PDA

View Full Version : The role of non-African powers in Africa: a discussion



Jedburgh
02-12-2007, 08:59 PM
Chatham House, Feb 07: French Foreign Policy in Africa: Between Pre Carre and Multilateralism (http://www.chathamhouse.org.uk/pdf/research/africa/BNAfrica0207.pdf)

France’s monopoly of Africa is under threat. The last 50 years have seen the French battling to hold on to the ‘privileged relationship’ with their former colonial empire, and a number of factors have forced the once imperial power into redefining its affiliation with ex-colonies, such as new laws on aid distribution, the integration of the EU and modern economic reforms.

In the post-Cold War era, ‘multilateralism’ has become the latest political buzzword, and in its wake a notable shift in French policy in Africa has emerged. This shift, combined with a new generation of French politicians claiming to herald a fresh approach, might suggest that changes are on the way.

As this paper will discuss, however, France has been reluctant to adapt. Certain members of the French elite have benefited from neo-colonial models and are in no hurry to normalise dealings; it’s instructive, therefore, to examine what adjustments have come out of multilateralism and if a new class of politicians really can bring about change....

Stan
02-12-2007, 09:42 PM
Thanks Jed !
To quote one of Tom's most famous lines (I nearly fell off my chair when Tom explained what was happening.)


I know when I first met with the French, one colonel who was the equivalent of the French civil affairs and PSYOPs officer dismissed me in French as "an ignorant American who cannot possibly understand the real situation." He said it in French, assuming I did not understand. I looked at him, smiled, and kept saying, "Wee wee, Kernel," in Texan French, all the while hoping he might amplify his dismissal.

We already concluded, they had no clue what the real situation was.

nichols
02-12-2007, 09:54 PM
I think the dam started to break when they devalued the CFA in 94, it took DOS a while to catch up so we were living high on the hog for a while.

Stan
02-12-2007, 10:14 PM
Evening Nichols !
Very well put ! More from Tom's book.


When the refugee flood started in July, 1994, Kinshasa became the sideshow. The ultimate fate of Zaire would be decided in the east, not in the capital city. As a result, Kate Crawford, Stan Reber, and I remained the core of embassy operations in eastern Zaire. We could have used help.

No, unfortunately, they did not send help :mad:

The currency mamas were our best friends and log base ;)

Tom Odom
02-16-2007, 05:42 PM
I remain suspicious that anything is changing except the name. France and Rwanda remain at cultural and political logger heads--and the real issue is the "loss" of another francophone country to those English-speaking RPF leaders who failed to see things the way Paris wished.

Best

Tom

SWJED
03-29-2007, 04:18 AM
Political Warfare in Sub-Saharan Africa: U.S. Capabilities and Chinese Operations in Ethiopia, Kenya, Nigeria, and South Africa (http://www.strategicstudiesinstitute.army.mil/pubs/display.cfm?pubID=766) by Dr. Donovan C. Chau. New publication at the US Army's Strategic Studies Insitute (http://www.strategicstudiesinstitute.army.mil/).


Domestic and international terrorism aside, the United States and the People’s Republic of China (PRC), are vying for influence over African governments and people. Not unlike the Cold War, the primary means of exerting influence in Africa is through the use of nonviolent instruments of grand strategy. The author considers one nonviolent instrument of grand strategy in particular, political warfare. He suggests that the PRC has used political warfare as its leading grand strategic instrument in Africa and offers a concise, detailed overview of U.S. capabilities to conduct political warfare in Africa in four of its nation-states.

Jedburgh
04-08-2008, 12:55 PM
Chatham House, 7 Apr 08: India's Engagement with the African Indian Ocean Rim States (http://www.chathamhouse.org.uk/publications/papers/download/-/id/607/file/11293_india_africa0408.pdf)

In recent years India has strengthened its involvement in the African Indian Ocean Rim considerably. This shift in policy comes in part because of India's desire to compete with China's growing influence in the region. The Indian Ocean has immense significance to India's development. India's strategy is deepening not only commercially but due to concerns over its security and hegemony in the region, which are underpinned by India's 2004 maritime doctrine.

