Traps,
Not sure if you would make the grade as a prosecuting attorney. Surely, you are not going to indict Hillary for the crimes of her husband ? You write:
“Of even more significance, from an African perspective, was her husband’s refusal to intervene in Rwanda despite being fully aware of the genocide that was taking place there.”
Perhaps you just better stick to defending your client Barack Hussein Obama?

(Report abuse)

notice hillary is not taking credit/claiming experience for rowanda!!!

(Report abuse)

Traps
One of the journalists who covered both events at the time writes that America had been humiliated in Somalia shortly before Rwanda - American soldiers dead bodies being dragged by trucks through the streets.So the Americans were reluctant to go into another African problem, and kept the rest of the world out.

(Report abuse)

I thought I would have some fun with this topic. See http://knn-meerkatedition.blogspot.com/2008/03/knn-news-footage-exposes-hillary-meekat.html

(Report abuse)

America’s inaction regarding the genocide in Rwanda is inexcusable. Read Samantha Power’s “A Problem from Hell”. The truth is that the US refused to act even in ways that would have cost them nothing or very little. They had the technical expertise to block the airwaves that were being used by Hutu extremists to incite violence against Tutsis - and yet they refused. And all this happened on Bill Clinton’s watch. Let’s hope the Americans will have enough sense not to allow allow Clinton in the White House.

(Report abuse)

Ariella - the most damning for me is that Bill Clinton used ignorance of the genocide as his excuse when apologising to Rwandans.

As Rory Carroll’s article and many others now clearly show he knew exactly what was going on.

By using ignorance he is in effect saying had I known - which just about sums him up - He really shouldn’t have splashed out on Lewinsky’s dress….

(Report abuse)

You really must make up your minds. Are the Americans the good guys with the best army (paid for by China) who must be criticised when they do NOT intevene (Rwanda) or the bad guys who must stay out (Iraq).

All the forces of Jihad are concentrated in Iraq. The do not only contest Israel’s right to exist. They contest the right of any other religion to exist in the whole world which must eventually be under their version of Islamic Law.

Make up your minds!

(Report abuse)

Lyndall it’s never that simple - Iraq now, as opposed to pre-invasion(starting what may well have been an illegal war) requires a different approach.

Having gone in America and her allies have to construct an exit strategy that does not leave a geo-political nightmare behind. As the latest events in Basra and Bagdad show - the Shia militias are not going to take one backward step to al-Maliki.

The British are now having to intervene again and the Americans have just started bombing militia positions - al-Maliki’s exercise was supposed to show Iraq could police herself - turns out anything but.

The economic considerations as we are seeing are enormous - the blowing up of an oil pipeline sent prices throuth the roof. This means an exit strategy designed to keep the balance in the region without imploding Iraq itself is required.

In terms of Bosnia and Rwanda no question they and others should have intervened just as Zimbabwe and an 84 year old despot cry out to be removed.

You cannot simply have an America first isolationist approach in all cases just as you can’t have an intervention whenever it suits policy.

Different situations demand different approaches.

(Report abuse)

Don’t be naive. The president of the USA will — and should — act in the interests of the people who gave him (or her) the mandate. Those are the Americans.

The president of SA, by the same token, is not mandated to act in the best interests of the citizens of Zimbabwe, no matter how much they may need and want him to. Mbeki is mandated by South Africans to look after South Africa’s best interests in a manner that he and his government see fit.

What’s in it for America to intervene in Rwanda? That’s the African Union’s job, not America’s. Ditto with Bosnia. Unless there’s something tangibly worthwhile in it for America and Americans, their president is quite right in butting out of someone else’s problems.

Act on the mandate given by the people who elected you to do what’s best for THEM. Not what’s best for a bunch of squabbling strangers who add little or no value to your own country.

Not only CAN you have an America First isolationist approach (it’s the Monroe Doctrine Mk 2) but you SHOULD have an America First isolationist policy.

Break isolation only if America stands to gain significantly more than it stands to lose.

THAT makes sense. It’s realpolitik.

(Report abuse)

Traps

I agree with most of what you say - but if the west leaves now the violence and the Shia militia will move on to the next victim. They are not programmed to stop util the whole world is conquered. This war was going to happen somewhere eventually.

