Phil:
I agree with some of the stuff you said there. The European territorial holdings in Africa were released (in my humble and probably over-cynical opinion) as a backlash from World War II and the economic crumble that followed. They were not prepared for independence even if they wanted it for all the right reasons, and there were more than enough thugs willing to either fight for the leadership role themselves or to back those who did. This isn't even taking into account the people who picked one side over another just to get the money to feed their families. he biggest problem, I believe, is that the countries the Europeans made were created without thought for tribal boudaries and squabbles, Rwanda being but one of many examples.

I was privileged to be given the opportunity to spend a little over a month in Malawi in the summer of '99. It was one of the most enlightening experiences of my life. Here in the US I and others like me take for granted having food on the table every day,not to mention food that is different. The people I got to know in Chipoka, a small town on the coast of Lake Malawi (Nyasa) were privileged to have food every day, and each day was the same. Probably 85 to 90 percent of their diet was a flour and water paste that was dipped in various sauces made from the local vegetation. If it was a special occasion they would kill one of their almost wild goats and use its meat as well. In spite of their position, however, they were for the most part as open and friendly as any American, if not more so. It was amazing to watch them be happy in what we would call complete poverty.

However, given all of this, at least Malawi was not quite as totalitarian as might be imagined. The government in Liliongwe was a dictatorship and driving down the streets you saw open backed trucks full of quasi-soldiers with their AK-47's, etc., but once you got into the more rural areas, the people lived under much the same rule as they have for centuries. When we needed to cut down some trees to support a concrete floor we were pouring, we did not go see a local toadie but the local chief who got his position from his predecessor going back to pre-colonial Africa. Granted there have been changes but they are mostly superficial. I would be the last person to apply this to the rest of Africa, but I think it shows that if racial and tribal rivalries are either removed or too far away in the first place, and a good leader is present, even if there is poverty, the government can be good. While I was there I was helping build an orphanage, and the local clinic was trying to expand. The children were receiving educations and even 8 and 9 year ols could speak 2 or 3 languages, whatever tribal language they grew up with and English (Malawi is a former British colony). So even though they are poor, they are improving. The only problem is stopping the everpresent conflicts and getting people back to what is important -- survival. If this means breaking up countries, it has to be done, but I do not think the US should be doing it. It is in too many places right now to be as effective as it could be in the case of war, and another force out there would be like trying to pick up sand, the more you reach for the more that slips through your fingers. I'm not the UN's biggest proponent by a long shot but this is where it needs to step up and prove that it was made for something other than environmentalism (not that that is bad). If it can't do it, its time for another organization to replace it like it did the League of Nations.

Oh, and just for the record, a 2$ bill is still 2 bucks :). Peace, and maybe one day I can say it and it will be true.