During the mid-1990s Indian foreign policy was largely introspective and concerned with consolidating its position as the regional power. Despite being a member of the Indian Ocean Rim Association for Regional Cooperation, there was little enthusiasm for the association and it produced few tangible results. The emergence of trilateral developmental initiative between India, Brazil and South Africa clearly reflected India's priority of positioning itself as a major developmental power.

The growing importance of the African Indian Ocean Rim to India is evidenced by increasing bilateral and trilateral efforts and improved relations, notably with Mauritius, the Seychelles, Madagascar and coastal states such as Mozambique, Kenya and Tanzania. India's most formidable economic and commercial partnership in the African Indian Ocean is with Mauritius.....

Tom Odom
04-08-2008, 06:09 PM
Colonial history has tied a number of African Indian Ocean Rim countries to the India sub-continent since the 16th Century. Mozambique was a staging post for the Portuguese in Goa and often used over stamped Indian rupees. The British East Africa Protectorate (now Kenya and parts of Uganda) was originally administered out of Bombay and Indian rupees were its currency from 1897-1920.ii Today rupees remain the currency of the Seychelles and Mauritius and a significant Indian diaspora lives along the coast of East and Southern Africa, particularly in Mauritius, Kenya and South Africa.iii India has its most comprehensive diplomatic presence in this part of Africa, with embassies or high commissions in Kenya, Tanzania, Mozambique, South Africa, Seychelles, Madagascar and Mauritius.iv

This is an interesting paper. This development really is a question of form finally following substance. As indicated by the introduction, Indian ties to Africa date at least to the 16th century. The significance of this, however, goes well beyond the diplomatic presence highlighted in the opening paragraph. The Indian (and south Asian as a whole) population across the continent is huge and plays a tremendous role in nearly all aspects of life in the individual countries. In competition with China, it gives India a home team advantage the Chinese cannot match.

Best

Tom

Stan
04-08-2008, 07:16 PM
The Statesman (http://www.thestatesman.net/page.news.php?clid=3&theme=&usrsess=1&id=198462) tends to steer away from economic cooperation and partnerships concentrating on long-term goal-oriented results. The article however spends too much time avoiding comparisons to the greedy west and energy hungry China. Interesting enough, but not very well balanced reporting.


The first ever India-Africa Forum Summit in New Delhi on April 8-9 brings together top functionaries and heads of governments of 14 African countries with their Indian counterparts to raise an old friendship to a new level. The summit is being held at a plastic juncture in world politics when the old order of unipolarity is giving way to a new distribution of power spread out more evenly across Asia, Europe and North America.

New Delhi has a longstanding programme called Indian Technical and Economic Cooperation (ITEC) through which thousands of nominees from African countries have been imparted training in defence preparedness, agriculture, small scale industries, entrepreneurship, engineering, telecommunications and engineering. ITEC has provided valuable support to the Afro-Asian Rural Reconstruction Organisation and inaugurated cooperation with regional African groups like the Southern African Development Community. The summit meeting on April 8-9 should strengthen this pillar of India-Africa partnership to neutralise fears that New Delhi is wooing Africa solely for greed of mineral treasures.

By upgrading initiatives like ITEC to the entire member base of the African Union, India can send the message that its intentions in Africa are not exploitative in the typical Western fashion. Indian diplomats are sensitive to the charge that they are courting Africa in order to compete geopolitically with China in an energy hunt. New Delhi has rejected appeals to team up with European and North American companies in Africa.

AdamG
04-09-2008, 06:06 PM
Somewhere, years ago, I remember reading a theory that Delhi would releave some of their own overpopulation problems and 'fill the vacuum' after HIV leaves swaths of Africa empty.

Meanwhile, just last night:

New Delhi - The first India-Africa Summit began in New Delhi on Tuesday with the Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh announcing a duty-free trade preference scheme for 34 African countries, among the least-developed nations in the world.
http://news.monstersandcritics.com/southasia/news/article_1398851.php/India_woos_Africa_removes_trade_tariffs_for_34_nat ions__Roundup_

Ray
04-09-2008, 06:37 PM
In competition with China, it gives India a home team advantage the Chinese cannot match.

