Sound familiar?
A hopeless case. Surely it's time to abandon the people to their fate:
...Guess the country.
If intervention was supposed to bring about development, which optimists see as a prelude to civility, it has not been a success...Despite the creation of a small millionaire class, 45 per cent of its inhabitants are below the poverty level (unable to meet basic needs). Around 15 per cent live in extreme poverty, earning less than a euro a day. Most of [X]’s poor are supported by networks of extended family and clan, more important by far than the structures of organised politics or religion...
...Roughly 40 per cent of [X's people] – closer to 50 by a UNDP guesstimate in 2006 – are without work....
No one would have imagined that a...protectorate..., stuffed with NGOs and awash with donor receipts, could perform so badly. [X] has low growth, no inflation, and few signs of an emerging economy. The roads are bad, the water supply is subject to cuts – the water is contaminated in any case...
Every indigenous administration that’s governed since 2001 has been more or less corrupt. Procurement, public tenders and privatisations have been the main sources of temptation, setting local politicians and civil servants on a collision course with wealth opportunities from which they’ve failed to veer away in time. Ministry budgets begin to look baggy at close range, with rich pickings for contractor and client...
Nato will remain indefinitely in [X]...
posted by Mark, Ottawa at 8:52 a.m.
3 Comments:
"We're from the Government and we're here to help"
Same old, same old . . . killed with kindness.
Now that the truth is out, I expect we will see the classic liberal response - plenty more of what hasn't worked so far.
Very familiar. Can we call this failure in Kosovo, which needs perpetual propping up by NATO, to be another instance of the inept, bungling "UN and EU failure model"? Their typical veneer of involvement and action without any real and effective substance?
Another example is the abysmal failure of Euro "peacekeeping" in Chad. In response to Darfour and the massive refugee crisis in Sudan and Chad, the EUro "peacekeeper" nations sent 3,000 troops to Chad, but without UAV or helicopter support. Those 3,000 troops are a woefully insufficient number in the first place, given the vast size of the Chad-Sudan border region. This lack of helicopters and UAVS makes the EUro troops entirely dependent on ground vehicles, effectively making them nearly worthless.
The mandate is supposedly to be extended in 3/2009 for another 6 ineffective months. Ineffective but nevertheless good for "feel-good" press back home-"we're there, doing something".
Now if I were a cynic, I might think as follows. The troops lack of air transport also serves to prevent the EUro troops from getting into border region battles with Sudanese Army troops or Janjaweed "militia" . This not-by-chance condition therefore prevents EUro casualties. That would cause unpleasant press back home, plus "progressive" folks and politicians having hot flashes about cataclysmic battles in Chad and demanding "redeployment", the "progressive" synonym for retreat.
Or maybe I'm entirely wrong. Maybe the massive EUropean support for the Afghan mission, with the many hundreds and hundreds of EUropean military helicopters of all kinds criss-crossing the Afghan skies 24X7, must mean the EUropeans simply don't have any helicopters left for Chad-Sudan-Darfour. Quelle domage. /sarc
Post a Comment
<< Home