Hi all!
RE: the MAI...several of the provisions of the MAI would also preclude
governments from acting upon established human and labor rights laws and
regulations in the interest, of course, of establishing and maintaining
"free trade". The work of Public Citizen has been invaluble in not only
exposing the secret negotiations which intitially surrounded the MAI, but
they have written a great deal on the implications of the MAI for labor
rights,
human rights and environmental concerns. Much of this is on thier
website, which I believe (I could be wrong) is www.citizen.org...it's a
wonderful statrting place.
Jessica
On Thu, 11 Mar 1999 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> In a message dated 3/10/1999 5:43:10 PM Eastern Standard Time,
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
>
> << I don't know, but there was a lot of talk in the program about the
> questionable behaviour of the militaries that were hanging round in Uganda at
> the time (including US
> forces), and waited for the genocide to stop before they went in a pretended
> the delay was an honest mistake. >>
>
> Do you happen to know the other countries that have military forces in Africa?
> Let me help - as I previously noted, France had its troops ready in Djibouti
> during the recent Eritrean -Ethiopian conflict. During that conflict, the
> amount of western intervention is amazingly substantive - perhaps you have
> facts to the contrary about that conflict to tell me my view is "interesting"?
> Having been actively involved on the grassroots (Eritrean and Ethiopian), UN,
> OAU, NGO and national/african governmental level I am confident in my feeling
> - and it is agreed upon by a multiplicity of far more worthy and active and
> higher level intelligensia in my field. This carries a little more weight than
> hearing talk from a program.
>
> According to your reasoning, shouldn't the troops in Djibouti also be
> considered questionable behavior and fit the following comment (applied to
> France):
>
> << America may turn out not to be the main international player, but it is
> probably incorrect to suggest that it was not involved in a way that
> deliberately contributed
> to the genocide that took place. >>
>
> America is complicit in its failure to react to the outbreak of genocide - its
> complicity with its western ally, France. However it is not enough to say
> America "may turn out not to be" and it is "probably incorrect". Especially
> when you seem to reject the idea that other western nations are not involved
> in ways that deliberately contribute to oppressions around the world.
>
> In 1994, I was working in an organization focused upon Africa and we had
> series of conference calls with one of our Rwanda representatives in the
> country. The news at that point was about french-speaking (european) troops in
> the area and consistent radio broadcasts by french-speaking (france-french)
> people appealing to the tensions between hutu and tutsi. The "questionable
> behavior" by military troops were overwhelming french troops, and this came
> directly just before and during the conflict from eyewitnesses on the ground
> over conference calls during meetings which included NGO and UN staffers. We
> all sat there and heard it - not from irrational or unaware people, but from
> coherent witnesses.
>
> Around this same time there was a major agenda to redistribute land - as what
> little fertile agricultural land that was available was held by French/Belgian
> colonial holdovers. The plan was to respond to the demands of a population of
> African people tired of being marginalized - oppressed and force to scrap out
> a living on a portion of their country. It is a significant issue in many
> African countries.
>
> In the weeks of bloodshed that follow, and the day to day basis of dealing
> with new reports of deaths, massacres, even of the families and friends of
> colleagues, close friends, few directly involved had any question that this
> was the escalation of tensions fermented and manipulated to maintain colonial,
> then neo-colonial power.
>
> I suggest you read the UN report. Also useful are the testimonies from the
> Rwanda Tribunal preparations, the highly revealing interviews with hutus and
> tutus, victims and agressors.
>
> Another interesting read is the Multi-lateral Agreement on Investment -
> founded in the heart of the OECD which is based in Paris and now moved to the
> WTO because the WTO has the "teeth" to enforce the conditions of this treaty
> on the developing nations. The effects of this treaty would be substantive
> environmental exploitation, displacement of indigenous enterprises, repealing
> and/or blocking of public health regulations and a host of other oppressive
> and destructive actions. This treaty is endorsed by the U.S. and a mass of
> western nations with a target goal of applying it to the "third world",
> primarily applicable to their former colonies - which is another reason why
> the WTO was chosen as a forum.
>
> Nicole
>