It does, but is the Indian govt upto it?

The Indian govt has always been ambivalent and of the pussy footing type.

Nehru's desire to be larger than life and larger than the India polity cost India Kashmir, Aksai China and Tibet.

Mrs Gandhi alone showed that Indians are made of sterner stuff.

Thereafter,the deluge continues. India continues to kowtow to China instead of standing firm on her commitments and historical realities

With the Communists as the current govt's soul support, she is losing out everywhere, domestically as also externally.

Therefore, even if Africa is given on a platter, India will be all thumbs!

tequila
04-09-2008, 10:44 PM
Interesting - when did India ever have a realistic chance of gaining control over Tibet?

Also, why exactly would the Tibetans welcome control from New Delhi any more than from Beijing?

Tom Odom
09-30-2009, 07:50 AM
I guess some types will never change and this is a case in point. Third-party meddling is always a distractor and often a deliberate ploy to derail or deflect ongoing efforts. The idea that Qatar has any interests in southern Sudan beyond supporting Khartoum is laughable.

This is something of a new twist: a sort of diplomatic mercenary, an "Envoy per Warren Zevon" for hire. Too bad, Zevon is gone. He could pen a "Bud, the Wheeler, Dealer."

Tom



A Cold War Man, a Hot War and a Legal Gray Area (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/09/29/AR2009092903840.html?sid=ST2009093000189)
By Dan Eggen
Washington Post Staff Writer
Wednesday, September 30, 2009

McFarlane's Mission
The approach by Sudanese officials led to a $1.3 million contract for former national security adviser Robert "Bud" McFarlane, who went on to meet with two of the Obama administration's top policymakers on Sudan and its strife-torn Darfur region, according to documents and interviews

M-A Lagrange
10-07-2009, 06:45 AM
Hi Tom,

Just up dated South Sudan threat with that info: http://www.sudantribune.com/spip.php?article32703

When saying no means yes...

Tom Odom
10-07-2009, 09:08 AM
Hi Tom,

Just up dated South Sudan threat with that info: http://www.sudantribune.com/spip.php?article32703

When saying no means yes...


But Sudanese presidential adviser Mustafa Ismail denied any such endeavors by his government.

“We should not believe anything mentioned in the Washington Post or any newspaper” Ismail was quoted by Sudan official news agency (SUNA) as saying.

And of course SUNA--always known for its accuracy from my days in Sudan...

JMA
04-17-2010, 01:15 AM
Moderators Note - see Post No.11 for why this thread has been started. Thanks.



Renewed Conflict in Sudan

http://africacenter.org/2010/04/renewed-conflict-in-sudan/

An interesting communication from council of Foreign Relations

Otherwise, an interesting development of the election boycott:
http://www.sudantribune.com/spip.php?article34652

And the US to wonder if some delay could be a solution. With Bashir insulting everyone at the end:
http://www.sudantribune.com/spip.php?article34662

Despite the crazy talk from Bashir and the US and SPLM playing at should I go or should I stay… NEC is doing what looks to me as what JMM describes as lawfare. Well, at least to a fuzzy move to actually force SPLM to stay in the course and make those election credible.
I just do not see the benefit. Let's dream and imagine that SPLM candidate in North is elected while boycotting the elections. I do not see Bashir and SAF nicely and fairly saying: we lost, please take the keys of the office.
But by saying SPLM cannot redraw now, Bashir is buying credibility, at least legally. Rule of law, rule of law...

And here is what Moscow thinks about the situation: (Sorry the link is in french)
http://fr.rian.ru/world/20100405/186393760.html

Basically Moscow is saying let’s go for elections. For them, the elections have to happen because of Darfur peace process.
It’s a dam fair and bright comment. The only out come of those elections, part from an increase of tensions between North and South ARE the Doha agreement.

Don't worry about what Russia is saying, don't worry about what the US is saying... worry only about what China wants for the region.