Of course the Americans made it worse by taking out the police and the civil service in the beginning (because they were Shia) when they were in no position to police themselves. (Like we took out ours because they were Afrikans?) Criminals moved in, followed by the militias.

Anyhow - I think the Clintons have had their day and their turn. If Americans had any sense they would do a deal now - with Hillary for vice. The more they fight each other - the more they help the Republicans.

(Report abuse)

Jon your point is valid.

I wonder if the Americans see themslves in that way? The GOPs have generally been interventionists over the years.

As leaders of the freeworld, which is my perception of how they see themselves can America distance itself from Darfur and Zimbabwe?

Is that now a UN or regional problem?

(Report abuse)

Generally America as Chomsky points out does not have double standards but single standards. There are certains bodies that count and certain ones that don’t count. Atrocities committed by our enemies (Darfur, Communist Russia, Sadam Hussein) are serious and need to be stopped, atrocities committed by our friends (Suharto, Israel, El Salvador, previous South American dictatorships) are not atrocities at all. They are benign interventions. Atrocities committed by people in out of teh way places who are not our friends or enemies (Rwanda, Bosnia) are not really much to worry about.

(Report abuse)

Whenever the Republicans have intervened, it’s because they have felt that this intervention is somehow going to bring good things for AMERICA. Those good things may be oil, or prestige, or regional economic advantage, or a boost to sales of American goods or any combination of these. They aren’t intervening to do good deeds of fraternal charity and sisterly mercy and paternalistic altruism.

They’re intervening to obtain American gain for the American people who democratically mandated them to do this on their behalf.

They’re looking after Number One.

Nothing wrong with that, as I see it?

(Report abuse)

Traps,
Is there any way that you could put yourself forward as Secretary of State in the next Obama administration? You really have a profound understanding for the foreign policy errors that The US has made during the Bush and Clinton administrations and I am sure that the world will be a much better place under your guidance.
You state that the war in Iraq may have been illegal. Perhaps Turnbull and Associates could prosecute the Bush administration?

(Report abuse)

Does America have anything to gain for the benefit of the American people by getting involved in Darfur and Zimbabwe?

If the answer’s no, stay well clear. It’s not America’s problem.

It’s the AU’s problem. Or, if the AU are too inept (and they almost certainly are) then it’s the task of UN (who only exist thanks to lavish USA funding) who are specifically set up to sort out the mess which Africans have routinely created in their own states.

To expect the USA to nanny the whole planet is, frankly, unreasonable. Especially if they’re damned if they do and damned if they don’t.

Don’t is the cheaper, less painful route to this inescapable damnation. It’s the sensible route.

(Report abuse)

The only people who can deprogramme the suicide bombers are their teachers. Change their mindset first! Only Muslim scholars will be able to do that.

(Report abuse)

Both Mohammed and the Zulu king had multiple wives for reasons. They were both trying to combine scattered tribes or clans into a nation.There had to be a representative (or wife) for each clan.They were representatives of their people. I suspect they were more likely chosen for their brains than their looks.

(Report abuse)

@ Micheal ‘Americans …. the world, the very least they — and indeed the rest of us — should expect is someone that is considered honest and trustworthy.

Why do you then support an amnesty for JZ and the arms deal????

(Report abuse)

The Americans have always tried to save the world. My great great great grandfather was an American missionary. My American family helped fund Sol Plaatjies.Why not help them?

(Report abuse)

Hillary is a MONSTER!

(Report abuse)

I strongly suggest that Americans read Harvey Cleckley’s “Masks of Sanity” or Robert Hare’s “Without Conscience” aqnd start thinking more carefully about her political leaders. We have had several recently whose behavior fits the description of the sociopaths in Cleckley’s book. We can do better, but only if we pay better attention and reason more carefully. Lying — especially unnecessarily! — is no laughing matter. But it does tell us something of the character of the person doing it.
Those who understand the behavior patterns of sociopaths are not surprised by the seemingly incomprehensible behavior of such powerful politicians as George W. Bush, Gov. Spitzer of New York, or Hillary Clinton. Nor are they eager to be ruled by such persons.

(Report abuse)