I dont't think that George Bush is an exception to the norm.  He is no
different from any of the former US presidents who have tradiionally
neglected Africa. The issue of strategic interest is key here.  This country
claims to have no strategic interest in our continent and therefore, relative
to what other countries recieve, we get peanuts from them in terms of loans
or any significant assistance.  It was not until recently that Clinton became
the first US president to visit Africa. And even this trip was a whirlwind
tour where he would stop at a particular airport, disembark for a few hours
to ride triumphantly through jubilant crowds as if he was the second coming
of the messiah.  Then he would hop on to his plane again for a repeat process
of the previous day in some other country.  His trip was good example of how
the US views Africa, as a dangerous and unstable place not worth wasting any
time in.

But I actually believe that Clinton has the best interest of Africa at heart.
 His major obstacle is the US senate and congress.  Respected  racist
hardliners like Jesse Helms carry a lot of weight when it comes to this
country's relationship with Africa.  As long as people like Helms continue to
control voting patterns in the senate and congress, change will be very slow
coming.

Don't get me wrong, Bush is a dangerous fella not worth voting for.  He might
even be the reincarnation of the anti-christ.  However, in regards to his
views towards Africa, he is not much different from the rest of them.

Yus

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

To unsubscribe/subscribe or view archives of postings, go to the Gambia-L
Web interface at: http://maelstrom.stjohns.edu/archives/gambia-l.html

----------------------------------------------------------------------------