|
Powerful Mpat Mpatanishi Tayari |
|---|
While the presidential candidates go back and forth arguing about domestic issues, it seems as if their discussions on foreign policy only go as far as what should be done about legal or illegal immigrants in the United States.
Unfortunately, this is not the extent of our foreign issues, and I would like to hear more about the truth behind America's missions abroad. Specifically, I always wanted to know what was the purpose and ultimate result of Operation Hope in Somalia.
Exactly what is our policy on invasion and intrusion? Why were we so quick to go into Somalia for "humanitarian" efforts, while ignoring other fighting all over the world? Specifically, the Bosnia situation was ignored for many years by the international community. So, why this country?
As I remember it, an outgoing President Bush made known his decision to deploy American troops for a humanitarian mission in Somalia, Africa, as he sat in a National Security Council meeting the day before Thanksgiving in 1992. His so-called objective was to "stop bloodshed and looting and get food to starving people." As troops left for Mogadishu during the Christmas holiday, he further imposed that they were doing "God's work."
Not surprisingly, incoming President Clinton was both cautious and supportive of being dragged into this uncertain political territory, and for good reason. Although several different issues came to account for Bush's decision to send troops to Somalia, this United Nations intervention by an American-led coalition was really not surprising at all. It all but screamed the advancement of Western imperialism - a much easier task following the fact that the world is no longer bi-polar.
Deeming Bush's agenda as selfish is greatly supported by both historical and contemporary evidence. Historically, the selfish reasons for foreign intervention and foreign aid to these Third World countries was typically based upon Western states trying to keep communism from expanding, as shown through the great decrease in foreign aid following the end of the Cold War.
Presently, I find it hard to believe that Bush, widely known for his attack on welfare and the poor within his own nation, would OK the U.S. occupation of Somalia for purely humanitarian reasons. There are several other states needing someone to intervene and do "God's work." Why not send troops to Cambodia or why not send troops to stop the massacres in Bosnia at the time?
These situations just mentioned were much worse than the situation that was going on with Operation Restore Hope. The name of the mission itself indicates the rampant images of Third World countries - usually those of color - as being downtrodden and not being able to function without European or other Western intervention.
In addition, it is not surprising to me that when the last of the American troops pulled out of Mogadishu five months after they went in, little change had been implemented beyond prescribing newfound international fame to the local warlords.
Although some may argue that cognitive limits, rather than ethnic biases, affect state policy decisions, I would disagree. This would imply that limits of which states are cognizant - usually through the media - have a strong bearing on policy-making decisions.
It indicates that states are so wary of their appearance, and the level of approval in the eyes of their citizens and prominent persons in other countries, they make policy decisions that will fare well within these groups.
Well, I find it hard to believe that most states make important decisions based on peer pressure - especially nations with as much national and international power as the United States.
Although the media has great influence over the American people, the executive government has an underlying and unseen role in the control of the media. They essentially feed American media what it wants them to know and broadcast, thus quietly limiting its power.
In addition, I would argue that policy decisions, both through the United Nations and within states, are the result of bargaining between powerful bureaucracies; and since these are typically rich Western nations, it is European ideals that will be advanced over all else in policy-making.
This, therefore, promotes bias against those nations that are the most ethnically different from Western nations - such as those found in Africa.
- Mpatanishi Tayari can be reached over e-mail at mtayari@umich.edu.