Regions / Africa
The U.S government's announced intention to broaden the war on terrorism beyond Afghanistan has triggered growing concern that other important U.S. foreign policy goals and principles will be subordinated in the process.
Instead of taking the opportunity for dialogue, rich countries have offered little or nothing to address the concerns of African and other developing countries.
The U.S. will not escape the consequences of racism and colonialism no matter what course the government chooses.
The signs here frame the debate in sharp terms: On the one hand "Anti-Zionism = Anti-Semitism," on the other "Zionism = Apartheid."
Let us take as a starting point that the broadly consensual strategy and basis for self-activity in what we can term Global Justice Movements is the following: to promote the globalization of people and halt (or at minimum radically modify) the globalization of capital.
The conflict in Sudan is considerably more complicated than the simple north-south, Muslim vs. Christian, Arab vs. African duality many of those now lobbying the administration present.
The U.S. could have made a strong, positive impression by sending its African-American Secretary of State, a descendent of slaves, and making a forceful stand against racism. Instead, it chose to send a low-level delegation.
Through a combination of street protests, sophisticated policy reviews, media exposes, and powerful commentaries in the print and electronic media, AIDS activists have forced the issue of access to HIV/AIDS care in developing nations.
With the diplomatic umbrella of France and the United States protecting the monarchy from its international obligations, it now appears that Baker will soon be recommending that the UN drop the idea for a plebiscite and replace it with a settlement provid
he United States cannot hope to promote democracy around the world as long as its supports repressive rule in Egypt or anywhere else.