The legacy that will endure

[15357]

When President Bush traveled to sub-Saharan Africa in February he was greeted by tumultuous crowds of admirers. That mystified many of his critics, who thought that the animosity toward his administration abroad is universal.

But polling data from the Pew Foundation shows something different: Approval ratings for the United States exceed 80 percent in many African countries, some with large Muslim populations. In Darfur, many families name newborn sons George Bush.

What is it that the Bush administration has done differently in Africa than it has done elsewhere?

Certainly one factor is that Africa is not the Middle East or Central Asia, where America is fighting two unpopular wars and where polls show America at an all-time low in public esteem.

In Sudan, the United States played a central role as peacemaker in ending a 20-year civil war between the Arab north and African south, which killed 2 million people.

It was the Bush administration that first raised the alarm about the atrocities in Darfur, organized a massive humanitarian relief effort to save people in camps for the displaced and rallied an international coalition to send peacekeeping troops to restore order through the United Nations and the African Union.

While the civil war in Sudan continues, casualties have declined and people are being fed by aid agencies, thanks to U.S. government generosity - which may explain why Bush is so popular among the Africans in the camps.

America has also played an important role as mediator in Burundi, Liberia, northern Uganda, Sierra Leone and the Democratic Republic of the Congo after civil wars devastated all five countries. Administration policy in Africa has not been without its failures: Its military campaign in Somalia has been an embarrassment, putting vulnerable people at risk.

However important these diplomatic efforts may be, Bush's enduring legacy in Africa rests on humanitarian and economic - not political - foundations. More than anything else it has been the revolution in the U.S. government's development assistance that is responsible for Bush's popularity.

The Bush administration doubled foreign aid worldwide over the past eight years - the largest increase since the Truman administration - and used it to encourage poor countries to undertake political and economic reform.

Total U.S. government development aid to Africa alone has quadrupled from $1.3 billion in 2001 to more than $5 billion in 2008 and is scheduled to go to $8.7 billion in 2010, principally for education (primary school enrollment in Africa is up 36 percent since 1999), health care, civil society and protecting fragile environments.

Africa has received $3.5 billion in additional funds from Bush's Millennium Challenge Corporation initiative, which rewards poor countries that encourage economic growth, govern well and provide social services for their people.

The president's HIV/AIDS program, principally focused on providing Africans with anti-retroviral drugs to treat the disease (1.7 million people are on the therapy), has been such a success that it has been extended to 2015 at a cost of $48 billion. His five-year, $1.2 billion effort to combat malaria has provided 4 million insecticide-treated bed nets and 7 million drug therapies to vulnerable people.

The Africa Growth and Opportunity Act, approved in 2000 and re-authorized in expanded form in 2004, provides trade benefits with the United States for 40 African countries that have implemented reforms to encourage economic growth.

Since 2001, U.S. exports to Africa have more than doubled, to $14 billion a year, while African exports to the United States have more than tripled, to $67 billion, of which $3.4 billion has been in goods other than oil.

USAID has provided more than $500 million in developing trade capacity for poor countries to access international markets, which is the only way Africa will escape the poverty that has for too long oppressed the continent.

While Bush's critics have given him little credit for his African initiatives, they will be among his most enduring legacy in a region of the world long neglected by policymakers from both parties. Africans will long remember what Bush's critics have ignored.

And somewhat related:

All of you guys, and even the non-US members here seem so keen on Obama to win because you all seem to be suffering under a delusion.

The delusion of peace.

Somehow, when Obama wins, the US will magically give up its global hegemony, pull out of Iraq, get its forces out of non-US territories, and live happily ever after? No. I don't think so. I view Obama as a populist at best, promising a change. But a change for what?

From my perspective, Obama's policies can be disastrous for my country. President Bush has worked extremely hard to revitalize the strained relations between my country and the United States, and that is the reason why 20,000 Koreans greeted him with signs that said "I love Bush" and "Friends Forever". The thing is, we do not want the US to pull out of anywhere. We don't want change, at least in the geopolitics field. Also, all the effort that Bush and My country has put in to affirm free trade between our two nations can be negated by Obama, and we don't want that. Neither should you. Obama's policies, as I understand it, range from deluded to socialist, and (I may be exaggerating here) may signal a return to Wilson's isolationist policies of decades ago.

Most of you are against the US's global policies. While understandable, it all derives from a delusion that the world can live together in harmony like some nightmarish Disney film. No. What we need is a hegemony. Or hegemonies. Order in the world, and global politics.

Change is too much unpredictable. Never should you believe in it. The audacity of Obama comes not from his "change" but the futile and frankly idiotic notion that change is what you want. Change may sound good. It may give you hope, at least at the begining. But the world has changed for the worse. You cannot trust in the beliefs of long past. Resources are running out, and to be perfectly honest, if the Iraq war was for oil, you should be praising George W. Bush for his actions.

Also, returning to our perspective, we are afraid. Afraid of a US pull-out. Afraid to lose a valued friend that has been a great help in global politics. What we may fear may be unreasonable, but what you trust is equally unreasonable. Obama, as much as Mccain, is a politician, and politicians aren't exactly known for their trustworthiness.






KILL THE ALIEN BURN THE HERETIC PURGE THE UNCLEAN
End Rant.

So, I was wrong. Bush isn't hated by everyone.

 

[Solaris]

I think you can attribute this stuff to the neocons in the party, good people like Paul Wolfowitz.

 

[CptStern]

ya he's a saint :upstare:

Paul Dundes Wolfowitz (born 1943), is best known to be one of the "architects" of the war against Iraq. He is one of the original neocons and signatory to the Project for the New American Century, PNAC.

 

[Solaris]

Yes, I support the war against Iraq. I think Wolfowitz is a genuine freedom loving guy.

 

[CptStern]

have you been to one of those "re-education" camps our friend Numbers is so fond of because you've done a complete about face since joining our little community

 

[Solaris]

Maybe I'll write my reasons up if I find the time.

 

[CptStern]

I dont think anyone could justify the war in iraq

 

[DEATHMASTER]

Sure ya can! Oil!

 

[CptStern]

Sure ya can! Oil!

Operation

Iraqi

Liberation


that's what it was initially called till they changed it to Operation Iraqi Freedom ...no really:

United States military operations were conducted under the codename Operation Iraqi Liberation.[100] The codename was later changed to Operation Iraqi Freedom