3 ms·

People's opinions about their own countries "are just being used" to support foreign agendas?

• nitrogen 10y ago
  Since this is about an EU decision, yes, that is exactly what is happening.
  • justinlardinois 10y ago
    You're making it sound like the EU is just deciding what's best for Africa, and the Africans in support are just yes men. In your worldview is it ever possible for a governing body to pass laws that have benefits in places outside its jurisdiction, without it being a unilateral decision imposed on them?
    • sangnoir 10y ago
      > You're making it sound like the EU is just deciding what's best for Africa, and the Africans in support are just yes men. That is not the impression I got from OP. There are diverse African voices on the matter, and the Guardian is choosing which voices to amplify. Nothing surprising really, considering where the Guardian sits in the political spectrum.
• sangnoir 10y ago
  > People's opinions about their own countries "are just being used" to support foreign agendas? Is this impossible to fathom? Are you assuming there is a unanimous African POV? I can assure you there isn't one. One of the 4 countries listed with expiring ivory embargoes (Zimbabwe) has an overpopulation(!)[0] of elephants and resorts to culling the herd annually[1]. Because of the embargo and culls, it has a large (and growing) ivory stockpile the country will be a able to sell soon; it makes sense that they would oppose a total ban. 0. A fact that is curiously missing from the article, which suggests either ignorance or bias. Much like the future: elephant extinction isn't uniformly distributed. 1. http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2015/02/150206-elephant-conservation-zimbabwe-culling-animals/ http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2015/02/150206-eleph...