• 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.

  • PERMALINK
  • PRINT
  • Digg This
  • Email To A Friend
 

Previous

PAGE: 

1 | 2 | 3 | 4

Next

Comments
Waldo_Jeffers

Waldo_Jeffers

United Kingdom
OLD SKOOL

MAR 06, 2005 11:16 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 think that the issue here is the discordance between way that the politicians presented their reasons for invading Iraq and the (probably) actual intentions. In the run up to the war in Iraq, we heard a great deal about how Iraq was an oppressive regime and how Saddam Hussein was a dictator guilty of human rights abuses and how our troops were going to liberate the Iraqi people. Now that the war is over and people have had time to reflect, it is tempting think that maybe Iraq's oil wealth had more to do with the political motivation behind the invasion of Iraq than any human rights abuses. It is tempting to speculate whether the politicians were simply playing the human rights card in order to put a happy face on their oil-grabbing greedy plans!

The situation in Niger serves to underline this point as here we have a country where human rights abuses are clearly taking place, but we don't hear our politicians talking about sending in the troops to liberate the oppressed people of Niger. Hmm! Perhaps our politicians aren't all that concerned about human rights after all.

bean

bean

STAFF

Los Angeles, CA

MAR 06, 2005 11:20 AM

Frankly, I think it's absurd that every civilized nation on Earth hasn't been shouting at the top of their lungs about this. I don't know why everyone's obsessed with the question of invading. If international pressure can force Syria to agree to pull out of Lebanon, surely international pressure could force Niger to abolish slavery.

[Edited on Mar 06, 2005 by bean]

FreakPirate

FreakPirate

Canada
November 2002

MAR 06, 2005 11:23 AM

bean said:
Frankly, I think it's absurd that every civilized nation on Earth hasn't been shouting at the top of their lungs about this. I don't know why everyone's obsessed with the question of invading. If international pressure can force Syria to agree to pull out of Lebanon, surely international pressure could force Niger to abolish slavery.

[Edited on Mar 06, 2005 by bean]



Exactly.

I don't really care who does it. You can the US, the UN, or Poland for all I care. Slavery... for Christ sake...

artRob

artRob

I'm lost
January 2005

MAR 06, 2005 11:29 AM

I can see it already...

press: GWB, why don't you take a firm stand with the world when it comes to issues like Niger's tolerance of slavery?

GWB: Well, eh, you see, this is a different kind of war were fightin here...a different kind...eh, the world is a safer place..and we gotta long fight ahead of us...


Translation: shut cher pie hole...were interested in black gold, not black souls...now git on outa here.

Kesu

Kesu

Burnaby, BC
March 2004

MAR 06, 2005 11:30 AM

If the neocons decided that it was a great idea to invade Niger right now - whether the reason was supposedly humanitarian or if it was to take Niger's uranium supply or something - those of us arguing against invading Niger would be accused of being pro-slavery Tandja-lovers right now.

Roethke

Roethke

SUICIDEGIRL

California, USA

MAR 06, 2005 11:48 AM

bean said:
Frankly, I think it's absurd that every civilized nation on Earth hasn't been shouting at the top of their lungs about this. I don't know why everyone's obsessed with the question of invading. If international pressure can force Syria to agree to pull out of Lebanon, surely international pressure could force Niger to abolish slavery.

[Edited on Mar 06, 2005 by bean]


Slavery is more rampant now, and by now I mean this very minute, than it has ever been in the history of the world. Niger is not the only place where human beings are rouinely bought and sold for the equivalent of a few dollars.

Bastardo

Bastardo

Boston, MA
January 2005

MAR 06, 2005 11:50 AM

I didn't even know Niger had slaves. And how can they just change their mind about whether or not they exist? WTF mate?

DopeSpike

dopespike

Columbus, OH
October 2003

MAR 06, 2005 11:52 AM

Fuck those who blame the US for this situation... The UN and EU should get off their asses and actually do something in the world for once.

bluestreak

bluestreak

United Kingdom
January 2005

MAR 06, 2005 12:12 PM

i don't think anyone was blaming the US for this. i think people were merely using this as an example of international hypocrisy on interventionism amongst not just the US but also the UN and EU.

