We are talking about the 10th poorest country in the world, with a GDP of only $700 per capita (While it is $46,859 in the US). This is a country with one of the highest infant mortality rate and one of the lowest life expectancy rate. This country is Sierra Leone, a place that suffered an 11 year long civil war which half of the population—that is more than 20,000 people made refugees and 20,000 slaughtered during a campaign called ‘Operation No Living Things’. Here comes the question: Why did the United Stated, the most influential country with the strongest military in the world just let the Africans suffer and expect themselves to fix up the situation on their own, while even Nigeria, a country with internal economical problems, spent $1,000,000 per day battling the war criminals?
To be exact, America was involved diplomatically after the war was officially ended and helped Sierra Leone elect a government, but that’s it. It did not send any troops, not even a single American was part of the 6,000 UN Peacekeepers sent to the battlefields. Only $15 million was offered to aid the government of Sierra Leone. It is now necessary to bring up the Kosovo incident, a place where its people is suffering from a situation similar to the one in Sierra Leone, yet the US Congress approved a total of $90 billion for it’s aid.
“So is the Arabic’s life more worth saving than the African’s? That is a double standard.” Questioned American Civil Right’s leader Jesse Jackson.
“Sierra Leone, a country of no strategic importance to the United States, highlights the Clinton administration's struggle to define places worthy of intervention on humanitarian grounds." Claimed professor David Wippman of Cornell University, " it has not pursued justice as vigorously in Sierra Leone as it has in other parts of the world,"
"I know that some are troubled that the United States and others cannot respond to every humanitarian catastrophe in the world," President Clinton told the U.N. General Assembly in September. "We cannot do everything everywhere."
So are limited resources the true reason why a nation as strong and powerful as the United States leaves the dreadful situation in Sierra Leone? Or like some scholars suggested ‘America cannot benefit directly from the civil war’? Some people also thought leaving the Africans to solve their own problems was the right thing to do, so they can be independent. If that's the case, why did the US help Iraq and Afganistan? The answer is now up to you to decide.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
That was awesome Celia!
ReplyDeleteI agree that the US is holding a double standard by not sending troops to Sierra Leone. They will send troops to Iraq only because they see it as an oppurtunity after, to obtain more resources that are desperately needed but they refuse to send troops and hardly any money, to Sierra Leone who were in just as much need as Iraq and Afganistan were/are. It is unfair of the US to be selfish and make military decisions based on their own wants for the country instead of doing what is "right" and helping out the people who needed it even if they did not have the resources that the US wanted. The US is one of the wealthiest countries but they are unable to even shed enough money to make a difference in the war. It is sad that are government has become that selfish and greedy when we are unable to help other fellow countries that are also in need and not just the countries where we can also benefit from.
That was great Celia!
ReplyDeleteI'm a bit on the fence with this one, and I'll explain why.
We really can't be able to help other countries when they have the finance to help themselves. Country leaders should do what's best for the country, not themselves, therefore, the country leaders of Africa should've helped their people out. They should've sent many, many soldiers to defend their people from the rebels. They should've provided some kind of sanctuary. They should've attacked the rebels. They should've brought the war to an end much earlier. Yes, they should've done all these things, but they didn't. They didn't try to help their people, and even if they did try, they didn't do much. If I had been talking about this subject of "whom should help whom" while the war was going on, I would want our country to stay out of it; we have our own problems. But, I wouldn't have known the truth about what exactly was going on during the war time since I wasn't even alive for most of it. After reading this book and learning about the boy's struggle and everything he and everyone went through, I would've wanted the U.S. to get involved. It would've been the right thing for the U.S. to help the people somehow, even if it was sending soldiers in to help instead of money. The soldiers would've scared the rebels because of the experience, professionality, and weapons the U.S. soldiers possess. Bottom line, we should've helped Africa. Who know, maybe if we had, this man would've had to write about his horrible life as a child during a vicious war.
wow! That was amazing. It really made me think about America and how we tend to pick and choose our wars. The U.S. does sometimes play favorites, but we also have to consider that Sierra Leone had nothing to offer us. There is lots of gas and oil over in the middle east. With the Sierra Leone situation, it was a "win win" for The U.S. If we helped them then we would get diamonds, if we didnt we would still get them. So there was really no gain fro America, had they helped. It was definitely unfair to Sierra Leone, but America has also had to pay for their mistake. The U.S pays billions of dollars anually for war funds. Not to mention the fact that we're losing our brother, cousins, uncles, sons, and even our fathers! America should have stayed out of a lot things, but had we done that who would help us in our time of need!
ReplyDeleteThis was a very well written article Celia but I am a bit confused on your opinion on the topic. None the less I will state mine.
