Book review: "How De Body?", by Teun Voeten

The poke in the ribs to write "War is Africa's natural condition. Can we change that?" (WWW 16/10/18) came from How De Body? (St. Martin's Press, New York, 2002), Dutch journalist Teun Voeten's account of his terrifying journey through the very uncivil "civil" war in Sierra Leone (west Africa) in the late 1990s.

"How de body?" is a customary greeting -- like "How's it going?" -- in Krio, the pidjin widely spoken in Sierra Leone. Mr Voeten apparently chose it as the title of his book because the bodies he saw and photographed -- and they were many -- were in pretty bad shape. His powerful photographs speak volumes about the sad state of Sierra Leone  at the turn of the century, and of the nature of Africa itself. As I said yesterday, war is Africa's natural condition.

The purpose of the author's first trip to west Africa, in 1998, was to photograph and write about the child soldiers who were fighting on both sides of the conflict that had raged in Sierra Leone for nearly a decade. Mere boys (and girls too) like this one.

A scrawny kid like this, when carrying a Kalashnikov, can make a pretty big hole in you, and as the clash between the military junta and ECOMOG -- the West African peacekeepers -- raged around him, Mr Voeten was forced to hide in the bush, fearful of being robbed, tortured and/or killed by drug-crazed, gun-toting "soldiers" of either side.

ECOMOG -- the Economic Community of West African States Monitoring Group -- was a west African multilateral armed force established by the Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS). The idea was that separate armies of Africans would work together to make and keep the peace in an African state. ("Nation" is the wrong word to use here. The concept of the nation state doesn't really exist in Africa, divided as it is by tribalism, language and religion.) To no-one's surprise, it didn't work very well, which is why the United Nations eventually felt compelled to involve itself in the conflict.

That didn't work very well either. Mr Voeten tells us that by 2000, "the situation in Sierra Leone...again deteriorated. The 25,000 UN peacekeepers that were stationed in the country...proved to be largely ineffective. Civil war flared up; cease-fires and treaties were broken, and...the fighting has spilled over the border to Guinea and Liberia."

But UN intervention, the globalists and progressives think to this day is better than leaving the Africans to exterminate one another. Hence the UN mission in Mali, which was the subject of yesterday's post.

What's wrong with Africa that bloody conflicts of the kind Teun Voeten saw up close and personal keep recurring? They seem to be unavoidable natural phenomena -- the work of evil "big men", full of ambition and greed, with no moral compass or concept of civilization to guide them. Mr Voeten quotes English cultural anthropologist Paul Richards: "What we are seeing in Sierra Leone is the total collapse of the nation-state. Criminal netyworks rush in to fill the power vacuum, which is an oasis of lawlessness and institutionalized corruption. Those networks have every reason to make sure the state of chaos continues. And vice versa."

Teun Voeten concludes How De Body? by saying that he won't give up on Sierra Leone. "Despite the difficulties," he writes, "I believe there is hope.... Eventually peace will come. ...'We just have to be patient.'"

I understand his feelings. Having lived there for years in the 1990s, I can attest to the saying that Africa gets in your blood ...sometimes literally, but forget about that. It's easy to love the land and the ordinary people, when they are left alone by foreign interventionists and by their own corrupt and cruel leaders.

Where I disagree with Mr Voeten is in thinking that the "big men" will give way to leaders like Nelson Mandela -- he was an exception -- or that the UN and the legions of western do-gooders will ever leave Africans to develop (or not) at their own pace and in their own way. I believe there is no hope for Africa, and that we westerners do Africa and ourselves a disservice by trying to change human nature.

Footnote: The Deutsche Welle website has a report from the World Bank, which sez (headline news!) "Poverty rates remain high in Africa". "Sub-Saharan Africa is the only region in the world where the overall number of extremely poor people is increasing rather than decreasing, according to the World Bank's latest Poverty and Shared Prosperity report." No kidding! But don't worry. The white folks at the World Bank believe things can be turned around, with their help of course. Just like Teun Voeten.

War is Africa's natural condition. Can we change that?

Since the end of the colonial era, there has always been war in Africa. With one or two exceptions, such as Botswana, you can't point to a map of sub-Saharan Africa without finding a country that has at some point been wracked by riot, revolution, war or even genocide. It's the nature of the people -- emotional, excitable, easily led and predisposed to mindless and horrendous violence. I know it's politically incorrect to say that, but read the histories of Liberia, Ghana, Nigeria, Moçambique, both Congos, South Africa -- the list goes on -- and see if that's not right. Check out How De Body by Dutch journalist Teun Voeten (St. Martin's Press, New York, 2002) for a graphic description of how things were in Sierra Leone in the 1990s. We'll come back to that book in another post.