I personally want to know why the British govt. aren't making a stand on this one. and i know the reason - its because niger cannot in any way be said to represent a threat and its got nothing we want to control.

But morally ALL governments in all nations should be standing up to this bullshit.

How? i recommend trade and debt control -based treaties, after all I know we get food from Niger. Seems better than military power.

Holy_Mountain

Holy_Mountain

West Palm Beach, FL
February 2004

MAR 06, 2005 12:14 PM

Racer_X said:

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 ?



And us Americans have never excercise cultural hate or slavery before.

[Edited on Mar 06, 2005 3:19PM]

reprobate

reprobate

New Orleans, LA
December 2002

MAR 06, 2005 12:21 PM

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.



Were they having a closeout sale on strawmen down at PNAC, because I'm afraid yours are a bit shopworn.

TheFuckOffKid

TheFuckOffKid

NEWSWIRE

Australia

MAR 06, 2005 12:28 PM

Roethke said:

bean said:
Frankly, I think it's absurd that every civilized nation on Earth hasn't been shouting at the top of their lungs about this. I don't know why everyone's obsessed with the question of invading. If international pressure can force Syria to agree to pull out of Lebanon, surely international pressure could force Niger to abolish slavery.

[Edited on Mar 06, 2005 by bean]


Slavery is more rampant now, and by now I mean this very minute, than it has ever been in the history of the world. Niger is not the only place where human beings are rouinely bought and sold for the equivalent of a few dollars.


Roethke is right.

Australia's has an ongoing problem with sex slavery, mosrtly of Asian women brought over under false pretences or under duress, and kept in brothels with their passports confiscated.

reprobate

reprobate

New Orleans, LA
December 2002

MAR 06, 2005 12:34 PM

bean said:
Frankly, I think it's absurd that every civilized nation on Earth hasn't been shouting at the top of their lungs about this. I don't know why everyone's obsessed with the question of invading. If international pressure can force Syria to agree to pull out of Lebanon, surely international pressure could force Niger to abolish slavery.

[Edited on Mar 06, 2005 by bean]



Perhaps if the slaves had yellow cake we could send an envoy.

bean

bean

STAFF

Los Angeles, CA

MAR 06, 2005 12:34 PM

DopeSpike said:
Fuck those who blame the US for this situation... The UN and EU should get off their asses and actually do something in the world for once.



For once? You mean like killing 60 militia members in Congo during efforts to disarm them? The fact that you don't know what the UN is doing does not mean that they aren't doing anything.

I do agree that the UN and the EU should act, but I also think that the US and every other country on the map who would like to be considered civilized should join in the chorus. I also don't think that anyone should be blaming anyone else for not taking action, because the fact that slavery still exists anywhere in the 21st century is a failure of the entire international community.

legionnaire

legionnaire

Belgium
November 2003

MAR 06, 2005 12:37 PM

skankzor said:
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.


That wasn't the case in the first Gulf war, primarily for three reasons.

First, there was a much clearer justification for the invasion of Iraq because they had violated international law by invading Kuwait.

Second, there was no attempt to topple the existing regime and replace it with one more favorable to US interests. Bush sr. even admits in his memoirs that despite calls from within the US to "finish the job" and kill of Hussein, we lacked the political will or moral authority to do so.

And thirdly, and possibly most importantly, that war was waged as an international coalition with significant military representation from many different countries. It eliminated the possibility of calls against "US imperialism" because it was a multinational force operating under a UN mandate to accomplish a specific goal.

A similarly structured military intervention into Niger, one that actually followed the established rules of international diplomacy rather than the "make it up as you go" policies of the Bush administration would probably do more to help the US international reputation than hinder it, and I think you'd be pleasantly surprised by the response of the same countries that were against the second invasion of Iraq.

Previous

PAGE: 

1 | 2 | 3 | 4

Next

featured interviews