This is an interesting article about the son of the president of Equatorial Guinea. Basically, he’s got millions and millions of money pilfered from his nation- one of the most corrupt on Earth. By all accounts, he is a thief of epic proportions. And yet, he is allowed to come and go freely to the United States. He keeps a multi-million dollar mansion that he regularly jets in and out of. ’
To me, this seems like just another bit of evidence for how Western countries are complicit with Africa corruption. There are countless accounts of western interests- specifically natural resource interests- propping up corrupt dictators and providing them with playgrounds in which to spend their pilfered cash.
But every time I mention this, I get cries of “oh no, the West has nothing to do with it.”
Well, President Obiang Nguema won the 1996 ‘election’ with with 99% of the vote - having ousted and killed his uncle. The state of play now is, not to surprisingly:
I wonder how the US would have reacted if other nations had barred entry by the US President because they had “credible evidence of corruption”. Let’s say they barred entry to Bush because of the Haliburton fiasco. Or to Clinton because of Blow-Job Gate. Regardless of your politics, there was credible evidence of corruption in both cases.
In essence barring entry by heads of state is tantamount to cutting off all diplomatic relations. Maybe not literally, but pratcially that’s going to be the end result. That’s not going to do a lot of good for anyone. Furthermore it’s going to leads of cries favouritism if we restrict the Guinean president, but not the president of say, Israel or France when they are (inevitably) embroiled in corruption scandals.
The law itself is pretty silly. Demanding that the law be applied literally in all cases is really sillier. It demands that the US interfere in foreign politics based on “law enforcement officials believe” and “Of course”, which is the type of evidence we seem to have in this case.
That’s a dangerous position for the US to place itself in. It seems clear that the law needs to be applied judicially or else it will damage all diplomatic ties the US has. Whether it should be applied in this case I couldn’t say, but then I doubt anyone else here has the knowledge to say so either. To judge that you would need to know what the future prospects for diplomatic solutions are, and what the results of suspending diplomacy would be.
How are Western interests"propping up" the regime? Specifically, not hand waving but specifically. Selling arms via official or semi official channels?
Allowing the oil companies to operate - that gets a shrug from me as if not American or UK companies, then the Chinese.
No, I think you get lots of criticism for broad brush and for down playing the African alone role.
In what way does “The West” force Eq. Guineau to be corrupt?
He’s not a head of state, but rather the son of a head of state (though he was once the head of the forestry department.) He’s been caught numerous times using his diplomatic passport for non-diplomatic purposes. He’s been caught numerous times laundering money in American using American accounts- banks have been fined, accounts frozen, etc. He regularly shows up at the airport with millions in undeclared cash. He’s broken our laws with impunity, over and over again.
Equitorial Guinea sits on enough oil to make them one of the richest nations on Earth. 2/3 of their people live below the poverty line- and development is going backwards, not forwards.
We’re not talking blow-jobs, here. We are talking about people who are personally pocketing millions- perhaps billions- of dollars from their own people, condemning millions of people to pointless poverty, disease and death. We aren’t talking unproven accusations. This man can’t come up with any good reason why he’d have millions upon millions laying around.
We regularly deny entry to officials from other corrupt nations.
So why is this guy sitting in his Malibu mansion- bought with obviously stolen money? Anyone committing any other crime of this level…let’s say major drug kingpins…would not be welcome to enjoy the fruits of their evil in our country.
I thought I understood from the article he occupies a ministerial level position (we can all agree that is a bullshit Daddy is Pres position, but…).
Anyway close family of heads of state are generally afforded “consideration” as bouncing the head of state’s son/wife/daughter, etc is sure to produce a Head of State level crisis.
That’s useful information, but as given past record on assertions, may we request a cite (and not a Leftist advocacy source).
Mmm. Your American laws, but again, cite?
Great Leftist boilerplate rhetoric, however, I see Leftists making the same arguments in the same language about corporate presidents, banks and capitalists generally.
