How The White House Opened Its Doors To Some Of Africa’s Most Evil Dictators And Homophobes...

[Purveyor]

President Barack Obama drew a diplomatic line at the first ever U.S-Africa summit at the White House this week by not inviting Zimbabwe’s brutal dictator Robert Mugabe.

But the guest list still included several other African leaders with only slightly better human rights records.

The White House promoted the summit as the largest-ever gathering of African leaders in the United States, with more than 50 countries represented.

The red carpet was rolled out for Equatorial Guinea's Teodoro Obiang Nguema Mbasogo, who shot or jailed virtually all his political opponents, Gambia’s Yahya Jammeh, who threatened to ‘cut off the head’ of any homosexuals in the country and for Cameroon’s Paul Biya, who has the dubious honor of ranking 19th on author David Wallechinsky's 2006 list of the world's 20 worst living dictators.

Many of the leaders were later photographed in the White House, posing for individual portraits with Obama and the First Lady.

The President's opening speech avoided the prickly issues of homophobia and torture and instead sought out similarities between the two continents.

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2718143/Obamas-monsters-ball-How-White-House-opened-doors-Africas-evil-dictators-homophobes-turned-blind-eye-human-rights-record.html#ixzz39jwSleUp

[RKP5637]

1. To the WH ...

[el_bryanto]

2. It is tricky - on the one hand we can't exert pressure without engaging with them

On the other hand, it does lend legitimacy to some pretty awful people.

Bryant

[AngryAmish]

4. The only pressure that should be applied toTeodoro Obiang Nguema Mbasogo

is a noose around his neck. He is a genocidal maniac. And he is a cannibal. Literally a cannibal. As in he eats people.

Eqyitorial Guinea is in the running with North Korea as the worst place on earth.

[Bluenorthwest]

6. Ronald Reagan refused to boycott South Africa 'cause, you know, you have to engage them....

most Democrats condemned him then and now for that. What do you think? Was it wrong to boycott them instead of having them over for dinner?

[el_bryanto]

8. That seems like a more clear cut case to me

Then again, it seemed clear that the Reagan administration was in sympathy with the White South Africans; I don't know that the Obama administration is in sympathy with these regimes. We also don't know what is being said privately. That said, it seems like a problematic strategy.

Bryant

[TwilightGardener]

3. You have to engage in order to have any influence.

Establish or strengthen the relationship, and then you have some basis to press your case.

[Bluenorthwest]

5. When did the defintion of 'engage' become 'given honors at the WH'?

Must diplomacy mean instantly promoting monsters to high honors and lending legitimacy to murderous bigots and genocidal dictators? We couldn't say, send them some cool tech and foodstuff with a nice note attached?
So in your opinion, Reagan was right to refuse to boycott South Africa, because to have influence you have to engage?

[TwilightGardener]

7. We are in a battle for influence around the world. It's either us,

or it's Russia and China. It's also important to remember that leaders come and go, but you make contacts and outreach that will hopefully outlast them.

[LuvNewcastle]

9. Disgusting. That's all there is to it.

I think we can build trade with those countries without honoring those bastards at the White House.

[Scuba]

10. Not really difficult to understand ....