M-A Lagrange
04-17-2010, 02:05 PM
I am not sure that China is the main problem. China playes almost openly its carts. It is rather USA with basically no real African policy which is the problem here.

Partition of Sudan may (or may not in fact) put China in a corner as they have invest in oil infrastructures in North. But US policy to stabilize South Sudan is, at the best, foggy for the momment.
Sitting on a gold mountain is useless when there is no mines to exploit it.;)

By the way, several post have been sent with info on China policy.:D

JMA
04-17-2010, 03:23 PM
I am not sure that China is the main problem. China playes almost openly its carts. It is rather USA with basically no real African policy which is the problem here.

Partition of Sudan may (or may not in fact) put China in a corner as they have invest in oil infrastructures in North. But US policy to stabilize South Sudan is, at the best, foggy for the momment.
Sitting on a gold mountain is useless when there is no mines to exploit it.;)

By the way, several post have been sent with info on China policy.:D

Why should the US have an African policy? They can concentrate of the offshore oilfields and leave the rest to China. The mere expectation that the US has or should have an Africa policy is the first mistake.

Africa remembers the US (Clinton) failure to act on Rwanda, and the US humiliation in Mogadishu, The CIA cock-up in Angola, the failure to act on Zimbabwe and really no serious African is expecting anything from the US. So the best advice is to do the same. Don't expect any coherent policy or action from the US on Africa.

M-A Lagrange
04-17-2010, 05:00 PM
Why should the US have an African policy? They can concentrate of the offshore oilfields and leave the rest to China. The mere expectation that the US has or should have an Africa policy is the first mistake.

Africa remembers the US (Clinton) failure to act on Rwanda, and the US humiliation in Mogadishu, The CIA cock-up in Angola, the failure to act on Zimbabwe and really no serious African is expecting anything from the US. So the best advice is to do the same. Don't expect any coherent policy or action from the US on Africa.

Well, USA does have an African policy. :rolleyes: And oil is not the only natural resource of Africa, far from it.
Sorry Sir, but africa does count in a multi polar world. And serious african do expect things from USA. Not because the actual president is a black man but because USA cannot afford Somalia to exist, cannot afford Islamist to have a safe heaven on that continent. Because North Sudan is becoming the wheat plant for Arab countries and are building a power pole through religious cultural proximity. Because soon USA will have to buy Chinese iron to produce steel... (the list is not exhaustive)
There are many reasons for USA to have an African policy. But as everything, politic does not like vaccum. Therefore, there will be someone else who will take its place...;)

JMA
04-17-2010, 05:50 PM
Well, USA does have an African policy. :rolleyes: And oil is not the only natural resource of Africa, far from it.
Sorry Sir, but africa does count in a multi polar world. And serious african do expect things from USA. Not because the actual president is a black man but because USA cannot afford Somalia to exist, cannot afford Islamist to have a safe heaven on that continent. Because North Sudan is becoming the wheat plant for Arab countries and are building a power pole through religious cultural proximity. Because soon USA will have to buy Chinese iron to produce steel... (the list is not exhaustive)
There are many reasons for USA to have an African policy. But as everything, politic does not like vaccum. Therefore, there will be someone else who will take its place...;)

It would be face saving to believe that the US has no Africa policy and does not need one. If the US needs one or actually has one then it is a sad illustration of foreign policy incompetence at a level the world has never yet seen. After Mogadishu it is unlikely US forces will be committed anywhere in Africa again. Zimbabwe for example could have been and could still be sorted out with two non-ballistic cruise missiles. One for Mugabe and one for his Joint Operations Command (JOC) when in session. It would have been as easy as that. But there is no way China would give the nod for such action.

