With the emergence of President Obama's leadership, America gained love and respect across the Globe as President Obama engaged world leaders with dignity and respect. He put pressure where it was safe and necessary and the world platform begun to respect and love America one more time. We must take into account that, America's favorability had diminished on the Global front during Bush Administration. Every single person in the world want to be treated with dignity, respect, value and every Government of the world want to be appreciated. Where there is Peace and Unity, life thrives. Where there is respect, people trade and share favorably striking deals that are favorable for mutual common interest. This is what the world wants and is what President Obama focus on which is what has lit America to shine on top of the world. Africans as a people are poor, but Africa as a place is fantastically rich - in minerals, land, labour with beautiful sunshine. Reason for Poverty in Africa is excessive corruption which drains away more than what comes in to improve and boost the economy. Corruption is number one problem. This explains where some of the money goes, which is encouraged by former colonial powers joined with international companies. African leaders are the reason for excessive corrupt and that is why outsiders enjoy freedom to invade, occupy, convert, plunder through trading under corruption. The hangover of colonialism hover in the background of almost every serious conversation with Africans about why most of them are poor. It goes without saying that, modern day slavery impoverishes parts of Africa and colonial hangover set up trading patterns that favor special interest without fair shared sacrifice for common good in the "Give and Take" aiming at benefitting the colonizers through corruption. African leaders take this as a way to create easy wealth for themselves and they don't want to pay taxes. President Obama's policy provided a fair shared sacrifice in Foreign Policy Partnership agenda where Africa is treated with a human face and dignity. It is the reason he supported Kenya's Referendum for good democratic constitutional order against forces of impunity……the reason there was serious conflict of interest and why Kenyan Coalition Government do not like and appreciate but fights the New Constitution. This is a sign President Obama's Foreign policy for global Progressive Partnership for development valued human rights focusing on peace and unity for common good of all. His Foreign Policy for FORWARD Plan of Action means well focusing on Global Peace with Environmental protection and security; and that which was expected to eliminate terrorism globally. In evaluating Condoleezzas challenging speech against President Obama's Foreign Policy although sounding like a brilliant presentation, it is not fair to equate Mitt Romneys' plus Paul Ryan's joint responsibility character to that of President Obama's outstanding integrity and passion to secure and sustain America's values to the Global Region of the world. It is impossible to sell someone with plain words however powerful a speech is without presenting tangible evidence of documentation or proposals for Plan of Action how things will be done differently to improve things from the way they are; for which, as show-case in Factual Evidence, people are able to compare visionary principles. Judy Miriga
Diaspora Spokesperson
Executive Director
Confederation Council Foundation for Africa Inc.,
USA
http://socioeconomicforum50.blogspot.com
@@@@@@@@@@ Evalutating Condoleezza Rice Speech: Condoleezza Rice never addressed President Obama by name, but the former secretary of state delivered a sharp rejection of his foreign policy tonight, charging that the White House had forsaken past and potential allies, leaving the world to wonder, "Where does America stand?" "When our friends and our foes, alike, do not know the answer to that question," she told the Republican National Convention, "the world is a chaotic and dangerous place." Rice picked up on a theme laid out earlier tonight by Sen. John McCain who warned that "if America doesn't lead, our adversaries will, and the world will grow darker, poorer and much more dangerous." Rice criticized the president for taking a backseat to NATO during the battle for Libya and not doing more to stop the bloodshed in Syria. "We cannot be reluctant to lead," Rice told fellow Republicans, who welcomed her to the stage with enthusiastic applause. "And you cannot lead from behind. Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan understand this reality, that our leadership abroad and our well-being at home are inextricably linked." Turning to concerns that a growing deficit could undermine American influence abroad, she focused on China. "Just consider this," she said. "The United States has ratified only three trade agreements in the last few years and those were negotiated in the Bush administration. China has signed 15 free trade agreements and is in the progress of negotiating as many as 18 more. Sadly we are abandoning the field of free and fair trade, and it will come back to haunt us." "Just consider this," she said. "The United States has ratified only three trade agreements in the last few years and those were negotiated in the Bush administration. China has signed 15 free trade agreements and is in the progress of negotiating as many as 18 more. Sadly we are abandoning the field of free and fair trade, and it will come back to haunt us." "On a personal note, a little girl grows up in Jim Crow Birmingham, the most segregated big city in America," Rice said, talking about her childhood in Alabama. "Her parents can't take her to a movie theater or a restaurant, but they make her believe that even though she can't have a hamburger at the Woolworth's lunch counter she can be president of the United States -- and she becomes the Secretary of State." That dream, she said was in doubt, as economic dislocation crushes opportunity in areas hardest hit by the slow recovery. That dream, she said was in doubt, as economic dislocation crushes opportunity in areas hardest hit by the slow recovery. "Your greatest ally in controlling your response to your circumstance is in a quality education," Rice said. "Today, when I can look at your zip code and can tell whether you are going to get a good education. Can I really say that it doesn't matter where you came from? It matters where you are going. The crisis in K-12 education is a threat to the very fabric who we are." It is an issue Rice knows well from her time as provost at Stanford University, which she returned to in 2010 to work as a professor.
