Guinea: You Want a Civilian Ruler? You Got a Civilian Ruler!Conte had been the leader of Guinea since 1984, when President Toure died. Having a military ruler hasn't been in vogue for some time, so General Conte put on an election and became President Conte. Three times. Some people quibbled about "irregularities" in the polls, but Conte kept his title anyway.
What, if Anything, Does Guinea Have to do With The War on Terror?Not much, actually. But Guinea's 'democracy' is an example of why I'm not all that particular about what a country's leader is called - or how the leader gets selected. It's what the president, king, or whatever, does that's important.
- Government by Religious Leaders
Example: Afghanistan under the Taliban
- Government by Monarch
Example: Saudi Arabia
- (15/19 of the 9/11 hijackers were Saudis)
- Government by Elected Leaders
Result: Terrorists - and pirates
- Government by Military Ruler
- Assuming that the elections were as well-managed as critics claim
What's Wrong With This Picture?Pretty obvious, isn't it? I carefully selected examples that supported my claim. That can make for effective propaganda, but it's not good reasoning.
As a matter of fact, I don't have the visceral, reflexive revulsion that many Americans have toward the idea of having a country run by military or religious rulers. I think it depends on what individuals are running the show, and which side of the eighteenth century most of the country's people live on.
For example, it's arguable that Turkey is a country where military leaders have the unofficial task of monitoring the democratically-elected rulers. When elected rulers start doing crazy things - like making adultery a crime for women, but not for men - the military steps in and sees to it that the next elected government is a bit less out of step with the real world.
That seems to work for Turkey, but I'm not at all sure that it's the arrangement I'd recommend. flagrant violation of the Constitution of Guinea and of the relevant AU instruments" - and they may be right.
The AU also issued a press statement from it's Commission that "condemns the ongoing air raids on the Gaza Strip by Israel, since 27 December 2008." The statement has quite a bit to say about Israel's "massive and disproportionate attack" "which has resulted so far in the death of more than 300 Palestinians, while about 1,000 others, including women and children, have been injured."
Hamas isn't mentioned. At all. Attacks on Israel, also not mentioned. I suppose that would just complicate things.
I don't blame the African Union for taking the standard-issue 'it is the fault of the Jews' position. Many of its member nations have massive Muslim majorities, and Africa merges into the Middle East - which makes it expedient to follow the lead of that area's culture and philosophy.
I would much prefer, however, if the AU and other organizations were willing to accept the idea that killing Jews isn't nice, and that people who kill Jews should be stopped.
- "Palestinian Leader Condemns Hamas: That's Something You Don't Hear Every Day"
(December 28, 2008)
- "Construction Equipment as Terrorist Weapon: Something New"
(July 2, 2008)
- "News, Truth, and Why America is at Fault"
(June 20, 2008)
- "Israeli Ambassador to Britain: Extremists Have 'Hijacked' Debate Over Israel"
(June 9, 2008)
- "bin Laden: Israel is Terrorist State (This is News?)"
(May 16, 2008)
- "Carter Meetings Proof: Hamas a National Liberation Movement! Reality Check, Please"
(April 19, 2008)
- "Hamas, Iran, and the Natives of Pennsylvania: Two Out of Three Ain't Bad"
(April 16, 2008)
- "Guinea coup leader sacks generals"
Al Jazeera (December 29, 2008)
- "African Union bars Guinea on coup"
BBC (December 29, 2008)
- "Guinea coup leader offers safety guarantee"
CNN (December 25, 2008)
- "Coup leader names himself Guinea president"
CNN (December 24, 2008)
View Larger Map