Posted on 02/26/2003 7:47:26 AM PST by dead
Every Hollywood movie has this scene because it works so well: a child holding a teddy bear is shown in a moment of light-hearted play with no inkling that lurking nearby is a monster/ terrorist/ vampire. It is clear that the child stands for good and that around the corner is an evil that must be opposed.
It is this desire for a dramatic clarity between good and evil that both sides in the debate on Iraq seek to invoke. In the media, the question has been framed in a seemingly simple, logical fashion: Either you are with the Americans who are for war or with France and Germany who are for peace.
Nothing could be farther from the truth. What we are seeing is a referendum on the doctrine of pre-emptive action; how to confront anti-Western states pursuing weapons that threaten a pro-Western status quo and, most importantly for Europe, how to contain US hyperpower. If East Africa is to have a meaningful voice in the debate, we need to consider these questions with our self-interest in mind.
To begin with, it is in our interest to limit the spread of chemical and biological weapons. They are cheap force multipliers and are of greatest effect when used against civilian centres. As the largest economy in the region, it is to our strategic advantage if potential foes have to go to the greater expense of building up a conventional arsenal since we can outspend them. This deters ambitions of challenging us militarily and gives us time to build our nations in peace. (I am not suggesting that we are about to go to war with our neighbours, God forbid, but only by being strong can we ensure our peace.)
What do we want from the world and how does this inform the way we engage with it? To mention just a few: We want unfettered access to prosperous markets for our products, cheap oil since we are importers, regional peace since the alternative disables foreign investment and tourism, and a defeat of the major terrorist networks that have killed so many of us.
European and US markets are only going to get more protectionist the more unsafe these regions feel. The high level of threat perception in the US after 9/11, though nothing by the standards of Nairobi's River Road at midnight, will limit access to a market we need.
Middle East crises drive up oil prices. Saddam Hussein, by starting the Iraq-Iran war and invading Kuwait has, been a huge force of instability in the region. His desire to acquire nuclear weapons raises the risk that his neighbours will feel compelled to escalate their capabilities as well.
What do you think a Middle East with several nuclear powers would do to the price of oil with every new flare-up? Iraqi regime change does not have to be considered on moral grounds to make perfect sense for East Africa.
Finally, on to the matter of the French who, by threatening to veto a second UN resolution on Iraq have donned superhero-for-peace costumes. Their empathy for the little girl with the doll has not always been in evidence - just think of the long parade of African Big Men they have propped up in the past. I mention this not to demonise a people who make really fine wines, but to illustrate the barrenness of morality plays in international relations.
Now that their influence has been on the wane for a century, the old European powers have learned the benefits of multilateralism; it allows them a chance to roll back American power and remain relevant. In school, we used to call it being taken shiko - when some guy studied all night and yet lied to you, saying that he had been at the Carnivore instead. European support for international law is a cynical play for power in a moral guise, let's recognise it as such.
It is probably a good thing to oppose unilateral American action since it can run amok and increase the global insecurity that is so disadvantageous for us. But in the particular case of Iraq, and the overall fight against terrorism, we need to understand that after September 11, the US will pursue its goal of seeking security with or without European help. By siding strongly with it and not with that large camp of doves, we raise our profile in America. To those willing to go America's way when the rest are headed in the opposite direction comes money - just ask Israel and Egypt.
Besides, being quiet about our opposition to terrorism has not kept us safe. We are caught in crossfire between the terrorists and the West that has revealed a callous disregard for our lives despite our protestations of non-participation. What we need is help in preventing these people from getting across our borders and operating here. It is America that has the will and momentum to meet this challenge, not the Europeans, who depend on the US to quiet a potentially nuclear Middle East or belligerent powers supporting terrorist networks.
We are in a new age and should live up to the responsibility that comes with being free. The world must be considered from the East African viewpoint and our foreign policy must reflect our aspirations, not be a knee-jerk reaction to the interests of others disguised in populist rhetoric.
Martin Mbugua Kimani is a postgraduate student of war studies at King's College London, University of London
Bribery, blackmail, extortion, payoffs ......words the American taxpayer better get used to.
Reaganite.
Kenya comes out in support of the U.S.
Anyways although many nations have cohered together against the US there are still some choice regions in the world that still see the US as probably the only reason why there is still peace in the globe. Such nations include Britain, Australia, Israel, and a few others .....like Kenya.
Anyways here are some exerpts from the article that i particularly liked:
It is this desire for a dramatic clarity between good and evil that both sides in the debate on Iraq seek to invoke. In the media, the question has been framed in a seemingly simple, logical fashion: Either you are with the Americans who are for war or with France and Germany who are for peace. Nothing could be farther from the truth. What we are seeing is a referendum on the doctrine of pre-emptive action; how to confront anti-Western states pursuing weapons that threaten a pro-Western status quo and, most importantly for Europe, how to contain US hyperpower.
To begin with, it is in our interest to limit the spread of chemical and biological weapons. They are cheap force multipliers and are of greatest effect when used against civilian centres. As the largest economy in the region, it is to our strategic advantage if potential foes have to go to the greater expense of building up a conventional arsenal since we can outspend them. This deters ambitions of challenging us militarily and gives us time to build our nations in peace. (I am not suggesting that we are about to go to war with our neighbours, God forbid, but only by being strong can we ensure our peace.)
Actually let me comment on that last part! After the Entebbe raid (where the Israeli special forces rescued the Israeli hostages) Uganda tried to attack Kenya, and even managed to get the help of Tanzania ......but the Kenyan military had been trained by both the Brits and the Israelis and beat both countries without breaking a sweat. Although today things have been smooth for decades Kenya is still surrounded by volatile nations .....for example Sudan acquired some Mig-29s some years ago, which was a questionable decision because the only nation one would need Fulcrums for is against Kenya! However we have a neat surprise for any Fulcrums flying anywhere near the border ....let me say Israelis are pretty cool chaps (LOL).
Now that their influence has been on the wane for a century, the old European powers have learned the benefits of multilateralism; it allows them a chance to roll back American power and remain relevant. In school, we used to call it being taken shiko - when some guy studied all night and yet lied to you, saying that he had been at the Carnivore instead. European support for international law is a cynical play for power in a moral guise, let's recognise it as such.
I am having to catch up on geography and history really quickly, lately. I just got done learning about Central Asia, and now it looks like I need to work on Africa.
Thanks again!
If the views of the author of this article are representative of the views of the majority of Kenyans, I'd have to agree with you.
What's your surprise for the Fulcrums?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.