Log in

View Full Version : Obama Quietly Okays Military Aid to Countries That Use Child Soldiers



adipocere
2nd October 2013, 23:42
Reminds me of the LRA/Joseph Kony propaganda stunt (http://www.bleucerise.net/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/origin_KONY-2012-2-667x1024.jpg) - our desperate concern about the child soldiers. The hypocrisy makes me ill.




Obama Quietly Okays Military Aid to Countries That Use Child Soldiers (http://www.commondreams.org/headline/2013/10/02-5)


Overrides law banning such aid; critics charge 'Obama becoming an expert at waiving human rights laws'

- Sarah Lazare, staff writer

Amid the hoopla of the government shutdown, the White House quietly passed a bill (http://thinkprogress.org/security/2013/10/01/2704611/child-soldier-waivers/) Monday that overrides a law preventing military aid to countries that use child soldiers.
The Child Soldiers Prevention Act of 2008 (http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/135981.pdf) prohibits the U.S. government from providing military assistance to countries that directly use, or support the use of, child soldiers. Built into the law is an option allowing the U.S. president to override the ban if he/she deems it necessary.
On Monday, President Obama issued complete waivers to Yemen, Chad, and South Sudan, opening up those countries to U.S. military aid despite their known use of child soldiers, declaring (http://thinkprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/2013cspa.pd_.rel_.pdf) in a written memorandum it is "in the national interest of the United States" to override the ban.
Obama also granted partial waivers to the Democratic Republic of the Congo and Somalia to allow "International Military Education and Training" and "nonlethal" defense (http://thinkprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/2013cspa.pd_.rel_.pdf) for both countries and "provision of assistance under the Peacekeeping Operations authority for logistical support and troop stipends" in Somalia. According to (http://thinkprogress.org/security/2013/10/01/2704611/child-soldier-waivers/)Think Progress writer Hayes Brown, these waivers open the door for military aid for ongoing "peacekeeping" operations in both these countries.
"Obama is becoming an expert at waiving human rights laws," writes (http://www.digitaljournal.com/article/359480) Ken Hanly in Digital Journal. "He waived part of a law last month that banned the US from supplying lethal aid to terrorist groups so he could send aid to Syrian rebels. In the case of Egypt, Obama has refused to call the coup by the armed forces a coup and by doing so does not run afoul of a law that would ban aid to a country where there had been a military coup."
"Human rights are to be promoted but only insofar as they do not conflict with US national interest as understood by the president," he added.
Meanwhile, the U.S. government has come under criticism for filling its own military ranks with hundreds of thousands of teenagers (http://inthesetimes.com/article/3199/americas_child_soldier_problem), including 17-year-olds who can enlist with parental consent.

Skyhilist
3rd October 2013, 00:23
Wow, awful. What a putrid waste of space he is.

adipocere
3rd October 2013, 00:48
well certainly the act was originally passed only to clear a legal channel to funnel US military aid through Africom to professional armies to secure natural resources through combating Mayi Mayi. The act became a hindrance to military colonization when it became common knowledge that the professional armies were also using child soldiers, and are not substantially different from terrorist/militia outfits they pretend to fight.

Yes it's disgusting but it's even more obscene when you realize that the act was never made in good faith to begin with...that it was always as disposable as the children it ostensibly meant to protect.

erupt
3rd October 2013, 15:51
My question is...what aren't they telling anyone?

adipocere
3rd October 2013, 21:36
My question is...what aren't they telling anyone?
I don't understand....

erupt
3rd October 2013, 21:54
I don't understand....

To rephrase, what are they doing that's completely covert rather than the overt (albeit sneakily) actions such as this bill.

adipocere
3rd October 2013, 22:35
To rephrase, what are they doing that's completely covert rather than the overt (albeit sneakily) actions such as this bill.
I doubt there is much need for traditional cloak and dagger operations there. It's a looting free for all with a rogues gallery of various regional powers, foreign govt, NGO's, mining interests and arms dealers all jockeying for space.

I think the real issue is that nobody, by that I mean the UN, the West and various African regional powers, really gives a shit how badly people are suffering. I think some religious organizations may genuinely be interested in the fate of ordinary people, but their reasons are never entirely altruistic to begin with, indeed they along with the relief agencies are little more then facilitators to the crisis that has created an industry boom in humanitarian assistance in that region and have given rise to a cross-border web-like shadow government.

Bills like the one above function as a tap for thirsty special interests. There is no need for covert action when nobody cares.

erupt
4th October 2013, 12:33
Bills like the one above function as a tap for thirsty special interests. There is no need for covert action when nobody cares.
I agree with you, but I still think it's a bit naive to think there's nothing going on behind closed doors if they weaseled this bill through during all the mainstream media talk of the U.S. government shutdown. Quid-pro-quo agreements between these elitist people are quite common. I wasn't speaking of covert military or intelligence actions so much as covert agreements between leaders, arms dealers, etc.

Flying Purple People Eater
4th October 2013, 16:41
I doubt there is much need for traditional cloak and dagger operations there. It's a looting free for all with a rogues gallery of various regional powers, foreign govt, NGO's, mining interests and arms dealers all jockeying for space.

I think the real issue is that nobody, by that I mean the UN, the West and various African regional powers, really gives a shit how badly people are suffering. I think some religious organizations may genuinely be interested in the fate of ordinary people, but their reasons are never entirely altruistic to begin with, indeed they along with the relief agencies are little more then facilitators to the crisis that has created an industry boom in humanitarian assistance in that region and have given rise to a cross-border web-like shadow government.

Bills like the one above function as a tap for thirsty special interests. There is no need for covert action when nobody cares.

And yet, there are moronic 'leftists' who still cheer on this repulsive neoliberal warlord. I've noticed that most of the left outside America (well, at least where I live) has woken up from the dream of Obama being a 'progressive alternative' to the Republicans, but I'm not too sure about politics within the country.

The UN on this matter is both predictable and ridiculous in how it will bend knee to US interests and political motives, with America being the original founder of the organisation yet not joining it themselves. I remember reading this scathing report a human rights group made in response to a UN claim that China was the main culprit behind the child labour and conflict mineral control in the DRC, pointing out that China's actions, while genuine, were absolutely minuscule in comparison to mirrored projects of exploitation and control by American and European based entities operating in the same region.

ckaihatsu
4th October 2013, 22:05
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ccjVOqtqovA