Ken White
04-17-2010, 07:50 PM
...Zimbabwe for example could have been and could still be sorted out with two non-ballistic cruise missiles. One for Mugabe and one for his Joint Operations Command (JOC) when in session. It would have been as easy as that. But there is no way China would give the nod for such action.Nor is there much of any way the US Congress would give its approval of such an action -- not to speak of the rest of the world. While you may have an argument with Mugabe, I suspect the majority of your fellow South Africans would go bonkers criticizing the US had we foolishly done what you suggest. :wry:

As for no commitment in Africa, I presume you mean large scale combat troop commitment as opposed to the number of US force commitments in Africa today and over the past 17 years. Your logic on the issue was also shared before late 2001 by a number of people who said the US would not commit troops but would merely do what you suggest, lob a missile or two, therefor they could attack the US with impunity -- or close to it...

Every war we've been involved with for over 220 years occurred in large part because someone made the stupid assumption that "the Americans won't fight." The later ones tend to last too long because we foolishly try to be nice -- I think we're finally starting to realize that's really dumb on our part.

JMA
04-17-2010, 09:10 PM
Nor is there much of any way the US Congress would give its approval of such an action -- not to speak of the rest of the world. While you may have an argument with Mugabe, I suspect the majority of your fellow South Africans would go bonkers criticizing the US had we foolishly done what you suggest. :wry:

You took the bait there Ken.

I would have thought it would be easier (to get congressional and world support) to toss a few missiles into Zimbabwe than to invade Iraq? Maybe you missed it but most of the world went bonkers when the US went into Iraq? Did the US give damn? But now you are suggesting that the US should worry about what the people of the world would think about Zimbabwe's criminal leadership being taken out when they don't give daman about using drones to fire missiles into Pakistan (a supposed ally) against the wishes of the government and people of that country? Consistency, Ken, consistency.

Ken White
04-17-2010, 10:10 PM
I would have thought it would be easier (to get congressional and world support) to toss a few missiles into Zimbabwe than to invade Iraq?Possibly true for many places, less true for any former British colony. You apparently didn't notice that we tend to defer to the British on those. As for other places, you may be correct -- but that only shows how out of touch 'western values' are with reality.
Maybe you missed it but most of the world went bonkers when the US went into Iraq? Did the US give damn?I say western because the ME predictably did object to our invasion of Iraq but only on a pro forma basis to get the 'rest of the world' roused in a futile attempt to stop it. You may have noted that once it went, they basically quited down -- because they fully understood why we had done it even if most westerners did not.

Many have never figured out that Afghanistan was about attacking the US on its own soil and that Iraq was a message to the Middle East that a long series of probes and action emanating from there against US interests worldwide need to stop. WMD, oil and all that foolishness had virtually nothing to do with it.

The folks in the ME understood that and you may have noticed that the Asians made almost no noise about it because they understood that it was all about reversing the damage four previous Presidents had done by accepting probes from the ME since 1979. All the noise was European hearth yammering. They and South America. Who rightfully object from experience to our meddling and interventions. :o

Some people here also yammered; about a third. That's typical here for any military effort, 1/3 objects, 1/3 thinks it's a great idea and those two swap depending on which political party is in power. The remaining third will support as long as progress is being made. Been true for all our wars and incursions.
But now you are suggesting that the US should worry about what the people of the world would think about Zimbabwe's criminal leadership being taken out when they don't give daman about using drones to fire missiles into Pakistan (a supposed ally) against the wishes of the government and people of that country?Nah, I'm suggesting that we do not meddle with former British colonies unless they agree (and that includes Pakistan...) and, far, far more importantly, that Zimbabawe (unlike Pakistan) has little to no effect on US interests therefor the cost isn't worth the effort.
Consistency, Ken, consistency.Oh, we're as consistent as we can be with an electoral system that changes the political complexion of the nation every two years to at least some degree -- that makes for a great lack of continuity and a total inability to have a grand strategy or even a fairly consistent foreign policy. :D

Not a problem, we get by... :cool:

We are remarkably consistent on two things, defense and foreign policy wise, and only two things:

We do not tolerate potential physical threats, we will disrupt them or take them out by fair means or foul and regardless of the opinions of others.

We will react adversely to any thing that appears to be a significant constriction of our trading ability in international commerce and movement.