Low Favorability Trails Romney Up to the Convention Dais By Gary Langer | ABC OTUS News – 9 hrs ago August 29th 2012 Mitt Romney accepts the Republican nomination for president this week with the lowest personal popularity of any major-party nominee in polls dating to Ronald Reagan's presidency, a difficulty for Romney that's persisted throughout this election cycle. Forty percent of registered voters in the latest ABC News/Washington Post poll see Romney favorably overall, while 51 percent rate him unfavorably - 11 points underwater in this basic measure, with a majority unfavorable score for just the second time in polls since last fall. Barack Obama does better in this poll, produced for ABC by Langer Research Associates, but hardly well - 50-47 percent in favorable vs. unfavorable views among registered voters, essentially the same as his 2012 average in ABC/Post polls. On this, as on other measures, as hard as they've campaigned, views of the two hardly have budged. Romney's favorability rating is the lowest of any major-party nominee at roughly the time of his convention in available data back to 1984; indeed he's the first, at this stage of the campaign, to be rated more unfavorably than favorably by a significant margin. On the other hand, Obama's net favorable rating is substantially lower than the four previous incumbents' (Reagan, both Bushes and Bill Clinton) at this point. One previous candidate in this period had a favorability rating as low as Obama's and went on to win the presidency - George H.W. Bush in 1988. (Bush's unfavorability rating was lower than Obama's, with more undecided.) None has won with favorability as low as Romney's, increasing the pressure for him to develop more of a personal connection with the electorate, perhaps starting with his acceptance speech Thursday night. Favorability is a broader concept than simple likeability, a measure in which Obama far surpasses Romney; it also reflects empathy, a sense that the candidate understands the problems of average Americans - an attribute on which Obama also leads, but more narrowly. Analysis of ABC/Post data this week shows that when likeability and empathy are tested together, empathy is a far more powerful predictor of vote choices. GROUPS - Romney has particular challenges in some groups: His 34 percent favorability rating among women who are registered to vote is down by 9 percentage points from May, with particular weakness among unmarried women, a core Democratic group. Romney is seen favorably by just 35 percent of independents who are registered to vote, numerically a low since March (albeit not significantly different from its level earlier this month). Obama's favorability rating among independents is 9 points higher than Romney's; nonetheless in a separate ABC/Post poll released Monday the two were about even among independents in vote preference, 47-43 percent, Romney-Obama, indicating that favorability is one factor in candidate support, but not in and of itself determinative. Romney's rating also is notably low, just 21 percent favorable, among adults who say they're not registered to vote - a sentiment that would explain a focus on voter registration by the Obama camp in the two months ahead. Romney does far better in his core ideological support groups, but with shortfalls compared with Obama. Romney is seen favorably by 69 percent of conservative voters; Obama, by 81 percent of liberals. And Obama's rating among moderates, 61 percent favorable, far exceeds Romney's in this group, 29 percent. A variety of factors may inform these ratings; both candidates likely are low on favorability not solely because of their own doing, but because the public is in a sour mood, pinched by the long-running economic downturn. Nonetheless, while they focus in the weeks ahead on winning voters' minds, a few hearts wouldn't hurt. METHODOLOGY - This ABC News/Washington Post poll was conducted by landline and cell phone Aug. 22-26, 2012, among a random national sample of 1,020 adults and 814 registered voters. Results have a margin of sampling error of 3.5 points for the full sample and 4 points for the sample of registered voters, including design effect. The survey was produced for ABC News by Langer Research Associates of New York, N.Y., with sampling, data collection and tabulation by SSRS/Social Science Research Solutions of Media, Pa. Rice says America's voice 'muted' in world affairsAssociated Press – 7 mins ago TAMPA, Fla. (AP) — Former Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice says the voice of the United States in world affairs "has been muted" under President Barack Obama, creating a chaotic and dangerous security environment., Rice, who speaks Wednesday night to the Republican National Convention, sought to tout Mitt Romney's foreign policy credentials. She tells "CBS This Morning" Romney "would understand American exceptionalism and would not be afraid to lead from the front." Rice says the election is about "the future of American leadership" in the world. She says U.S. policy on Syria has been ineffective. Asked what she thinks President Barack Obama has done wrong, the former Bush administration official says Washington has been losing influence around the world because Obama has repeatedly demanded that Syria's Bashar Assad step aside and nothing has happened. Tea party organizer wants Romney specifics: 'We're trying to figure out what he's for' Political ReporteThe Ticket – 14 hrs ago TAMPA -- The details of Mitt Romney's acceptance speech at the Republican National Convention are still secret, but when the candidate takes the stage on Thursday night, FreedomWorks President Matt Kibbe wants to hear one thing: Policy details. "We're trying to