And we are talking about unproven accusations - well founded by unproven.
The NYT articicle directly contradicts that assertion (and that highlights a reason to doubt many of the ad hoc assertions above). It rather seems that in fact the US does not (per the arty that you’re otherwise relying on) ‘regularly’ (or if we are critical, we have no fucking idea one way or the other) deny said visas.
Jurisdiction dearie, jurisdiction.
Frankly, although you’re all on the righteous anger front now, examples like the Americans invasion of Panama and snatch of Noreiga should give you a bit of a pause.
Ah, but we’re on the Leftists’ power and options only used for approved reasons angle, eh?
I am bemused by any construct which pretends “The West” somehow creates, promotes or is responsible for “The Asshole from St Elsewhere.” I find it particularly patronizing toward inhabitantss of other countries who are presumably adults with free choice. But perhaps their IQs are so low they can’t figure out how to run their countries, or perhaps their cultures so weak they do need colonializing again to get themselves straightened out…
Anyway, what I say is that this particularly asshole should get kicked out of the US, I am delighted there is a proclamation here promoting that notion, Mr Obama needs to get right on this, and no, the West has nothing to do with creating this particular piece of scum.
wmfellows, I am not going to debate with you if you insist on using “lefty” and “leftist” in every other sentence. Corruption is not a left or right issue, and you do a huge disservice to whatever your cause is (pro-dictatorship? just against anything anyone you perceive as liberal might say? are you Dick Cheney or something?) by trying to frame it as such. Nor is this a personal debate where you try to shove me personally in whatever random pigeonhole you’ve decided that I belong in. Please, focus on the issues, not the rhetoric and not me personally.
If you just want to froth about "lefties’ there is a whole forum for frothing. If you want to debate the practice of working with corrupt African dictators, profiting off of their stolen resources, and providing them with a playground to spend their stolen money in, then you can do it here.
Well, regarding Left, and in particular your approach, let me quote the OP:
(Emphasis Added)
In short, it is a favoured subject of yours in particular, and I have noted, you in said subject have recourse to sweeping statements of dubious accuracy such as (from above):
(Emphasis Added)
As I noted above, the NY article rather seems to indicate that in fact the US does not do so, indeed one source says completely the opposite. There seems to be an absence of evidence the fellow has broken American domestic law as such (he’s not an American after all), at least as presented.
Regardless, I asked for cites supporting your sweeping assertion. The Leftist angle is noted as (i) blaming “The West” for said problems (as you do in the OP) is of essence a political position and a Leftist position as such, (ii) I want and wanted cites on your assertions (as above) from a neutral source, not a Leftist advocacy source of suspect balance and accuracy.
After all you asserted above that the accusations are not unproven - in fact they are unproven so far, although as I noted, not unfounded.
***Cause? ***I don’t have a cause. What a queer question. I am not an advocate or cause-mongerer.
Corruption of course is not a Left-Right issue as such, but blaming African corruption and third world corruption on “The West” is. As is claiming Western interests are specifically propping up said regimes (although regimes with no Western support such as Burma, North Korea come to mind to question the implicit assumption that said regimes need/require Western support to soldier on).
You’re the one who framed this in terms blaming the West, and have made assertions contradicted by your own article.
Well, again, focusing on your OP, you want to blame The West. I questioned and asked for cites on several of your assertions. That, it would appear to me, be spot on to a debate as framed by the opening post. If this is not a recreational outrage thread, it would seem to me justifying the underlying assumptions is necessary.
Additionally, as Blake stated, the law that is the focus of the article is incoherent. To quote him:
As I noted, the example of the American invasion of Panama and seizure of Noriega should give pause to extra-territorial moralising instincts.
