His catastrophic efforts in Iraq aside, I think he should get a lot
of credit for all the work on AIDS, as well as the increase in aid given
to the continent.

Foreign policy is multi-faceted and his Iraq policy should not colour his
other efforts especially where it concerns us Africans.

Besides, he did a lot more than Clinton, and the latter always features
as every black man's favourite white man.

NO!! America as a whole deserves more praise. It was their money that they donated.

he deserves a little commendation. . . . up bush

In global politics,Africa and Africans don't matter.

What is interesting is that the diminished status given to Africa by the world in analysing US foreign policy is also shared by Africans.

It is understandable if Westerners or Arabs view US foreign policy on the basis of how it affects them but why do Africans seem to think that US foreign policy must be viewed on the basis of how it affects others and not Africa?

I think the key problem is that most Africans' knowledge of the outside world is gleaned exclusively from non-African media.If the media's attention is focused on the Middle-East,Africans will only be aware of events in the Middle-East.

4 Play:

In global politics,Africa and Africans don't matter.

What is interesting is that the diminished status given to Africa by the world in analysing US foreign policy is also shared by Africans.

It is understandable if Westerners or Arabs view US foreign policy on the basis of how it affects them but why do Africans seem to think that US foreign policy must be viewed on the basis of how it affects others and not Africa?

I think the key problem is that most Africans' knowledge of the outside world is gleaned exclusively from non-African media.If the media's attention is focused on the Middle-East,Africans will only be aware of events in the Middle-East.

You make some point.

However, ideology, not geography, most influences US foreign policy.

Sub-Saharan Africa, unlike the Middle-East, poses little or no ideological challenges to the West in general, and the United States in particular. For example, during the cold war, the West had a morbid fear of communism, and furiously worked against, stigmatized or suppressed all ideologies they interpreted as having communist leanings - whether in Africa or not! Here, pick the usual suspects - South Africa, Congo, Uganda, etc.

Today, the cold war is over, but the world is not as tame as the US would want it to be. China is still communist, but the lessons from Vietnam has tempered arrogance with reality, and that mere military might has clearly identifiable limits. Decommunismizing China remains a fool's errand.

The Middle-East, for reasons too obvious to state, remains the center of gravity for all idealogical challenges to Western hegemony!

The world, Africa included, would be doing itself a great disservice if it ignores the region that may very well define future ideological battles.

@topic,

I consider George W. Bush the worst president to ever walk the face of the Earth.

Having said that, I commend the PEPFAR (President's Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief) initiative, and admire his concern for the people living with HIV/AIDS in Africa. Thank you George Bush!

RichyBlacK:

However, ideology, not geography, most influences US foreign policy.

The Middle-East, for reasons too obvious to state, remains the center of gravity for all idealogical challenges to Western hegemony!

Hegemony refers to dominance over others and I can't see how the Middle-East,as opposed to China and India,is the 'center of gravity' for all challenges to Western hegemony.

The Middle-East's key strategic value lies in its huge energy resources,which resources are effectively transient.

Again,nobody disputes the relative importance of the Middle-East compared to Africa,what is at issue is why Africans seem to place greater significance on events in the Middle-East compared to Africa.

3.7m have died in the DRC Congo but most Africans on this forum will struggle to name cities or key players in that blighted country but we will be prepared to reel off the names of places and politicians in the West Bank and Gaza. No strategic arguments can ever justify why anyone,let alone Africans,will place greater import on conflicts, which compared to the carnage in huge swaths of Africa,are low-level conflicts.

I don't expect the White House or the Western World to ascribe equal significance to Sub-Saharan Africa and the Middle-East but for Africans to follow sheepishly whatever is the West's favorite topic beggars belief.

China is still communist, but the lessons from Vietnam has tempered arrogance with reality, and that mere military might has clearly identifiable limits.

I don't understand why people still refer to China as communist. By any definition of communism,China ceased to be a communist state once Deng Xiaoping embarked on his reforms.

@4 Play why the surprise that Africans might place greater importance to countries and locations outside the continent when viewed in the global political space? People can sometimes underestimate the potential power (whether good or bad) the media has over a general populace. The West has CNN and BBC, the middle east has Al Jazeera, what does africa have? NTA? The thing i find disheartening about the African situation is that all through history the opportunity has not been taken to actually tell our own stories, a significant ammount of the celebrated history documents written about africa are and were written by 'foreigners' as if such would generally have a better perspective of the reality of the situation than those who experienced it. Take for instance the history of the region that is today Nigeria, don't be surprised if you go and ask a kid how the people in the region that is today Nigeria lived and you get the impression that the general belief is the stereotypical and false view of naked people swinging around trees tarzan style on their way tol meet their friends which are monkeys which they can of course speak to (ok, might be a little extreme, LOL). These kids won't have the knowledge of kingdoms or cities that existed like the Benin City which when described by portugese traders when they discovered it was a description of surprise and awe, a city that was later destroyed, burnt snd plundered by colonials in their further conquest of africa.

There really isn't one News station that you can point to in Africa and look upon such with the level of respect people attribute to CNN and BBC of which i don't really watch the latter because i feel they deal too much in propaganda. Of course i don't immediately take every angle i hear from news channels ad gospel truth and i find that most if not all have an agenda they try to push and ironically the News channel that seems to have the least dilutted form of such is Al Jazeera. If the rise of Al Jazeera has thought us anything, it is that the people are willing to listen and the market is there to exploit. Sadly, with the level of incompetence in news coverage, reporting and broadcasting displayed on channels like NTA that pride themselves as the biggest news network in africa while also specialising in political butt kissing, i feel people will generally look for better and more competent alternatives, and hence everyone but africans will continue to tell the stories of africa

[b]bush is one of America greatest and strong presidents ok[/b]

I always tell those who care to listen that 'President George Bush has done alot for Africa',whether you believe it or not.I think African media[pardon d print media] should be blamed for not potraying what's happening in the continent,those who do prefer politicising theirs.

@Post,

When asked in 2000, shortly before the November elections, Bush said he had no concrete policy for Africa. He repeated the claim after his inauguration and within the milestone of his 100days in office. This was in background to Clinton's popularity among Blacks in America and on the African continent. Anything Clinton, he stood against it. If he did not have a policy aimed in our interest, how is it that we should credit him for anything he ceremoniously (not strategically) championed on our continent?

Besides, his seemingly contributions towards AIDS is really not in our interest. Why? He is representing corporate interests of the pharmaceutical industries. They stand to gain from all of it in research (using our people as guinea pigs) and in profits (marketing impotent drugs to our governments for grassroot distribution) as well as image and branding by sponsoring NGOs (with grants and funds) for field deployments in the name of serving humanity and doing humane work.

Negro_Ntns:

@Post,

When asked in 2000, shortly before the November elections, Bush said he had no concrete policy for Africa.

Nor did he have any policy for other continents apart from war.

Pres. Bush Played Africa.

So What, He tossed a few dollars here and there - that's about IT!

The AIDS money has not been Disbursed!

It was a MEDIA BLITZ. Take your blinders off. He merely walked in the ghettos and GOT GONE!

Amerikka gives Isreal over 3 Billion a year. (much more with the free military - under the table)

All Africa can do for Amerikka is open its Oil Wells and keep Corrupt leaders to continue giving Amerikka oil on the cheap.

If Amerikka goes to Africa - it's on the TAKE!