Then, something similar happens in eastern Europe. Not even as bad as some regions in Africa. Suddenly, all hell breaks loose and the entire western world is suddenly concerned with the poor people of Kosova. All of a sudden, school children send clothes and toys to the refugees, something they never bothered to do for any single child in Africa.

Why?

I guess I'm very pessimistic about this world when I say one reason is, the average western asshole thinks, they're just black. I know, that sounds like severe westerner bashing but I'm so afraid it's true. Not with me, but with way too many people around me. Also, I fear less people would have helped the kosovalbanians if they knew they were moslems. That's how this stinking world is. Maybe I'm to pessimistic, please tell me I am. When the western oppressors pulled out of Africa as late as the 1970's they left the continent in chaos, and they are not prepared to help any of those countries. (Also look at Indonesia, for example, where shithead Dutch oppressors made way for a new oppressor)

------------------
"The brocolli must die!"

------------------
"The brocolli must die!"

Kosovo, because of its physical location, was a situation that could easily grow beyond the confines of Serbia, and threaten those same western powers who decided to take action.

Africa, unfortunately, contains no such powers, and nations are much more content to let people kill each other there. It doesn't carry the economic and political repercussions.

Personally...I can see both sides of this issue. RW's figures of thousands dying is an understatement. We're talking millions of people. On the other hand, no nation can do everything. It would be, for instance, physically impossible for the United States, or Britain, or even the G-8 to stop every genocidal campaign in Africa. It would take a worldwide consensus. The issue of choosing your battles comes into play. Intervene in Africa, where the odds of success are much lower, but the need is greater, or Kosovo, where the needs are perhaps lower, but the chances of actually doing something greater? It's not an decision to make.

Kosova = Albanian spelling

some of us here in the USA noted that the TV news talking heads and government flaks very quickly switched to the more politically correct pronunciation.

Before the USAF dropped a single bomb (oops!) on a single target (sorry, collateral damage), critics asked Why Kosovo?

If it's purely for humanitarian reasons, to stop the age-old bloodshead, to make everyone play nice-nice whether they want to or not, then why Kosovo, which didn't even rate in the Worst Five Warzones list [based on body-count.]

East Timor immediately comes to mind. The Congo, perhaps.

The LA Times recently ran an article with these statistics. Amount U.N. refugee agency spends daily per refugee: Balkins: $1.23...Africa: $.11.

In Africa: the camps hold as many as 500,000 people. Up to 6,000 die a day from cholera and other public emergencies. In Macedonia: the largest camps holds 33,000. The have been no deaths from public health emergencies so far.

Medical Care: In Africa at some camps, there is 1 doctor per 100,000 refugees. In Madedonia the ratio in some camps is 1 doctor per 700 refugees.

Refugees at most camps in Albania, across the border from Kosovo, have readily available clean water. In Eritrea, on the Horn of Africa, families as large as 10 are given about 3 1/2 gallons of water to last three days, according to Mary Anne Fitzgerald, a Nairobi, Kenya-based spokeswoman for Refugees International.

Another major difference between refugee facilities in Africa and those in Europe is in the type of food supplied.

World Food Program officials say both European and African refugees are getting about 2,100 calories a day of food rations. But for the Kosovo Albanians, those calories come in the form of tins of chicken pate, foil-wrapped cheeses, fresh oranges and milk. In some ready-made meals, there is even coffee and fruit tarts.

Water is plentiful in most of the camps in the Balkans.

At one camp in Macedonia, German officials have even installed a fully functioning sewage treatment system.

That contrasts with Africa, where refugees are far less likely to get ready-made meals and have to make most of their food from scratch--a practice reflecting the simpler lifestyles of the area, say U.N. officials. Instead of meals, the refugees are given basic grains such as sorghum or wheat.

~~~~

All that is true, and to a very large extent, there has always been this paternalistic attitude toward Aftica since the colonial days of Europe. In a very real sense, just as there existed in the past a militaristic imperialsim, today there is a system of economic imperialism.

I think another quote from the abore article speaks volumes..."Andrew Ross, a refugee worker who came from Africa to the Balkans last month, called the camps in Macedonia 'far superior' to those in Africa."

"'What's the difference?" Ross asked. "There's white people here.'"

On the other hand, it irks me that we should appoint ourselves parents to every other part of the world where they haven't figured out that killing people by the truckload is wrong. "Now, now! You children play nice or we'll just have to bring in bombs, guns and explosives of our own and start killing people!"

I also think it's hypocritical to go in with military force to prevent that sort of thing. If it would stop the violence from spreading, then good. Let's go kill and maim some people who live in a distant country who weren't directly threatening us. If it won't stop the violence or escalates it, then what's the solution? Do we choose one side to save and murder the rest? Or do we decide that both sides are equally guilty and kill them all?

Bombs in the service of peace are still bombs. They kill, maim and injure people. They destroy lives and property and rend families apart. Generally, they create even more of a mess that needs to be cleaned up than we started with. Murdering and crippling lots of people isn't a great countermove to mass murder. It isn't going to convince them you only had their best interests at heart, either. Make no mistake: The Yugoslavs and the Kosavars hate NATO and the U.S., either because we interfered, or because we didn't just kill all the people they wanted dead in the first place. Military intervention is a third-rate cure for ethnic violence.

RW, can you come up with a plan that doesn't include destroying things and people at an even faster rate than they're already being destroyed? As callous as it sounds, I'll bet that if Yugoslavia were located in the South Atlantic with no nearby neighbors, the U.N. and NATO (OTAN, if you speak French) would have done nothing more than advise their members to avoid the place until the shooting had stopped. Nothing more serious than trade embargoes would have been brought to bear.

It's terrible that people can refuse to recognise the humanity of a hated people. It's horrible that someone can look at another person and see some "thing" that needs exterminating. It's a tragedy that it's so common that we haven't got the resources to stop these things unless they pose a direct threat to ourselves or our allies. It's also a shame they can't see this for themselves (as occurred in South Africa) and call off the violence themselves.