ReplyDeleteI do not have to much of a problem with the U.S.A. not deploying troops in Sierra Leone because of the simple fact that we cannot always fight the battles of others. We are only one nation, an extremely powerful one at that, but we aren't the parents to settle our children's arguments. We have our own problems to deal with and as much as we would like to help it is not always in the best interests of the people which is the idea of country was built on.
On another note when it comes to helping countries out that may also have a benefit in the long run such as Iraq (oil) is, too me, not a bad thing either. I think it is just another instance of smart thinking by our leaders and a way for Iraq to repay us for our services.
Technically, becoming involved in Iraq and Afghanistan really only caused the United States trouble. Helping with the war in Sierra Leone may not have ended in the same sort of disaster, but it could have.
ReplyDeleteThe US really should just stay out of any war that they aren't involved in, not just the one in Sierra Leone. But the US also shouldn't feel obliged to go and intervene in these wars, it's not the job of the United States to help fix up the corrupt government of other countries. Extending money to help families that are going through the war is one thing, but sending out soldiers to actually fight it another.
Though I must admit, I can understand how sometimes it seems like the right thing to do, to go and help those less fortunate than us, but it plants the US in a lot of trouble sometimes and it really isn't worth it.
What you think is your opinion, but I think what the United States did was right at the time. Even though the Clinton administration was mostly incompetent they learned from their mistakes. When the U.S. went into Dessert Storm they ended up arming the Middle East so the countries their could defend themselves at the time. Now that backfired because those same arms were used against the U.S. in the Iraq War. The same is used with money the U.S. and other nations send to these governments to aid their people. The money ends up in the hands of corrupt officials and blackmarket arms traders.BY sending more money or be sending in troops and directly interfering with Sierra Leone the U.S. might have made the situation worse. Also the U.S. did not invade Iraq and Afghanistan merely for oil. They did it to respond to an incompetent, terrorist run government that endangered the world. I believe this was a good move for the United States and I hope President Obama does not destroy all the good we have done in finding and eradicating terrorist organizations by pulling troops out to hastily.
ReplyDeleteAnother point, how is it unfair for the U.S. to decide what it does with their military and their money. The U.S. military does not make decisions based on if they will make money from the dispute they settle. They base their decisions on who is a threat to the U.S. and then once our safety is secured, then we can worry about helping countries in need.
Clearly, the U.S. picked the best outcome that they could. To help in the Seirra Leone War or to not were obviously imperfect choices. But, I believe the United States did what was right for the United States as a country and for it's people.
Side note- if the U.S. government is what you call corrupt, I would hate to see what you say of other countries governments.
It is true that helping in some situations and wars could harm us by giving us more enimies, but if helping in these wars can save lives how could you say no and sit around like everything is fine when a war is going on. There are so many people who have lost their lives or are losing them at this moment, and to know that the deaths couod have been prevented how could anyone say no just because it does not help the US. Nopt everything is about our country. Everyone likes to say the US helps people, "We have UNICEF and soldiers in Iraq." Maybe that is true but did anyone every think that maybe we did not not need UNICEF or need our soldiers to be dying. Maybe if we had helped other countries in their time of need we would not be in this current economic situation. Or maybe we would have had more help in Iraq and the war could have been over by now.
ReplyDeletefirst off, good job Celia! secondly, i think we should definitely send troops to help sierra leone, first off because of all the suffering going on there, and all the help they need. i also think we should intervene because we have the cause to, and the military to back it up. ours is the most advanced in our world, and could easily bring the conflict to an end. finally, it could help clear up the negativity caused by the iraq war, and possibly earn some support from other countries.
ReplyDeleteGreat job Celia, The United States should definitely have more involvement with Sierra Leone's government. I'm still borderline about military aid being sent there only because we have seen to much war already in the 21st century. WIth an American military opposition against rebels like RUF, it could either highly benefit the country or it could destroy it. What I believe we should first is infiltrate the government and force corrupt politicians to step down and let the UN decide how the money and government troops are handled.
ReplyDeleteIt is clear that the government cannot win this war itself due to lack of effort and greed. Military opposition should be our last option to bringing peace to Sierra Leone if the rebels cannot be contained.
The only reason why we have not entered Sierra Leone sooner is because we already started fighting a war that has cost the lives of thousands of Americans. Greed and oil only make a fraction of why we are in the Middle East. I have heard stories from people who have served in Afghanistan saying that the Taliban are just a malicious as the rebels in Africa. They hunt and kill innocent people and force children to become soldiers or to run through mine fields. As President Clinton," We cannot fight every war."
Good Job
ReplyDeleteIm going to be completely honest, a part of me thinks that the United States should have sent troops to help in the civil war. Another part of me thinks that America was right for staying out of the civil war. Civil wars occur a over the world which means that we cannot always send troops over. But then it is our duty to help others as much as we can. For that I believe America should choose what we can and cannot fight even though we have one of the most advanced militaries in the world. That doesn't mean that we have unlimited human lives just to send out and fight for the US and another country.