Admittedly, it might well have been appropriate for the US to act in the Rwandan genocide crisis, 
but Clinton was not the person to lead such an intervention. 
Had he determined to lead such an effort, 
it would not have been possible. It is simply more question 
as to his fitness for the office. 
He has indicted himself.


It might be arguably appropriate for the US to intervene in the Sudanese civil war now, or in any number 
of other trouble-spots. We cannot do it everywhere everytime. And we certainly cannot do it with the military 
in its present state, thanks to Bill Clinton. Furthermore, it would take much more of a commitment, 
and a commensurate level of moral authority, leadership, and fortitude than we now have in the White House. 
There are situations which do cry out for action but for which strong leadership (and an adequately 
strong military) would nevertheless be required. Of course, as he has to a number of other places 
over the past five years (Macedonia, Bosnia, Haiti, the Gulf, etc), Clinton could send in 
25000 American troops, probably wearing blue helmuts, to deal with the matter.


Admittedly, it might well have been appropriate for the US to act in the Rwandan genocide crisis,
but Clinton was not the person to lead such an intervention. Had he determined to lead such an
effort, it would not have been possible. It is simply more question as to his fitness for the office. He
has indicted himself.


It might be arguably appropriate for the US to intervene in the Sudanese civil war now, or in any
number of other trouble-spots. We cannot do it everywhere everytime. And we certainly cannot do
it with the military in its present state, thanks to Bill Clinton. Furthermore, it would take much more
of a commitment, and a commensurate level of moral authority, leadership, and fortitude than we
now have in the White House. There are situations which do cry out for action but for which strong
leadership (and a strong military) would nevertheless be required. Of course, as he has to a number
of other places over the past five years (Macedonia, Bosnia, Haiti, the Gulf, etc), Clinton could send
in 25000 American troops, probably wearing blue helmets, to deal with the matter.


As he came to South Africa on Thursday, Clinton found himself facing some dissident voices, as
ANC voices unhappy with US consternation of South Africa for its friendliness with Quaddafi and others were
cool to him. He also faced criticism for not having condemned the Reagan Administration's
'constructive engagement' policy, although it probably had more to do with the collapse of apartheid
than anything else. But Clinton has continued with repetition of his strange version of market
preference in his words in this country. He went so far as to visit a new housing development project
and, with Hillary laid mortar and bricks. While the action was more ceremonial than anything else, it
may represent the 'Maoist' anti-technology and appropriate technology mentality which is at the
heart of this administration. Curiously, his visit will not take him to any of the several real
development projects with its neighbors which South Africa is engaged in, such as that in the
Mobutu Corridor, or similar projects elsewhere. 


Clinton is also taking some heat for the size of is entourage

on this trip -- around 1000 in all. There seems to be some
   cronyism even here, with Democratic contributors making up a
 large part of the group, as a reward for their gifts.



South Africa's reception of Clinton has been cool at best.
 They have seemed to be chuckling about his personal problems.
 Crowds have been small, the press has been curt, and even
 parliament was merely polite. For his part, his announced
 loan kitty of OPIC credit for two-thirds of a billion dollars
 for African infrastructure and trade development was
 laughable in its inadequancy, even though it was supposed

to be the center-piece of  his trip. After this, it is not
 likely that his return through Botswana (for a safari!) or
 Senegal, commemorating the staging area of slave ships to
 North America, will add much to consider. It hasn't had much
 of an impact in the US either. It has failed to drive the
 stories about Paula Jones or Monica Lewinsky off the front
 pages,and, indeed, new stories have emerged involving charges

(and videotapes) of flight attendants aboard Air Force 1,

among others. And, before he completed his excursion, word

came that the Arkansas Federal Judge hearing the Paula Jones

case had dismissed it. The media and White House described 

as a vindication of Clinton, when in fact it was quite the

opposite of that. The legal point was that given Clinton had

done all that Ms. Jones alleged and had proven, there was

no basis for a claim on sexual harassment! The big losers

in this will be other women who are victims of such
 harassment. It has been made more difficult to prove damages.

Even in the revelry over the dismissal, the New York Times

editorialized on April 2 that this would allow Clinton to 

clean up his act if he wanted to and set upon a course which

might allow him to be a role model and ethical leader.

The message inherent in that is the shame of even his 

supporters as his character flaws.

*See note on this case



Interestingly, too, despite the Clinton administration's
 recent claim of executive privilege to conceal the truth, 

Clinton has responded to questions about it by advising 

reporters that he knew nothing about it and that they should

ask attornies in Washington about it! Only the President can

invoke it, however, but it worked with this press  corps.

There are even rumors that it will invoked by the First Lady

in her 'official' capacity!


 
It won't be found in the American media,but one has to really
 wonder why this trip was made at all. It has accomplished
 very little, if anything, except for a chance for Clinton to
 be stroked in public. It may increase investment, but that
 has already been rising, and will continue to do so.

If anything, this may slow it down a bit. It will not alter
 very much our trade with Africa, either, which is currently

90% for oil.



One large South African newspaper ran a front page picture

of a graffiti scene from a wall in South Africa which had
 scrawled: "Bill Who?" Perhaps the best that can be said

about this trip is not much different than can be said about
 the entire tenure of office of this character:

                       "Oh No, Mr. Bill!"




Return to Beginning of this issue