Lessons learned; US evacuates embassy in CAR
The Washington Times reports that the State Department has evacuated our embassy in the Central African Republican because of rising tensions there and their inability to protect State Department employees in the wake of the Benghazi consulate murders.
Ambassador Lawrence D. Wohlers and his diplomatic staff left Bangui on Friday with several private U.S. citizens, State Department spokesman Patrick Ventrell said, adding that diplomatic relations with the have not been suspended.
Americans also are advised not to travel to the Central African Republic (CAR) at this time, as a result of the deteriorating security situation.
There are also an unknown number of Special Forces soldiers in the area to help the locals defeat those clowns of Joseph Kony.
Fox News reports that more than 40 people were evacuated with the ambassador to Kenya. And the UN is doing what they do best;
The U.N.’s most powerful body condemned the recent violence and expressed concern about the developments.
“The members of the Security Council reiterate their demand that the armed groups immediately cease hostilities, withdraw from captured cities and cease any further advance towards the city of Bangui,” the statement said.
That should do it. CNN reports that France, the former colonial power until 1960 in the CAR, has a few hundred troops there;
[CAR President Francois] Bozize directed his call for help to France, saying “the French are our cousins. They should fix what is happening.”
France has a permanent presence of 200 to 300 military personnel at Bangui’s airport under the mandate of the Economic Community of Central African States.
But French President Francois Hollande said Thursday that the troops are not intended to “protect a regime” against the advance of the rebels, but instead French nationals and interests.
France will not “interfere in the internal affairs of a country, in this case, CAR,” Hollande said, adding: “That time is over.”
Asked about a possible intervention in favor of displaced people or refugees, the French president said that his country could not “intervene unless there is a U.N. mandate,” and, he said, “this is not the case.”
Category: Foreign Policy
Will the 21st Century be known as the Era of Surrenderism for the most powerful nations of the world? It certainly is shaping up that way.
Lets see now . . . .
We’re pulling our embassy people out, but maintaining relations in a hostile zone (who’s hostile to whom, and who are we playing footsies with?)
The UN does its usual scold, nag, and written note of disappointment and disapproval (oh, my, we are SO upset at you – stop it NOW before we write you ANOTHER angry note).
The French frogs have a contingent of military there, supposedly only to protect French national citizens and interests (but wait! do I see white surrender flags ready to be waved??)
What could go wrong??
A UN condemnation is about as effective in stopping hostile actions as a squirt gun stopping a shark attack.
The President of the CAR has asked both the United States and France to intervene to stop the rebels from capturing Bangui. The people of the CAR have expressed their desire for French intervention by attacking the French embassy and tearing down the French flag.
It is the traditional African posture of wanting to have their colonial cake and eat it too. They want all the benefits of being part of the French Empire without being ruled by France because they “deserve” sovereignty and the suggestion that they can’t govern their own country is “rascist” (read; the conclusion supported by all the empirical evidence.)
The long and the short of it is that if these people were still being opressed by the evil european imperialists they would be leading peaceful, prosperous and happy lives rather than living in perpetual chaos, poverty and warfare. Sadly for them a generation of left wing, highly educated, narcissistic, naieve, bourgeois (who ironically had benefited the most from colonialism) led their people out of the european empires and into their current state of deprivation and suffering.
The root of the problem is how the colonial lowers left the former colonies. They made up the borders to their liking so there will always be fighting between different ethnic groups within the country. It would have been better to draw the borders along ethnic lines. It would have saved the world many lives. We can thank the brits and French for that.
@5. While it is true that the colonial scramble for Africa resulted in arbitrary divisions of real estate across the continent without the involvement of the affected tribes, it strikes me as a tad silly (not to mention paternalistic) to lay decades of mass killings at the feet of the former colonial powers. At what point in African history can the various states and tribes be said to be responsible for their own murderous ways?
@5 For a pattern of behaviour caused by departing imperialists, it bears an uncanny resemblance to the way that they behaved before we arrived.
To clarify my position on imperialism, I don’t deny that Britain did unworthy things during its time in power. I also know that we did a great deal of good and think that it is telling that the most successful African countries are those who maintain a close and positive relationship with the countries that colonized them. My views have been formed both by my own family’s history in Africa and as a result of hearing Africans themselves praise the Empire and what it did for their country.
There has to be a time when African nations take ownership of their problems. Unlike Robert Mugabe in Zimbabwe who kicked out all the whites causing a brain drain and capital fight. Now Zimbabwe is another basket case with high inflation.