Yesterday, the Tribune editorialized on the need to support human rights and democracy in the fight against terrorism.
One of the most unstable continents for the near future will be Africa. Between AIDs, war, dictators, and poverty, the continent faces a series of challenges that will be extremely difficult to overcome. America must take a role or we will end up fighting Al Qaeda II in a country ravaged by instability. The Trib’s money quote is:
America sends its noblest message to the world when it holds its allies accountable for their human rights records and their commitment to honest government and free enterprise. By tying U.S. support to progress in human rights and economic development, America shows itself to be on the right side of history–the side that tries to find new solutions, not more problems.
One of the most troubling Trent Lott incidents was in ’98 when Clinton announced an African AIDs initiative. Lott claimed that there was no real reason for the initiative except to curry favor with African-American voters. I didn’t hear this and during an lower level class I was asked about it by a student. I did something unusual and told the student she must have misunderstood Lott and explained there are a lot of strategic reasons for our efforts to reduce AIDs in Africa. This was unusual because in class I rarely tell students they are wrong about some current event unless it is clear. I just couldn’t imagine anyone could be so stupid and short-sighted as Lott was being and not be named Jesse Helms (who has come around on the issue a bit).
Anyway, turns out I made my student feel bad. Lott really did say it. Once I realized it I blurted out that it had to be one of the stupidest statements I had ever heard and went on to make the argument that instability of the type AIDs could bring to Africa could well lead to the creation of havens for terrorists as we saw in Somalia. Today, I am even more convinced of this argument. Is the administration?