figure out what he's for," Kibbe told Yahoo News in an interview here on Tuesday. "There's a lot of talk about Romney's need to connect with people, but what we're looking for is substance. This isn't a beauty contest. We're looking for someone that actually stands for something, and we're hoping to see some substantial policy in the speech as well as an ability to connect with people." Kibbe said that Romney should make it clear how he would differentiate himself from President Barack Obama, particularly on financial regulation. "I'd like to hear some specifics," he said. FreedomWorks, one of the nation's most prominent tea party groups, took a long time to come around for Romney -- or, rather, to drop their opposition. The group actively opposed Romney's candidacy during the Republican primaries, and even organized a demonstration when Romney spoke to a tea party rally in New Hampshire last year. The announcement for that event on the FreedomWorks website called Romney "an establishment hack" with a record that "represents everything the tea party stands against." Once it was clear that Romney would secure the party's nomination, FreedomWorks leaders still avoided a full-throated endorsement, but a spokesman said the group was "dedicated to defeating Obama." On Tuesday, Kibbe said that he was encouraged by Romney's decision to choose Wisconsin Rep. Paul Ryan as his running mate, and that while Romney was still vague about his views, the choice offered hints about how he might govern. "I think you're seeing some more more substance coming from the Republican ticket with the selection of Ryan," Kibbe said. "There's a better sense for what these guys would actually do should they win the election." Ron Paul delegates cause ruckus on convention floor Political Reporter The Ticket – 11 hrs ago He might not be the Republican nominee, but Ron Paul certainly has loyal delegates. And they're here to make their voices heard—literally. The boisterous delegates caused somewhat of an altercation on the convention floor this Tuesday evening, a night that should belong to Mitt Romney. Whenever a state that had Paul delegates announced its vote, the counter on stage tallied only the delegates for Romney, a standard practice under the convention rules. Hundreds of Paul delegates struck back by shouting the number of Paul votes in unison from the floor and the rafters, a practice that irked Romney supporters. One Texas delegate, a Ron Paul supporter, repeatedly screamed whenever Paul's name was mentioned. A group of his fellow Texans turned around and scowled at him. "Sorry," the Paul supporter said, shrugging and not really sorry. "Don't do it if you're sorry!" an angry Romney delegate snapped. A moment, later, the Paul delegate did it again, shouting even louder. Another Romney delegate next to him, a Texan who towered about two feet above him, shot him a glare. "You mad about something, man?" The Paul delegate pushed his cowboy hat back and shrunk lower. He didn't shout again. Meanwhile, Romney delegates rallied to beat the Paul delegates at their own game. Whenever a state without any Paul delegates announced their numbers, groups of Romney supporters shouted, "And zero for Ron Paul!" When Romney finally clinched the delegate vote count, the reaction from the crowd was mild, at best, perhaps exasperated by the shouting match. The delegates on the floor cheered and waved "MITT" signs, but the celebration quickly subsided. Many civilians massacred in Congo: U.N. officialsBy Robert Evans | Reuters – 15 mins ago GENEVA (Reuters) - Rival armed groups may have killed hundreds of civilians in massacres and other "incomprehensibly vicious" attacks in eastern parts of the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC), senior U.N. officials said on Wednesday. The violence is focused in North Kivu near the border with Rwanda where warring groups have targeted villages seen as supporting their opponents, while the national army has been diverted to fight a movement of mutineers known as M23. "The deterioration of the overall security situation in North Kivu following the M23 mutiny and related ruthless attacks against civilians is extremely alarming," said Roger Meece, special representative of U.N. Secretary General Ban Ki-moon. Meece was cited in a United Nations report issued in Geneva as saying a new round of systematic killings of villagers appeared to have occurred in early August. U.N. High Commissioner for Human Rights Navi Pillay said allegations of hundreds of killings were still being verified, but preliminary investigations suggested that a large number of people, mainly women and children, had been slaughtered. "The sheer viciousness of these murders is beyond comprehension," she said. The Congo government in Kinshasa this month rejected calls by other countries in the region for an exclusively African force to tackle the insurgency in the east. Congo says some of the insurgent groups have support from countries such as Rwanda and Uganda - a charge both governments deny - and wants an expansion of the 17,000-member U.N. peacekeeping force in the vast, mineral-rich state. Pillay's office in Geneva said its mission in Congo had recorded 45 attacks on 30 North Kivu villages since May by a group dubbing itself "Democratic Forces for the Liberation of Rwanda" or FDLR, and another called Raia Mutumboki. The FDLR is largely composed of ethnic Hutus, many of whom fled into the Congo after the defeat of a Hutu government widely viewed as responsible for the massacre of up to a million Tutsis and opponents of its policies in Rwanda in 1994. The movement sometimes stages attacks in alliance with another armed group, Nyatura, the United Nations says. Raia