I know this is an old thread, but I can’t resist making a few comments on this. It seems clear to me that the OP’s position is being greatly strawmanned (or is it straw-womanned?) here. This, by the way, is one of the reasons why I rarely bother to raise these kinds of topics. I have learned long ago that it is merely an exercise in despair and frustration, given the habit most people have of reflexively denying anything that makes them feel uncomfortable. Anyway, here are the two effigies I am seeing here:
Straw-woman 1: The OP is accusing the west of being entirely responsible for corruption and totalitarianism in Africa.
The OP of course uses the word “complicit” in her first post and, thus, is clearly not guilty of the above.
Straw-woman 2: The OP is insisting that western countries always impose persona non grata status on any politician that is guilty of corruption. (This, admittedly, is a more subtle (smaller) straw-woman)
It is highly doubtful that the OP is advocating such an impractical and nonsensical position. I think it only takes a little bit of sunflower to see that what she is really calling western countries out on is their hypocrisy and inconsistency in their moralistic foreign posturing (western nations on many occasions have indeed taken disciplinary actions - such as imposing travel restrictions, freezing financial assets, and so on - upon non-western politicians they happen to dislike under the pretext that they were corrupt or members of totalitarian regimes. They just seem to be incredibly cynical and two-faced in the manner that they do it). To the extent that there is any insistence on any particular foreign policy, it is that cases that are as despicable and egregious as the one presented in the OP should consistently be given special consideration for this treatment. Comparing such cases to a blow-job fiasco (as one poster did) is pretty…cheap.
(Of course, if I myself have misrepresented the OP’s position, she is free to say so)
Actually, we would live in a much better world if “other nations” had the moral courage to stand up to the US and do precisely that. The fight against bad behavior has to start somewhere; preferably from a position where there is little room for hypocrisy. The problem, though, is that the power that the US and other western countries have enables them to engage in such moralistic behavior in a way that is extremely pretentious, cynical, inconsistent and hypocritical. Furthermore, it isn’t “other nations” that go around calling themselves “the champion of justice”, “the beacon of hope and peace”, “the champion of freedom”, “the upholder of the rule of law”, and so on. It is the west, or, rather, the US, that goes around lauding itself with such accolades. Should people be blamed when they occasionally demand that the west –or specifically the US- live up to its pretensions?
The bottom line is that these kinds of rhetoric on the part of the US (and the west in general) would begin to sound a lot more credible to people when it becomes harder to connect such incidents of moralistic foreign policy with their selfish interests. And the specific action that the OP is recommending with regard to that article would be a good place to start.
I am even more bemused by any construct which pretends that “The West” somehow has never created, promoted or was responsible for “The Asshole from St Elsewhere.” I find it particularly patronizing toward inhabitants of other countries (not to mention incredibly disingenuous) to pretend that negative political influence from powerful countries somehow suggests that their IQs are so low they can’t figure out how to run their countries, or that their cultures are so weak they need colonializing again to get themselves straightened out.
In other words, it’s amazing that anyone would suggest that this has jackshit to do with intelligence or culture. It’s like attending a meeting of LA Galaxy players and technical staff set up to figure out why they just lost three matches in a row and suddenly raising up your hand to suggest “perhaps we should test the IQs of the players; maybe that’s why they lost”.
Em…how about things like: team-cohesiveness, motivation, injuries and so on?
It’s worth pointing out that Africa is not the only continent that has been a victim of the “The West” penchant for propping up or supporting flunkey regimes in other countries. Latin America, The Caribbean (particularly Haiti), East Asia and the Middle East have all been victims of this at some time or the other. (So what’s that again about “culture” and “intelligence”?)
It reminds me of how most people who are fortunate enough to live in relatively endogenous countries tend to assume that all countries in the modern world are fundamentally the same way, unaware that some countries, like Iraq and many African countries, were unduly carved out by outsiders without the consent of the disparate groups living in them and, consequently, tend to lack the kind of nationalistic spirit and cohesion that they are used to.
I found this excerpt on Wikipedia that is, I think, a small illustration of the sort of thing the OP is complaining about (bolding mine):