• news
  • SUNDAY MARCH 6 2005 9:00 AM

Niger Decides Not to Free Slaves

Submitted by Michael_J_Totten

Edited by Michael_J_Totten

The government of Niger decided at the last minute that it's easier to pretend slavery doesn't exist than to enforce their anti-slavery law and actually have to free slaves.

The government of Niger has cancelled at the last minute a special ceremony during which at least 7,000 slaves were to be granted their freedom.

A spokesman for the government's human rights commission, which had helped to organise the event, said this was because slavery did not exist.

It is not clear why the government, which was also a co-sponsor of the ceremony, changed its position.

At least 43,000 people across Niger are thought to be in slavery.

Representatives of the slaves, the government and human rights campaigners had been due to attend the event at In Ates, near the border with Mali.

A local chief had agreed to the release after the introduction of a new law, which punishes those found guilty of slavery with up to 30 years in jail.

Anti-Slavery International had described the ceremony as a historic step forward.

The British-based campaign group said the people who had been due to be freed made up 95% of the local population.

 

Previous

PAGE: 

1 | 2 | 3 | 4

Next

Comments
MrNailbat

MrNailbat

Atlanta, GA
December 2002

MAR 06, 2005 09:23 AM

We can invade middle eastern nations on the pretext of bringing them democracy, but we can't force some scrutiny on a nation with 43,000 slaves? Come on. This is why America sucks in international perception. We're not out there fighting the 'good fights' we're fighting the beneficial fights.

jake_lex

jake_lex

Lexington, KY
February 2003

MAR 06, 2005 09:27 AM

MrNailbat said:
We can invade middle eastern nations on the pretext of bringing them democracy, but we can't force some scrutiny on a nation with 43,000 slaves? Come on. This is why America sucks in international perception. We're not out there fighting the 'good fights' we're fighting the beneficial fights.



Yeah, to me, that's the fatal flaw of the neo-con world view. They make noises about fighting wars to bring "democracy", but then the fights they pick are ones that, hey, by sheer coincidence, put us in control of great amounts of the world's oil supply.

America has no moral authority left.

Pav

Pav

I'm lost
February 2004

MAR 06, 2005 09:46 AM



[Edited on Mar 06, 2005 by Pav]

garion333

garion333

Colorado Springs, CO
January 2004

MAR 06, 2005 09:52 AM

MrNailbat said:
We can invade middle eastern nations on the pretext of bringing them democracy, but we can't force some scrutiny on a nation with 43,000 slaves? Come on. This is why America sucks in international perception. We're not out there fighting the 'good fights' we're fighting the beneficial fights.



In my ignorance, I didn't realize there was any slavery left. I mean, I know shit like slavery still goes on (sex slaves and such), but I didn't realize that governments actually recognized there are people who are slaves. I thought it was all underground and whatnot, therefore it wouldn't garner international attention.

This makes me . . . . grrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr.

hollownail

hollownail

Radford, VA
October 2004

MAR 06, 2005 09:59 AM



In my ignorance, I didn't realize there was any slavery left. I mean, I know shit like slavery still goes on (sex slaves and such), but I didn't realize that governments actually recognized there are people who are slaves. I thought it was all underground and whatnot, therefore it wouldn't garner international attention.

This makes me . . . . grrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr.



Yeah, I'm with you on that one. Geez, really...
How about some type of pressure there, I'm sure we could help "persuade" a little country like that to "reconsider" their slave laws.

Stirfry

Stirfry

Cleveland, OH
September 2002

MAR 06, 2005 10:06 AM

somehow America will be blamed.

dnmolenaar

dnmolenaar

Minneapolis, MN
May 2004

MAR 06, 2005 10:09 AM

hollownail said:



In my ignorance, I didn't realize there was any slavery left. I mean, I know shit like slavery still goes on (sex slaves and such), but I didn't realize that governments actually recognized there are people who are slaves. I thought it was all underground and whatnot, therefore it wouldn't garner international attention.

This makes me . . . . grrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr.



Yeah, I'm with you on that one. Geez, really...
How about some type of pressure there, I'm sure we could help "persuade" a little country like that to "reconsider" their slave laws.



I doubt they will unless they have large strategic oil reserves or attempt to develop Nuclear bombs anytime soon

Admiral_Pants

Admiral_Pants

Austin, TX
May 2004

MAR 06, 2005 10:18 AM

Pav said:


[Edited on Mar 06, 2005 by Pav]


Oh dear.

mister_x

mister_x

Plano, TX
January 2003

MAR 06, 2005 10:31 AM

Pav said:


[Edited on Mar 06, 2005 by Pav]



YOINK! so long! i'm off to 4chan!

RACER_X

RACER_X

Philadelphia, PA
February 2003

MAR 06, 2005 10:39 AM

MrNailbat said:
We can invade middle eastern nations on the pretext of bringing them democracy, but we can't force some scrutiny on a nation with 43,000 slaves? Come on. This is why America sucks in international perception. We're not out there fighting the 'good fights' we're fighting the beneficial fights.




What the hell does this have to do with anything ?

Where is the UN ? Where is the EU?

And precisely why should the US do anything about slavery in Niger ? Or maybe it would be better to get involved in another tribal war with people and culture who have been exercising cultural hate for thousands of years ?