Mutumboki, largely composed of Congolese Tutsis but reinforced by others from Rwanda, according to the Congo government, says it is protecting the local population by attacking Hutus, whom it regards as foreigners. The U.N. force, known as MONUSCO, focuses on protecting civilians but has been forced to divert resources to tackle the fallout from fighting between the Congolese army and M23. That conflict has displaced nearly half a million people since the mutiny in April led to the formation of the rebel group that accuses Kinshasa of violating a 2009 peace accord. (Reported by Robert Evans; Editing by Alistair Lyon) Why Maine walked out: Romney's new rules for 2016 and what they meanBy Walter Shapiro | The Ticket – 14 hrs ago TAMPA—With an attention to detail that an art restorer working on a Rembrandt might envy, the Romney team has been working overtime to guarantee a smooth convention without a single discordant note—in 2016. Changes in Republican Party rules proposed by the Mitt-ites would, in theory, lessen the odds of rogue delegates and raucous dissenters disrupting the 2016 second-term coronation for a President Romney. The small but vocal Ron Paul brigades joined by some militant conservatives threatened a Tuesday afternoon convention floor fight over the new rules, but as a beleaguered minority they never had the votes to get more than a face-saving compromise. Part of the Maine delegation walked out in protest. The history of party rules, dating back to the rise of presidential primaries in 1972, represents a crash course in the law of unintended consequences. So, in truth, there is no guarantee that the details of the Romney Rewrite will end up mattering to anyone other than election lawyers and political scientists. Whatever its practical effects, this far-sighted effort to revamp the party rules reveals something important about a putative Romney presidency. All first-term presidents govern with a nervous eye on their re-election campaigns. (See Obama, Barack). But Romney appears as worried about his own party's 2016 primaries as he does about the Democrats. Pat Buchanan has been an oft-discussed figure here in Tampa, since his fire-breathing "culture war" 1992 speech remains a never-again model of a convention speech gone awry. But the real damage to the re-election hopes of President George H.W. Bush came earlier when Buchanan challenged him in the New Hampshire primary and won an impressive 40 percent of the vote. That bygone Buchanan campaign rebuking Bush for going back on his read-my-lips pledge not to raise taxes is the precedent that haunts the Romney forces today. The specter hanging over Romney is not a particular issue like taxes so much as the rise of Republican factions that demand ideological purity from their leaders. The resurgent right has been on the warpath beginning with the purging of establishment Republican senators like Utah's Bob Bennett (denied renomination in 2010) and Indiana's Richard Lugar (defeated in the 2012 primary). This take-no-prisoners political mood has continued through the recent upset Senate primary victories of tea party candidates like Ted Cruz in Texas and Todd Akin in Missouri. This would be worrisome for any Republican president, not just one with Romney's zigzag ideological pedigree. No president of any party—certainly not Ronald Reagan or Franklin Roosevelt—has ever governed without muddled compromises and reluctantly broken promises. This backsliding is inevitable (see Guantanamo and Barack Obama) since presidents do not rule by decree. Against this backdrop, imagine the potential mood in a Romney White House in 2013 or 2015. Every decision would be double-checked to make sure that it doesn't offend any restive faction in the Republican base. All spending proposals would have to pass muster with the tea party movement, all judicial appointments would be informally vetted by social conservatives and all nominees to the Federal Reserve would run the risk of the wrath of Ron Paul. It can be a demoralizing way to govern. Maybe Vice President Paul Ryan would give Romney enough credibility with the budget hawks to ease the pressure on the administration's right flank. Maybe the Romney political operation would rein in restive Republicans. And maybe leprechauns would dance amid the clover on the White House lawn. The Pat Buchanan figure in 2016 Republican presidential primaries might be Rand "Son of Ron" Paul on the libertarian side or perhaps (admittedly, a big perhaps) even Sarah Palin representing the tea party movement. There is, of course, no way to know the identity of who might personify thunder on the right in the 2016 primaries. But having survived the turbulence of this year's GOP race (recall the astounding record of underfunded challengers like Rick Santorum and Newt Gingrich), Romney knows all too well how uneasy lies the head that wears the Republican crown. After the 1980 Jimmy-Carter-Ted-Kennedy grudge match, the Democrats have learned the hard way the self-destructive folly of challenging an incumbent president for renomination. Both Bill Clinton and Obama glided through their primaries without a ripple of dissent. But Will Rogers to the contrary, the Democrats these days are the organized political party while the Republicans are continually rambunctious. The goal of this Tampa convention, more than anything, is to invite undecided voters to feel reassured at the prospect of Mitt Romney in the Oval Office next January. But, as the under-the-radar fight over Republican Party rules illustrates, a President Romney might well find himself a prisoner of his own party's quest for purity. In a sense, that may be the lasting legacy of Pat Buchanan and his quixotic 1992 primary campaign. 
