Obama and Ondimba: An Uneasy Meeting

  President Obama of the USA has taken some flak for meeting with President Ondimba of Gabon this week.  I can imagine that there would have been some tension and embarrassment in the room, but it would not have been on Ondimba’s side.

President Ondimba of Gabon

  Gabon is a majority Catholic country.  President Ondimba converted to Islam with the rest of the family when his father, then-President Omar Bongo, converted in 1973.  However, the country still promotes the Culture of Life, since this is foundational to both the Catholic faith and Islam.  As a consequence, both contraception and abortion are illegal.

  The contradiction one sees is that President Obama, who claims to be Christian (while a few conspiracy theorists suspect he is Muslim), presides over and promotes a Culture of Death in America.  Since he took office in January 2009, President Obama has been responsible for the killing of over 2.8 million babies in the US.  This amounts to almost twice the population of Gabon – including a disproportionate number of African-Americans, some of whom are descendants of the Fang tribe, which makes up about a third of Gabon’s population.

  Thus I can understand why President Obama would only allow still-photographers into the meeting.  He didn’t want anyone recording President Ondimba asking, “What are you doing to my people?”

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

  Gabon is a West African country, with an area about the same as New Zealand (or the state of Colorado) and a population of 1.5 million.

Related Links:

President Obama invites controversial president of Gabon, Ali Bongo Ondimba, to the White House (NY Daily News) Slave Trade and African-American Ancestry

Osama Bin Laden: Why was killing the object?

One could have a long discussion about whether the killing of Osama bin Laden (if we proceed on the assumption that it did occur) was a murder, an assassination, an extrajudicial killing, a targeted killing, a killing in self-defence, etc. (for information on the distinctions, see the useful articles on Wikipedia).

However, one should also consider whether killing should have been the objective of the operation.  There certainly appeared to be a need to neutralise OBL’s influence over Al Queda and a need to bring him to account for the terrorist acts attributed to him or ostensibly claimed by him.  But, as with the defendants in the Nuremburg Trials after World War II, it would have been far preferable to deal with OBL in accordance with due process.  It seems clear that President Obama and the Navy SEALs were very much intent on a killing, rather than capture.  The unfortunate – but quite foreseeable – result is the current controversy and speculation about OBL’s death, his motivations, etc.  This could have been avoided, and proper justice done, if Operation Geronimo had been directed at capturing OBL.  The SEALs should have gone out of their way to avoid killing him.  President Bush’s “Wanted: Dead or Alive” belongs to the Wild West of the past that he dredged it up from, not in today’s culture. 

The world should have had a chance to see OBL face his accusers, just as it did with Saddam Hussein, and with Göring, Hess, Keitel, et al, at Nuremburg.  It would not have been right for the Allies to simply shoot the Nazis in their beds.  Interestingly, 4 of the 19 Nuremburg defendants found guilty (24 were charged) expressed repentance.  The most important argument against capital punishment (to which targeted killing bears many similarities) is that it removes any further opportunity for repentance and conversion of heart on the part of the one brought to justice.  I pray that those involved in OBL’s killing utilise the time they have left for repentance and conversion.