Right now there's a "civil" war going on in the Congo which was formerly known as Zaïre and has its capital at Kinshasa. The government's writ runs only in the capital region. The rest of the country is divided amongst a number of cruel and evil warlords, fighting for control of the immense mineral wealth that includes "blood diamonds". In spite of the efforts of United Nations "peacekeepers", the Congo has never, repeat never known peace since it was "liberated" from the Belgians.

In west Africa, most of which was (and in some ways still is) run by the French, another "civil" war rages in Mali. What? Never heard of it? If you've ever been told to go to Timbuktu, well, that's in Mali. You could look it up. That war has racial and religious overtones (surprised?) with the Muslim Arab(ish) north pitted against the Christian/animist African (read: black) south. The UN stepped in to referee that vicious conflict a couple of years ago, and so far hasn't had much luck keeping the combatants from each other's throats.

In June of this year, Canada's loopy prime minister Trudeau, in yet another act of virtue-signalling at the expense of his people, sent a couple of hundred Canadian troops to Mali, where Canada has no dog in the fight but is going to jump in anyway. The Canadian contingent consists of a few helicopters and support crews, whose task is to medevac other UN soldiers who get caught in the crossfire. So far they've flown exactly two (2) missions, both on 9/11.

Yesterday Maj-Gen. Dave Fraser (Retd), who led Canada's troops in the ill-fated Afghanistan mission, admitted on CTV's Power Play that the Canuck peacekeeping mission in Mali has "no prospect of immediate success." He told host Don Martin, "The political overtones and what's going on in this country and this mission are ugly. This is not going to be short mission." No kidding!

Although Mr Socks promised that Canadian soldiers and airmen (not many female troops could be persuaded to go) would not be placed in harm's way, since they would only be flying medical evacuation missions and providing support from the skies, the likelihood of some poor non-com coming home in a body bag is increasing, as the security situation in the shithole has deteriorated sharply in recent months. Says the retired general, "It’s as bad, if not worse, than what we experienced in Afghanistan, Iraq or Syria."

Continuing in mililtary-speak, Maj-Gen. Fraser said, "It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to figure out that this mission isn’t going in the right direction from a trajectory point of view." He explained that the key issue is a lack of leadership. Despite no-worse-than-usual elections this summer, he said the insurgents are winning the fight on the ground. That's because "Peacekeeping can't be effective without a strong civilian government leadership that’s running the government, that's actually providing oversight for the military and the police forces and that’s not happening fast enough." For "fast enough", read "at all" and that's all ye need to know.

At the end of the day, the general warned, this hurts some people more than others. In a brilliant statement of the obvious, he said, "The local people are the ones who are going to be adversely affected." Can the problem be solved? Yes, says Maj-Gen. Fraser, if the United Nations changes its approach. "The UN's not getting the locals to get the leadership or the women engaged fast enough, and they're going to lose this race." If nothing changes, he said, the situation can only continue to deteriorate. So the answer to Walt's headline question is, errr, probably not. Which begs the question of what we're doing there!

Further reading: "Mal y soit qui Mali pense", 15/1/13. Kudos to Ed. for that brilliant headline, which only a monarchist would get!

Zimbabwean dictator appointed to, then removed from WHO post

The Western world is having a good laugh today (but also breathing a sigh of relief) at the appointment and speedy unappointment [disappointment? Ed.] of Comrade Robert Gabriel Mugabe, dictator of Zimbabwe, as a "goodwill ambassador" for the World Health Organization (WHO). "Uncle Bob", however, is reportedly not amused.

The farce began on Wednesday in Uruguay, at a high-level WHO meeting to discuss non-communicable diseases. Comrade Bob had commandeered Air Zimbabwe's sole airworthy B-767 to attend, causing his countrymen to scratch their heads in wonderment, even though they have gotten used to their Dear Leader's peripatetic lifestyle, which has bankrupted the national airline and put a huge strain on the Zim treasury, which is now printing "bond notes" to cover its lack of real money.

Turns out the reason for the trip to a place few Africans have even heard of was that an "arrangement" had been made with WHO Director-General Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus, an Ethiopian recently appointed to the position, to appoint Mr Mugabe as a goodwill ambassador, out of respect for his government's devotion to providing free healthcare for all. Mr Ghebreyesus said he thought Mr Mugabe would be the ideal person to "to influence his peers in his region."

