of change are blowing across Africa and the Middle East, and whether they will bring stability and democracy or more civil war and dictatorship remains to be seen.

Prior to Tunisia's popular revolt, Sudan was the last Arab country to overthrow a leader with popular protests, ousting Jaafar Nimeiri in 1985. And just like the other recent revolts, the Sudan is in an economic crisis associated with government overspending and bloated import bills caused foreign currency shortages and forced an effective devaluation of the Sudanese pound last year.

actions speak louder than words

For the record, I love me some Africa. And I have been blessed to have lived in Nigeria for 13 months, 3 months in Ethiopia, four summers in a row in South Africa, and two six month stints in Senegal. I won’t even mention the Malawi’s, the Benin’s the Zimbabwe’s or score of other countries I have visited.

As we get closer to that historic day on which the President Elect is expected to take his oath of office, I have started to think about how or what his main foreign policy targets will be. Sure I’m certain that he will deal with the Asian countries located in what many call the Middle East, and that he will have to bump heads with Putin in Russia, but I’m not so sure where he will place the needs of the continent I love so dearly.

I would suspect or hope that the tope two will be Sudan and the Congo, followed closely by Rwanda. We know that genocide is the rule of thumb in the Sudan and has been so for a while. As a national government, all we have done is utter words, phrases and clauses and looked, on purpose the other way. I wonder what is Obama’s plan for dealing with the Sudanese Government and the Arab Janjaweed militias which are supported by Khartoum? Even after a July 30th UN Security Council resolution the Sudan still has yet to meet its commitment to rein in these militias.

I say this for almost 15 years after the atrocities we saw in Rwanda we must not let history repeat itself. I say this for I believe we have not learned our lesson since 1994 as a nation supposedly of moral statue. I was looking for any position papers that he may have written on the Sudan, Congo or Rwanda – but could not find any (just a statement from 2007). I just wonder if Obama really meant what he said that the United States should support the immediate deployment of an effective international force to not only protect civilians and proffer the delivery of humanitarian aid, but also to disarm militia, or support the African Union troops to do such.

Since this shit started in 2003, an estimated 450,000 plus have died as a function of and disease, and another 2 to 3 million displaced to neighboring countries. I know Obama was hard on Bush for his inaction, but my query is what is his plan, and what actions does he plan to take to support his prose? Yep, the economy needs to be dealt with, as well as issues of national security, but what will he do of substance outside of imposing tougher fiats that target Sudan’s oil revenue or implementing effective diplomacy? I know he has co-sponsoring six bills on the conundrum – but they still remain words on paper that have not yielded any results.

I’m not saying Obama can really do anything, but he can try. Especially now since we see what did happen in Rwanda, may be starting up again via the Congo. General Laurent Nkunda has actively recruited member of the Rwanda military to accomplish his stated goal to “eliminate” the militias who assisted in the genocide of nearly a million folks in the Rwandan genocide of 1994. Even using and forcing children to kill in his effort.

So Mr. President elect, you were right to hold Bush accountable for his strong words but non action, just hope you don’t mind if we don’t forget, and remind you, or hold you to the same standard.