« Where's Amtrak Joe When You Need Him? Mass Transit Gets the Shaft | Home | Progressive Caucus Steps it Up on the Stimulus »
Correct Me If I'm Wrong, But ...
... hours before leaving office, did George W. Bush really just clear the way for U.S. arms transfers to the dictator-ravaged, unstable nation of Zimbabwe?
The White House just released a memo permitting the Southern African Development Community, which counts Zimbabwe as a member, to receive weapons in order to "strengthen the security of the United States and promote world peace." Now, there may well be some barrier to Zimbabwe receiving weapons through the SADC -- Bush halted the weapons trade there back in 2002 -- but this doesn't look good.
Advertisement
When weapons are outlawed, only outlaw nations will have weapons.
January 16, 2009 5:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think you are reading more into this than is really there.
This is a relatively routine certification by the President required by Congress to allow the sale of US weapons to some countries in the SADC zone. It does not lift the restrictions on sales to Zimbabwe.
SADC covers 15 countries in southern Africa -- including stable democratic countries like South Africa, Botswana, Zambia, Namibia, Mozambique, Malawi -- as well as troubled areas like Zimbabwe and Congo (DRC).
The US has cooperative programmes with the military in many SADC countries (but not Zimbabwe). The creation of a new command for Africa is indicative of growing US military attention to Africa.
A number of SADC countries (especially South Africa) already buy American weapons - my understanding is that this Presidential finding is periodically necessary to allow these sales to continue.
While I have concerns about the US role in arming the world, nothing is new in this declaration.
Unfortunately when Zimbabwe falls into even further chaos it may well be necessary for troops from other countries to intervene to create order. Under those circumstances, I'd prefer to see African troops from surrounding countries being called in. (Similarly, the need for intervention in the DRC is long overdue, but that one is probably way too big and dangerous to think that SADC would even consider wading in.)
January 16, 2009 8:47 PM | Reply | Permalink