Archbishop Desmond Tutu has said he will boycott an event in protest at sharing a stage with Tony Blair, former British prime minister, over his "morally indefensible" support of the US-led Iraq invasion.
The Nobel Peace Prize laureate decided to withdraw as a speaker on Tuesday at a one-day leadership summit in Johannesburg on Thursday after "wrestling with his conscience and taking counsel", his office told organisers.
"Ultimately, the archbishop is of the view that Mr Blair's decision to support the United States' military invasion of Iraq, on the basis of unproven allegations of the existence in Iraq of weapons of mass destruction, was morally indefensible," Tutu's office wrote to organisers.
Blair's office said he was "sorry" the Archbishop had decided to pull out.
"Obviously Tony Blair is sorry that the archbishop has decided to pull out now from an event that has been fixed for months and where he and the archbishop were never actually sharing a platform," his office said in a statement.
Blair's office acknowledged the pair's different approaches to Saddam Hussein's regime.
"As far as Iraq is concerned, they have always disagreed about removing Saddam by force. Such disagreement is part of a healthy democracy," Blair's office said. This is a very complex and misunderstood topic. Before answering, it is important to note that "Africa" is not a political or economic entity, and therefore addressing this issue must be done on a nation-by-nation basis. In fact, some African countries such as South Africa, Kenya, and to some extent Morocco and Egypt have relatively high standards of living. The question is also posed poorly, as Africa as a whole does not contain an even spread of gold and diamond resources, and often nations have additional resources or less (such as oil in Nigeria but desert in Chad). Effects on most African nations' wealth include, among other things, (1) residual effects of colonialism, (2) current exploitation of poor nations by wealthy nations, (3) a pervading lack of strong political institutions to manage the economy, and (4) Western ignorance in their interventionist strategies such as the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and World Bank. Colonialism forced African peoples into regimented and incredibly foreign manners of government. Warring tribes were often "placed" in the same nation while other tribes were split by these artificial boundaries. Also, colonizers placed certain tribes in positions of power which has caused uprisings in areas such as Rwanda. Pertaining to the question about natural resources, these are often extracted by wealthy nations, who take the wealth from those resources back to their already wealthy countries. This has been the case in oil-rich Nigeria and diamond-rich South Africa. Wealthy nations also often trade extraction rights for vast amounts of extorted "dirty money". Historically, the world has not seen a well-developed economy without a corresponding strong government. In contrast to a Western-style political institution of checks and balances, traditionally African tribes were not organized in such a way. Many argue that in addition to easy access to education, healthcare, and natural resources, a strong government that can balance its own power by virtue of the bureaucratic structure of itself is essential. Lastly, the IMF, World Bank, and other international aid organizations have created massive problems by failing to understand the social and political contexts of the African countries within which they work. They lend money to nations, henceforth focusing on repayment of the loan, rather than the efficacious use of that loan. They require structural changes in the government that detrimentally weaken the local and federal governments. Furthermore, aid organizations normally focus on distributing birth control and food, which benevolently helps the people, but it ameliorates the symptoms without tackling the sickness, such as establishing and funding schools or citizen advocate groups. For more information and very helpful commentaries, please visit the related links below. Note: There are comments associated with this question. See the discussion page to add to the conversation Read more: http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Why_is_Africa_so_poor_despite_its_gold_and_diamond_resources#ixzz258WzKXp7 | 
0 comments:
Post a Comment