To police the world or not?

An unpopular truth

[Reprinted from Issues & Views July 28, 2003]

It was probably predictable that once the Great Empire announced its mission to spread democracy around the world, there would be takers -- that is, countries inviting the Empire to bring its Crusade, and especially its cash, to their shores. The continent of Africa could keep the Empire, and its troops, busy until the end of days.

Author and American University economist George Ayittey is not among those Africans who are campaigning for the U.S. government to play a direct role in the troubled regions of the continent. On the contrary, he believes that outsiders should act with caution. Quoted in a May 2003 editorial in the Orange County Register (Calif.), Ayittey claims that the ultimate goal of any American involvement should be "for Africa -- a rich, immense continent with talented people -- eventually to be able to take the lead in solving its own problems." Known for his insistence on indigenous solutions within Africa, Ayittey warns the U.S. to avoid the "Clinton fiasco," where emphasis was placed on supporting leaders who are oblivious to developing genuine civil and political infrastructure.

In a similar spirit, a non-African, Michael Radu, writing for Front Page magazine ("What Do We Owe Liberia?," 7/14/03), scoffs at those who blame the United States for not adequately playing out its nanny role in Liberia. Most black Americans know the rough outlines of Liberia's history, where the transplanted former slave returned "home," only to persecute and enslave the natives they found in the region. (Unfortunately, the natives had no John Brown or the Abolitionists' Anti-Slavery Society.)

Like Ayittey, Radu insists that Africa must take responsibility for the continent's future. Calling Liberia "a country with no institutions, no sense of nationhood, no infrastructure and no limits on its needs," he concludes that solutions should come from the newly established African Union, comprised of 53 nations.

In agreement is Manthia Diawara. In "Liberia Is No Place for US to Go Alone to Enforce Peace" (Los Angeles Times, 7/27/03), he claims that, despite Liberia's continuing crisis and the pleas for U.S. action, the U.S. should not unilaterally intervene.

Sending American troops alone to Liberia will only temporarily solve the problem. . . . [R]elying on the United States to rescue Liberia, as France and Britain have done in the past in their old colonies of Ivory Coast and Sierra Leone, only affirms neocolonial intervention in Africa. It points to the failure of Africans to resolve their own problems.

And so says an editorialist writing for AllAfrica.com:

The human suffering is so appalling that we as Africans should be ashamed that we have not done much to alleviate it. . . . Of course many have been blinded by the appeal to the United States to intervene militarily. But why should it be the US? America cannot be expected to police every trouble spot in the world.

While many supporters of the Empire here at home would disagree, and believe that the U.S. can, indeed, police the entire world, at least one African nation has heeded the call. This month, Nigeria promised to deploy 1,300 troops to wartorn Liberia.

Copyright © 2008 Issues & Views