Niger: He Said, They Said

The news has been covering starvation in Niger for the past several months. Now this coverage includes much finger-pointing and analysis of "what went wrong." This coverage is sometimes conflicting, sometimes confusing.
Note the article that appeared in The Economist last week, 'The Worst Is Over', in which it is stated that

"Indeed, Niger's government has been accused of trying to cover up the extent of food shortages in order to save face. It was mounting pressure from opposition parties and local NGOs that finally forced the prime minister, Hama Amadou, as late as the end of May, to acknowledge the "severe food insufficiency" in the country and ask for international help. It only recently started distributing free food..."

The article goes on to say that Niger's government needs to address their handling of crops and distribution of food.
But, according to a Knight Ridder article, published in the Times Union, Niger's government was acting under advice given by organizations that, generally, are supposed to know what they are doing.

Nor was Niger's government the obstacle. Leaders there did not resent the U.N. or IMF. They were following IMF advice -- agreed to by U.N. agencies -- to put the free market economy first, and the starving people second. Even as thousands were dying of starvation in June, the Nigerien government was reducing its grain supplies and imposing a value added tax on such staples as meat and produce. All this at a time when the government should have been giving food away to starving citizens.

Both articles do agree that the media arrived late to this issue, but say that is no excuse for the lack of action by organizations that are supposed to monitor such problems.

Broadening the Scope

Since my fervor for writing about news has waned a bit since the election I think I will do what I intended all along, which is to make this site more about international news than American politics.
I'll be heading off to Scotland soon and though I will be busy with my Master's Degree program I intend to keep up with events and to keep writing as much as I can.
I am right now Googling to find some good country and continent specific news sites. I have already linked Africa Daily in my sidebar. It looks like a good place to find headlines as well as news source links from the various countries.

Pants on Fire

I really wish more people, especially those in the middle of the political spectrum, would take a look at Media Matters. Despite the fact that it suffers from a certain amount of bias, at least it cites its sources and quotes directly from them. It even provides links to those sources! So any lie told by Limbaugh, or fudge perpetrated by Sean Hannity can be exposed.

On a slightly more pleasant note, visit James Wolcott's blog for a good discussion on Chickenhawks.

Ick

Great, if depressing, story in Salon about the White House Press Corps and how it's balls have been hacked off by this administration. It's not so much analysis as it is anecdote, from a reporter inside the press room. It's fascinating, like a car wreck.

Tides

I am right now reading an article by Phillip Robertson (a great correspondent) on Salon.com. I love Robertson's articles because they always give a complex and interesting picture of culture in Iraq. This particular article is about a certain literary street where men used to gather to discuss literature and dissident ideas. Now the whole makeup of the area has changed and ideas are not discussed, foreigners are not welcome. This is due to the threat of terrorism and attacks by religious fundamentalists. It is interesting to note that people no longer feel as safe as they did even under Saddam.
And before anyone yells at me, I am not saying that Hussein was somehow not so bad - but the country of Iraq is complex just as this country is - just as any society is. I also want more people to realize that even with some 'steps in the right direction', this is a culture and a people that are being forced to change and their lives are profoundly affected in ways that will likely not be repaired in one lifetime, if ever. I think some Americans do not understand this. The positives that some look to for justification are certain numbers and small anecdotes of something being built or someone being captured. But the picture is much wider than that and I recommend Robertson's articles, even older ones that he wrote earlier in the war, to get a better idea of Iraqi culture and life and the ways it is changing.

True Face of the Enemy

I have to leave this blog alone occasionally because I find that it's just the same things that keep happening.

Here's one example. I found, on Pandagon, a reference to some conservative site discussing main-stream media's treatment of insurgents/terrorists.
Here's a small piece of that, referring to the recent attack in Mosul.

"However, it is safe to say that the attack demonstrates assymetrical warfare in action. The enemy chose the weakest point he could find to attack; exploited the known limitations of the American response; and understood that he was to all intents and purposes exempted from the condemnation attendant to attacking the wounded and medical personnel."

Um, well, yeah. It's not as if we don't do the same thing when we deem it "necessary." But that's not the same, is it?

"The chaplain and the medical personnel knew this and did not mill around expecting the Geneva Convention to protect them from those who have never heard of it, except as it applies to their own convenience."

And again... maybe rethink that a little.

"They knew the true face of the enemy; a face which bore no resemblance to the heroic countenance often presented by the media to the world."

Where? When? Show me some proof of this goddamned tripe I keep hearing. There are columnists who are fuzzy in their thinking, but in general news coverage there is no sympathy for the insurgents. There is barely sympathy for the Iraqis ("Wait, but aren't the Iraqis and the insurgents the same thing?").
Granted, I watch mostly local news, and the numbers for cable are higher. But there is a severe trickle down effect in media (works better there than it does in economics) and tone is fairly uniform. There is a constant outpouring of care and concern for the soldiers and brief mentions of the Iraqis - and no mention of the grievances Iraqis may have that would make them fight.

Only CNN occassionally interviews experts who talk about what created, and is creating, the situation over there. But that is very rare. Attacks are attacks and they are horrible

Here's some more...

"It is necessary to link the war criminal behavior of the enemy with the studied blindness of 'sophisticates' towards their most heinous crimes."

Wow. Well, yes, we wouldn't want anyone rationalizing or making excuses for war crimes. But we can get around that by not acknowledging our war crimes to begin with.

I don't mean to go on some tirade about US war crimes. I just want some rational thinking, and an end to this hypocrisy and sense of entitlement - as if the only things we've ever done wrong as a country were slavery and destruction of Native Americans (oh, and maybe those WWII Japanese internment camps). And any time such things are mentioned there is a reaction as if I were saying the US were responsible for all the world's ills.

And don't even talk to me about Bush's little speech yesterday, saying that the war is important for peace. We have no way out now, but I wish he wouldn't use such feeble language to make people feel better. Those families that lost loved ones. . . I just think it's such weak comfort to give them - almost seems to make it worse.

Powell Drops the Ball

Yes, it is true. Colin Powell will drop the ball.
The Times Square New Year's Eve ball to be exact. Powell will push the button for the famous ball drop.
It would be more appropriate, perhaps, if it was Rumsfeld.