Today, I had the chance to hear two very different views of the US and Africa. Early this morning, I heard a commentary on "Morning Edition" regarding Bush in Africa. The commentator, (whose name escapes me, I believe it was Armstrong)insisted GW was not only good for Africa, but he was better then Clinton. The primary basis of this arguement is that GW has a plan to be more supportive (i.e. give more money) to democracies in Africa, and most importantly, GW was going to give more to fight AIDS in one fell swoop then Clinton did in eight years.
I am NOT about suggesting Clinton did much worth celebrating in Africa but this argument is hard to take. First of all, Uganda is not a democracy, and has been heavily involved in a very destructive way in the Congo, and GW's comments regarding Zimbabwe left a lot to be desired. As for AIDS, even had he wanted, it's unlikely Clinton could have gotton a major AIDS package through a Republican congress. GW's Republican congress has already cut 1/3 of GW's AIDS package for the first year, it's hard to imagine GW pressuring Republican members of congress the same way he did for his tax cut. And it's worth mentioning that the AIDS package the White House is pushing is heavy on abstinence, short on drugs, and unlikely to make much of an impact. The White House could make a far larger impact (and not spend a dime) by simply pressuring drug companies to relax patent laws in African countries. Finally, in a goodwill gesture to the right, money for the UN population fund was cut, which has had a devestating impact for the Global South.
About an hour later, Democracy Now!, ran its awarding-winning documentary "Drilling and Killing" regarding Nigeria, Chevron, and the oppression/killing of activists. While Nigeria's brutal dictatorhip is gone, the oil companies which profited from it are still active and very supportive of GW. "Condy" Rice, everybody's favorite national security advisor since Kissinger, was on Chevron's board at the that time and was so appreciated an oil tanker was named after her. I can think of no better example of the difference between the "mainstream media" and the "alternative media". More often then not, the past actions of public figures are simply lost down the "memory hole". Part of the service alternative media provides is to rescue these histories, and help us understand what's really going on.
DISCLAIMER: The opinions expressed on this
website are those of the individual members of Chicago Media
Action who authored them, and not necessarily those of the entire
membership of Chicago Media Action, nor of Chicago Media Action
as an organization.
FAIR USE NOTICE: This site contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues, etc. We believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. For more information go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.