A Different Look at Somalia

Browsing through the numerous articles about Somalia I found this one, “United Nations’ report released this week says nuclear and hazardous wastes dumped on Somalia’s shores had been scattered by the recent Asian tsunami and are now infecting Somalis in coastal areas. A spokesman for the United Nations Environment Program (UNEP), Nick Nuttall, told VOA that for the past 15 years or so, European companies and others have used Somalia as a dumping ground for a wide array of nuclear and hazardous wastes. “There’s uranium radioactive waste, there’s leads, there’s heavy metals like cadmium and mercury, there’s industrial wastes, and there’s hospital wastes, chemical wastes, you name it,” he said.  “It’s not rocket science to know why they’re doing it because of the instability there.” Mr. Nuttall said, on average, it cost European companies $2.50 per ton to dump the wastes on Somalia’s beaches rather than $250 a ton to dispose of the wastes in Europe.  He said the Asian tsunami dislodged and smashed open the drums, barrels, and other containers, spreading the contaminants as far away as 10 or more kilometers inland.

Mr. Nuttall said it is impossible to know the exact tonnage or number of containers of wastes on Somalia’s shores, but that the problem, in his words, “is very serious.”The results of the contamination on coastal populations, Mr. Nuttall says, have been disastrous.”These problems range from acute respiratory infections to dry, heavy coughing, mouth bleedings, abdominal hemorrhages, what they described as unusual skin chemical reactions,” he noted.

While I am not siding with pirates in this matter, I find myself wondering how much effort Europe, and the world in general is actually putting into getting a better outcome for failed states like Somalia.  The United Nationd publishes a report like this, but no actions seem to have been taken to stop the dumping.  If this were off the coast of Jersey (either Jersey or New Jersey) I’d wonder how long before both private and government action would have been taken to stop such dumping.

This does get to the heart of the matter again:  The United Nations, nor in fact, any foreign nation should be considered your friend.  Countries are respected because of they demand respect or they can buy respect, but respect is not given simply because you represent another land.  It was good of the UN to mention this, it is negligent of them to do nothing about it.

As famously stated before, a nation does not have friends it has interests, and with the state of disarray in which Somalia suffers, it is good to know the international community is doing so much to help them.   Of course, we’d do well to remember how much the United Nations did in 1993 for them while Aidid was holding international food relief from the populace until they agreed to support him.  Starve or join his ranks.   The response?   Well, the United States suffered “Black Hawk Down” and President Clinton ran from the scene looking every bit like the paper tiger Osama bin Laden thought us to be.   After the US left, no one was willing to help and by 1995 the country had lost UN support.   When the chances for photo opportunities went away, so did the UN workers.

This is why it is of the utmost importance for every nation to have a government which can react against foreign elements and support itself if provoked.   Without such a government responsible to the people situations like Somalia arise:  No government, no infrastructure, no way to stop illegal dumping in its waters.  This is why I am in favor of nationalism.   Not some sort of ‘rally at a stadium’ for the fearless leader kind of thing Hitler and President Obama do, but the kind of effort that understands that the nation in which you live is the only nation who might help keep your borders and waters secure.   Asking for, begging for, nor waiting for international action makes sense.

President Obama’s Method of International Relations

Giving DVDs usable in North America to the PM of Britain, Obama’s State Department’s inability to translate a ‘Reset Button’, as well as stating that The United Kingdom is just another nation… nothing special there are all signs of his ineptitude and all within the first hundred days.

While pushing away from, and then trying to get back in favor with, Britain Obama has been busy giving town hall speeches to Turks declaring that the United States does not consider itself a Christian or Jewish nation.   Strangely, the US does not have to define itself, nor let any individual define the US either.   When the vast majority of a country is of one form of faith then it is structured as such. The President should realize, unless he is too to understand that values always get translated into laws, ethics, and morality, then we are completely influenced by the largest single moral guide:  The Christian Bible.  Why? Because the majority of the people in the US is Christian.   Why has Iraq colored its laws in an Islamic frame?   Because the vast majority are Muslim.   This is not an insult or some sort of indictment; this is just a simple reality.  Why would someone need to backtrack and act like this is not the case unless that person is not happy with the current standing.   After 20 years of having Minister Wright as a moral lighthouse, perhaps I’d be turned from Christianity as well.

