Home More advice Politics & Law
There is (finally) an AP write up on the news of the Maldives presidential election. I'm glad that we actually have some kind of news coverage, as there will be a run off between the incumbent president, who's been in power for 30 years, and the leader of MDP, Mohamed Nasheed.
Interestingly enough, it has to be in less than 10 days - plenty of time for the US, if we cared, to ship an observer as the commonwealth has done in the form of the former prime minister of Barbados.
Personally, I'm upset with the president and the two leading candidates, as both of them pledge to have a "smarter foreign policy" than the existing president of our country. If this was more than lip service, I'd expect action, or at least a call to action, right now. It's not as though they're full time patching the economic meltdown, as there is only so much the government can do on that issue.
Is my cynicism correct, then, that the US only dictates foreign policy in countries where there is some money to be made, and those too small to warrant a strong ROI get left in the cold?
Ha...found it. Check out this link. The US promised to have election observers there.
http://www.state.gov/p/sca/rls/2008/107993.htm
So it seems you are right to be cynical, if the US did not end up sending observers. What's frustrating is that the Maldives apparently wanted the US to observe its elections since they are so historic and haven't happened like this before, to ensure they got it right. So once again, a country with people who view the US as an example of a great democracy, and once again the US fails to pay attention.
Unfortunately the US is to preoccupied with presidential politics. I agree, we should be sending observers. I will write my congressman and senators this afternoon. Everyone else should to...
