JDG wrote:
John, calling Cameroon a one-party banana republic is incorrect, although you might not know it from coverage of the 1997 presidential elections. The CIA factbook lists no fewer than 8 political parties, all of which are active in the 180-member National Assembly.There's difference between giving the Cameroonians a *say*, and giving the despot of a tiny, one-party, banana republic the decisive vote on the morality of intervening in Iraq.I'd support the former, but right now, we're stuck with the latter - and find it fairly amusing.
But the government matters very little to the average everyday citizens of Cameroon. My sister was in Cameroon for 4 1/2 years as a nurse, part of that time in Douala and part of it in a small, Catholic-run hospital in the jungle (literally in the jungle, hours by jeep over unpaved paths -- roads is too generous a term -- actually, even paths is too generous a term -- from the nearest town, Nguti). She got to know a lot of people in both of those places, both urban citizens, predominantly Catholic and Muslim, and rural citizens who are among the 40% of the population (per CIA factbook) who still follow "indigenous beliefs."
In my sister's experience, these people care very little who runs their government. What they care about, urban and rural alike, is the price of oil. The economy of Cameroon rests mainly on three legs: agriculture, lumber, and oil drilling and refining. Food and lumber prices remain pretty stable, and Cameroonians feel like they have some control over those. In the oil market, Cameroon is subject to whims of the international oil market. And fluctuations in that oil market will likely affect Cameroon more than any other African nation.
What the U.S. does in Iraq will undoubtedly have an affect on the price of oil, and that will have a direct and profound affect on the citizens of Cameroon. Yes, they should have a say in what happens, and if their vote is the deciding vote in the UNSC, then so be it.
However, I agree with your earlier assertion that if the UN keeps making resolutions and then not enforcing them, the UN will quickly become irrelevant, and then maybe we can make a newer, better international organization based not on Cold War fear and polarization, but on more democratic principles. I rather like the idea someone floated of a "Democracy Club." (Was that you, John? I don't remember.)
The question becomes, do we try to make a better organization from within by changing the UN, or do we scrap the UN and start from scratch?
Reggie Bautista
_________________________________________________________________
Unlimited Internet access -- and 2 months free!� Try MSN. http://resourcecenter.msn.com/access/plans/2monthsfree.asp
_______________________________________________
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