Many observers outside the Dark Continent (including yr obdt servant, who lived in Zimbabwe in the 1990s) thought the appointment must be a huge joke, given that Mr Mugabe is "peerless", in the sense that he has no equal for corruption, despotism and (alas!) longevity. He has ruled Zimbabwe since 1980, when the cowardly Brits sold out the "white settler régime" of Ian Smith and gave the former Rhodesia "majority rule" under the one-man-one-vote system.

The one man who has the one vote is Comrade Bob, who is 93 years old, but intends to stand for re-election next year, even if his lovely and fragrant wife Grace has to push him to the polls in his wheelchair. "Hendiende" is chiShona (the main local language) for "I won't go!"

The USA, Canada and a host of other countries, including Not-so-great Britain, were quick to criticize the WHO appointment. Canuck Prime Minister Justin "Junior" Trudeau called it a belated April Fool's joke. Donors and human rights groups expressed outrage. Comrade Bob, they noted, has for years been going overseas for medical treatment as Zimbabwe's once-prosperous economy (in the bad old colonial days) falls apart. He is not alone. Just last month, Vice-President Emerson Mnangagwa thought he'd been poisoned by eating bad ice cream from the Mugabe family's Gushongo Dairy, and hied himself off to South Africa to have his stomach pumped.

No Zimbabwean with any money trusts the country's decrepit healthcare system. As long ago as 2008, the charity Physicians for Human Rights released a report documenting failures in the system, saying that Mr Mugabe's policies had led to a man-made crisis. "The government of Robert Mugabe presided over the dramatic reversal of its population's access to food, clean water, basic sanitation and health care," the group found, adding that its policies led directly to "the shuttering of hospitals and clinics, the closing of its medical school and the beatings of health workers."

Today the WHO Director-General said in a statement, posted on his Twitter account @DrTedros, that he had listened to those expressing concerns. "Over the last few days, I have reflected on my appointment of H.E. President Robert Mugabe as WHO Goodwill Ambassador for NCDs in Africa. As a result I have decided to rescind the appointment."

Walt's comment: The appointment of the Zimbabwean dictator reflects everything that's wrong not just with Zimbabwe, not just with Africa, but with the World Health Organization and its mother "organization", the United Nations. The UN is nothing more than a powerless, self-serving talking shop, dominated by the beggars of the Third World, whose "diplomats" line their pockets and enjoy the luxurious, jet-setting lifestyle while their countrymen starve in squalor. The AABC countries (America, Australia, Britain and Canada) would do well to withdraw their financial support and leave the whole stinking mess to rot.

Brexit referendum: the British establishment vs the British people

Tomorrow the people of the Disunited Kingdom (or Formerly Great Britain) go to the polls to decide whether their country should remain in the European Union or leave it. For Walt's American readers, who (like Donald Trump) don't know what the fuss is all about, "Brexit" stands for "British exit". The referendum was promised -- rather foolishly, as it turns out -- by British Prime Minister Donald Cameron in the last general election campaign, to quell voter anger over ever-closer ties to Europe and, particularly, ever-increasing levels of immigration.

The Donald and Marine Le Pen are about the only non-British politicians to say that the Brits might just be better to get off the road to One World Government. All the other "world leaders", including the Prez and Hellery Clinton, say no, the Brits should stay in. A vote to leave, they say, would be a vote against liberalism and progress. And of course it would be a vote for racism, Islamophobia, and all the other things that the liberal elite think are politically incorrect.

Never mind the chattering classes. What do the real people think? In his final rallying call for voters to back Brexit, United Kingdom Independence Party (UKIP) leader Nigel Farage branded the EU referendum a contest "between the people and the Establishment". He said Brexit voters would "crawl over broken glass to get down to that polling station tomorrow", and called on those who have never voted before to grasp the "opportunity to make a difference." Tomorrow's result "may be tight, may be narrow," he said, but "I genuinely believe we are going to win this."

Today's polls show a statistical dead heat, and I'm not going to hazard a guess, let alone a bet. In fact, although my heart tells me that any move away from One World Government -- the EU and the UN are great examples of how well that works -- my head for business tells me a Brexit will cause nothing but economic turmoil not just in Europe but throughout the world. I'm holding my breath.

The new boat people: how come nobody wants them?

Two related stories in the meeja this weekend are causing a good deal of handwringing and hypocrisy at urgent sessions of the Disunited Nations, the European Quasi-union and other One-World talking shops. The Brotherhood of Man is being challenged by the arrival of boatloads of 1000s of mostly Muslim "refugees" from north Africa, the Middle East and south Asia now washing up on the shores of Europe and southeast Asia. Although no-one likes to admit it, the real reason no-one wants them is to be found in the two words preceding "refugees" in the previous sentence.