Yaya America bashing. whatever

Michael_J_Totten

Michael_J_Totten

Iraq
February 2004

MAR 06, 2005 10:46 AM

Nevermind, accidental double-post.

[Edited on Mar 06, 2005 10:50AM]

Michael_J_Totten

Michael_J_Totten

Iraq
February 2004

MAR 06, 2005 10:50 AM

Michael_J_Totten said:
jake_lex said:
Yeah, to me, that's the fatal flaw of the neo-con world view. They make noises about fighting wars to bring "democracy", but then the fights they pick are ones that, hey, by sheer coincidence, put us in control of great amounts of the world's oil supply.


We pick fights that are strategically significant to us, as all countries do and have throughout history. The political dysfunctions in the Middle East are our business because they lead to the toppling of skycrapers in our cities. Democratic reform/revolution in the Middle East is in our self-interest as well as in the interest of Middle Eastern liberals and democrats. Why is this hard to understand?

Besides, I thought the anti-war argument is that Iraq was a distraction from the fight against Al Qaeda. I don't agree with that argument, but I do understand it and I don't think it's insane. But you can't then turn around and say "we should have invaded Niger" instead of Iraq without being accused of advocating a more serious distraction yourself.

jake_lex

jake_lex

Lexington, KY
February 2003

MAR 06, 2005 11:03 AM

Michael_J_Totten said:

Michael_J_Totten said:
jake_lex said:
Yeah, to me, that's the fatal flaw of the neo-con world view. They make noises about fighting wars to bring "democracy", but then the fights they pick are ones that, hey, by sheer coincidence, put us in control of great amounts of the world's oil supply.


We pick fights that are strategically significant to us, as all countries do and have throughout history. The political dysfunctions in the Middle East are our business because they lead to the toppling of skycrapers in our cities. Democratic reform/revolution in the Middle East is in our self-interest as well as in the interest of Middle Eastern liberals and democrats. Why is this hard to understand?

Besides, I thought the anti-war argument is that Iraq was a distraction from the fight against Al Qaeda. I don't agree with that argument, but I do understand it and I don't think it's insane. But you can't then turn around and say "we should have invaded Niger" instead of Iraq without being accused of advocating a more serious distraction yourself.



You completely misrepresented my point. I never advocated going to war with Niger. I simply pointed out that if the US does attempt to make a big deal about this, and bring pressure on Niger to proceed, they will get nowhere, because they have pissed away moral authority with their actions.

And I am yet to be convinced the war in Iraq is about spreading "democracy". We'll see how "democratic" the US allows that government to be, especially if it becomes hostile to American interests there.

freshprncebelair

freshprncebelair

Ellicott City, MD
June 2004

MAR 06, 2005 11:03 AM

Michael_J_Totten said:

Michael_J_Totten said:
jake_lex said:
Yeah, to me, that's the fatal flaw of the neo-con world view. They make noises about fighting wars to bring "democracy", but then the fights they pick are ones that, hey, by sheer coincidence, put us in control of great amounts of the world's oil supply.


We pick fights that are strategically significant to us, as all countries do and have throughout history. The political dysfunctions in the Middle East are our business because they lead to the toppling of skycrapers in our cities. Democratic reform/revolution in the Middle East is in our self-interest as well as in the interest of Middle Eastern liberals and democrats. Why is this hard to understand?

Besides, I thought the anti-war argument is that Iraq was a distraction from the fight against Al Qaeda. I don't agree with that argument, but I do understand it and I don't think it's insane. But you can't then turn around and say "we should have invaded Niger" instead of Iraq without being accused of advocating a more serious distraction yourself.




Yeah, America has always pretty much fought in its own interest, except in a few cases when we halped out the UN in Bosnia and such.

We have always been of high moral mind though, and the American public has traditionally always liked there to be an idealogical reason to go to war.

Lastly, as much as people here are saying we should go into Niger instead of Iraq or whatever, I think we all know that everyone in the world would consider us a bully for doing so, even though we are going in to stop slavery. No matter what America does, some people will always find a reason to hate it.

aegies

aegies

Oakland, CA
June 2004

MAR 06, 2005 11:06 AM

Michael_J_Totten said:

Michael_J_Totten said:
jake_lex said:
Yeah, to me, that's the fatal flaw of the neo-con world view. They make noises about fighting wars to bring "democracy", but then the fights they pick are ones that, hey, by sheer coincidence, put us in control of great amounts of the world's oil supply.


We pick fights that are strategically significant to us, as all countries do and have throughout history. The political dysfunctions in the Middle East are our business because they lead to the toppling of skycrapers in our cities. Democratic reform/revolution in the Middle East is in our self-interest as well as in the interest of Middle Eastern liberals and democrats. Why is this hard to understand?

Besides, I thought the anti-war argument is that Iraq was a distraction from the fight against Al Qaeda. I don't agree with that argument, but I do understand it and I don't think it's insane. But you can't then turn around and say "we should have invaded Niger" instead of Iraq without being accused of advocating a more serious distraction yourself.



i still think it could effectively be argued that situations like this are very much in our interest. earning global goodwill should be a priority for us right now, and the kind of ill will ignoring something like this will bring us could very well make our fight against terrorists and terrorist states more dificult.

Previous

PAGE: 

1 | 2 | 3 | 4

Next

featured interviews