Inside Story Americas
| ||||
http://aje.me/VBsxfs | ||||
We discuss Mali's crisis, plus, what the Senate's disabilities vote says about US politics.
Inside Story Americas Last Modified: 07 Dec 2012 11:27
| ||||
US military planners prepare to support a multi-national African force to intervene in northern Mali - in an attempt to roll back al-Qaeda in the region.
Pentagon officials are working with African nations ahead of possible international military action against al-Qaeda-linked groups in northern Mali.
The Obama administration, however, says US involvement will be limited to helping with military planning, working alongside partners in ECOWAS, the 15-member Economic Community of West African States, and the African Union.
There has been growing international concern over Mali’s north, an area the size of Texas, which was taken by islamic fighters
following a coup in Mali earlier this year.
Those fighters are also said to have close links with the Boko Haram separatist group, which has been blamed for violence in Nigeria.
Earlier this week, however, the top US commander in Africa warned against premature military action. Army General Carter Ham said that an immediate intervention would be likely to fail and set back the situation "even further".
So, is a military intervention necessary in northern Mali?
Joining Inside Story Americas to discuss this is Nii Akuetteh, an independent Africa policy analyst, who testified at the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations hearing about a possible intervention in Mali on Wednesday; and Paul Mutter, an international affairs analyst and fellow at Truthout.org.
What does the Senate's disabilities vote say about US politics?
This week, the US Senate failed to ratify a UN treaty that aims to set an international standard on the rights of disabled people. The 38 'no' votes - all from Republican senators - were cast although the treaty is based on existing US legislation.
It was negotiated under Republican President George W Bush and backed by GOP big names such as Bob Dole and John McCain. It has been signed in 155 countries and ratified in 126 including Britain, France, China and Russia.
But the Republican right argued that it impinged on US sovereignty.
For example, opponents said it would take away parents' right to home-school disabled children. Some even argued it might lead to the forced sterilisation of the disabled.
Democratic Senator John Kerry called it one of the saddest days in his 28-year senate career. And it has led to questions as to whether President Barack Obama's proposal for a bipartisan "grand bargain" with Republicans is advisable if they continue to cling on to extreme right-wing orthodoxy.
So what does the Senate disabilities vote say about US politics and the current political atmosphere?
Inside Story Americas discusses with guests: Eric Rosenthal, the executive director of Disability Rights International; and Alex Kane, a world editor with Alternet.org.
|
Smoke ascends after a Syrian military helicopter allegedly dropped a barrel bomb over the city of Daraya on Jan. 31.(FADI DIRANI/AFP/Getty Images) Summary Barrel bombs are not especially effective weapons. They are often poorly constructed; they fail to detonate more often than other devices constructed for a similar purpose; and their lack of precision means they can have a disproportionate effect on civilian populations. However, combatants continue to use barrel bombs in conflicts, including in recent and ongoing conflicts in Africa and the Middle East, and they are ideally suited to the requirements of resource-poor states. Analysis Barrel bombs are improvised devices that contain explosive filling and shrapnel packed into a container, often in a cylindrical shape such as a barrel. The devices continue to be dropped on towns all over Syria . Indeed, there have been several documented cases of their use in Iraq over the past months, and residents of the city of Mosul, which was re
Comments
Post a Comment