First, the bad news from the Mediterranean. In spite of widely reported drownings of hundreds of refugee wannabes, the tidal wave of dark people keeps increasing in size, and now threatens to inundate Italy and slop over into Switzerland, Germany and Austria. Everyone agrees that Something Must Be Done. Surely we're not going to let those "poor" people drown! But what is to be done? And by whom?

To make matters worse [Is that possible? Ed.] an adviser to the Libyan government [They have a government? Ed.] told BBC News this weekend that Islamic State (IS) fighters are being smuggled into Europe in the midst of the "genuine" refugees. Officials in Italy and Egypt have previously warned that IS militants could reach Europe by migrant boat, but say now -- possibly for fear of being labelled as "racists" or "Islamophobes" -- that it is very difficult to verify or assess such claims.

The Libyan official, Abudul Basit Haroun, based his claim on conversations with smugglers in parts of North Africa controlled by the militants. He "alleged" -- the BBC's word -- that IS was allowing the boat owners to continue their operations in exchange for half of their income. Earlier this year, -- the EU’s "alleged" -- Walt's word -- border control agency, Frontex, warned that it was "possible" that foreign fighters were using "irregular migration routes" to get into Europe.

Egypt’s ambassador to the UK has warned of "boats full of terrorists" if the international community does not act, while the Italian government has expressed fears of militants infiltrating the boats, while emphasizing that the boats are... wait for it... a "humanitarian crisis".

So what to do? BBC News reports today that EU foreign and defence ministers are expected to approve a mission to destroy the boats used by people-smugglers operating in war-torn Libya. (Notice how no-one talks any more about who start the war that destabilized Libya. Ye reap what ye sow.)

Speaking on arrival for an urgent meeting with the sprouts in Brussels, EU foreign policy chief Federica Mogherini said "today the main point will be taking the decision to establish the operation, the EU operation at sea to dismantle the criminal networks that are smuggling people in the Mediterranean." She did not say whether the boats would be destroyed before or after they were loaded.

Meanwhile, a parallel "humanitarian crisis" unfolds 1000s of miles away, in the Indian Ocean, where three countires -- Thailand, Malaysia and Indonesia -- are being condemned by the do-gooders at the UN for refusing to rescue, let alone accept, 1000s of Muslim migrants adrift in the Andaman Sea.

Last week, at least 700 Bangladeshis and Rohingya from Myanmar were rescued off the Indonesian island of Aceh, bringing the numbers of "refugees" in camps there to at least 1500. The Rohingyas, if you haven't heard of them, are an ethnic group who have lived for yonks in northwest Burma [or Myanmar. Take your pick. Ed.] but are denied citizenship because they are, errr, Muslims, and Burma is a Buddhist country. 1000s of Rohingyas have shipped out, fleeing persecution and poverty in Myanmar. They are stranded at sea along with additional 1000s of Bangladeshis -- also Muslims -- who are just looking for work.

Aid agencies say a "grave humanitarian crisis" is in train as countries in the region refuse to accept the migrants. Visible on the sides of the refugee boats are numerous black marks which appear to have been made by ten-foot poles. Thailand, the closest country to Bangladesh and Burma is, like Burma, a Buddhist country, which doesn't want to be overrun by Muslims. Thailand's reluctance is understandable, given that they already have a problem with Islamic terrorists in their southernmost provinces.

Malaysia and Indonesia are, errr, Muslim countries, but don't seem any more disposed to receive their co-religionists than the Buddhists of Thailand. Indonesian authorities have told fishermen not to help the migrants unless their boats are sinking or they are in the water. Military spokesperson Fuad Basya said fishermen could deliver food, fuel and water to the boats, or help with repairs, but that bringing them to shore would constitute an illegal entry into Indonesia.

The Muslim boat people are believed to be severely malnourished. Survivors who have made it to shore say there have been deadly fights on board over food. UNHCR spokesthingy Vivian Tan called the lack of rescues over the past weekend "a bad sign" and warned that "time is running out" to help the migrants. The BBC quotes her as saying, "We were hoping that more ships would be found, and that more people would be rescued and allowed to come onto shore. Unfortunately, this didn't seem to have happened".

Who will take in the poor Muslim "refugees"? Walt suggests that American and Canadian authorities keep their eyes on their countries' Pacific coast, to see what the tide will bring in. Hey, it's happened before, and of course we "Christians" couldn't refuse entry to these huddled masses, because to do so would be anti-Muslim, racist, etc etc etc.