Obama also wants to get in bed with Cuba, cater to Venezuela, and make threats to North Korea with no plans of following through what so ever.   His cowardice and willingness to reverse so many US positions is giving more power to those who despise us.  This charity for our adversaries does go into the idea of spreading the wealth, but int his case it the wealth of international power and that is at the detriment of the United States.   His foolishness weakens the US, his stupidity makes it impossible for him to realize it, and his naivety makes him willing to give more away.

How much longer will Americans tolerate this?

The Audacity of the International Elite

A perfect example of why local control is to be preferred over control that is further removed from our immediate control would be when United Nations Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon declared, in Congress,  that we the people of the United States of America are ‘deadbeats’ when it comes to paying the 22% of the operating costs we agree to do because we are not as prompt as he’d like.

As expected from any sovereign nation, our Congressmen stood up to such language and expressed their shock at such presumptive elitism coming from a non-elected figurehead of an increasingly irrelevant international social club.  Unfortunately this was not the case, and as may be expected those more likely to side with the non-elected figurehead were Democrats.

A Republican did speak up, “He used the word ‘deadbeat’ when it came to characterizing the United States. I take great umbrage (over) that,” Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, the panel’s senior Republican, said after an hour-long, closed-door meeting. “We certainly contribute a whole lot of U.S. taxpayer dollars to that organization. We do not deserve such a phrase.”

Democrats responded with, Ban generally got a “very respectful” reception from the House committee, said Rep. Bill Delahunt, D-Mass., who chairs a subcommittee that oversees U.S. participation in the United Nations. “Clearly they have an interest in the United States meeting its responsibility. In terms of peacekeeping, we’re about $670 million behind, and I think the argument is well-stated,” Delahunt said.

Delahunt, a well established Democrat has a history of voting against anything in defense of the country — especially if backed by Republicans such as when he voted against HR2462 which was for continued funding our own troops in Iraq and Afghanistan, he voted no to go into Iraq (H J Res 114), he voted no on the Global War on Terror Bill (H Res 861 – not to be confused with the PATRIOT Act) and he voted no on the National Defense Authorization Ace FY2003 which was the first non-emergency funding after the September 11th attacks, including $7.3 billion for counter-terrorism programs, including $200 million for nuclear materials and weapons protection, $15.7 billion for the Defense Department, $5.8 billion for the Homeland Security Department, $7.8 billion for Ballistic Missile Defense programs, $56.7 billion for military research and development, eliminates a law that cuts the amount of retirement pay veterans receive if they receive disability compensation, and authorizes a 4.1 percent pay increase for military personnel; up to 6.5 percent for mid-level personnel.  What should then strike the reader as out of character is when [h]e noted America backs U.N. peacekeeping operations — and said it loses credibility if it doesn’t provide financial support. “And at the same time, we have to recognize that there are no American troops involved in the 17 different venues where there are peacekeeping operations.” It would appear he would not mind US soldiers dying for fights the UN deems worthwhile, but not when people in his own nation feel going to war is right.  He’ll side with unelected figure-heads over his own President…  especially if he is not a member of the correct party.

No one was reported to be taken aback at the idea that we ware deadbeats enough to bring up the fact that we’re already deficit spending like we just don’t care and that perhaps now would be a good time to cut back or eliminate dues to social clubs.  If it hard enough to think that people in Washington have your best interests in mind, even after being elected, what do you think some non-elected international big wig thinks about your opinion?   Why does anyone continue to support the United Nations as a whole unless they do not mind lack of control or accountability?