That's been true for that 220 years. I'd say that was pretty consistent. :D

JMA
04-18-2010, 09:45 AM
JMA, Ken, it's a Sudan threat here! And oriented on stabilization and State building! :mad: ;), Go to the Zimbabwe one to discuss Bob eradication :D
I may support the missile option by the way.

There are parallels here which (IMHO) should not be ignored.

In Ken's view the Sudan is a former British colony or whatever so therefore we should be asking the Brits what to do. But then again so were Iraq and Afghanistan...

Confusing yes I know.

But the similarities are that when the Brits were there they ran the North (Muslim) and the South (Christian) as separate entities, later at independence the North and the South were forced together into one state, later there was an act of genocide by a brutal dictatorship and rigged elections. Now what exactly are the differences between Sudan and Zimbabwe?

Sudan has oil. So this brings the Chinese into play.

What did the Brits and the US do about Zimbabwe?

NOTHING... so don't expect any action on Sudan... especially with the Chinese daddy standing there and wagging his finger at uncle Sam and the Brits hanging onto uncle Sam's coat tails.

JMA
04-18-2010, 10:03 AM
Every war we've been involved with for over 220 years occurred in large part because someone made the stupid assumption that "the Americans won't fight." The later ones tend to last too long because we foolishly try to be nice -- I think we're finally starting to realize that's really dumb on our part.

So what you are saying is that had you (the US) made its position clear right up front then all those wars could have been avoided?

davidbfpo
04-18-2010, 10:40 AM
In one particular current thread 'South Sudan: a laboratory for stabilisation':http://council.smallwarsjournal.com/showthread.php?t=8460 some disturbance has been caused by a series of posts speculating on the role of the external, or great powers in Africa, in places like Zimbabwe and what exactly will China do?

I have created this new thread for the discussion and moved some of the posts to here - leaving an explanation behind.

Ken White
04-18-2010, 05:21 PM
...the Sudan is a former British colony or whatever so therefore we should be asking the Brits what to do. But then again so were Iraq and Afghanistan...Not what I said, I said the US -- not "we" -- defers to the British on their former colonies (and to a slightly lesser extent, to the French on theirs). That means we are unlikely to do anything IF they ask us not to or that we are generally liable to take action in concert with them -- sometimes playing the good cop / bad cop game. As in Iraq where they and we went together...

That is due, I think, to the fact that we know we forced the British out of the Colony business while allied with them in WW II for international commercial advantage. It, BTW, would go by the wayside IF further advantage were deemed needed or a significant threat were discerned.

Do the British or Afghans know that Afghanistan is a former British colony?
Confusing yes I know.Should not be if one pays attention to what is written and thinks for a second.
Sudan has oil. So this brings the Chinese into play.What a difference a deposit makes...
What did the Brits and the US do about Zimbabwe?

NOTHING... so don't expect any action on Sudan... especially with the Chinese daddy standing there and wagging his finger at uncle Sam and the Brits hanging onto uncle Sam's coat tails.Can't speak for the Brits, I can say that the US' lack of involvement in Zimbabwe cued on the British example and was guided by a distinct lack of any significant affect on US interests. Sudan, oil not withstanding, falls in almost the same category. The slight -- perhaps inconsequential, perhaps not, dependent upon how it plays out -- difference with Sudan is the proximity to the Gulf of Aden. We like the choke points to be open (that commercial interest I cited...).

We will accord China the respect due a nation of over a billion people, just as we accord India the same respect. Respect and fear are two different things and in our childish way, we tend to react negatively to wagging fingers. Thine, Chine or other...:D

You do the British a disservice with the coat tail remark. One could almost sense that you were upset over British and US refusal to help in Rhodesia. If so, understandable and certainly your prerogative. Many probably agree with you.

Been my observation that one is not advised to let emotions or old wrongs affect affect the application of basic logic to current actions and events. Not being a psychologist, I know little or nothing about that, certainly can't apply such thoughts to this or any other discussion. I cite it only because our daughter is one of the Psych types and she contends that happens occasionally... :(

""Originally Posted by Ken White View Post:
"Every war we've been involved with for over 220 years occurred in large part because someone made the stupid assumption that "the Americans won't fight." ...""
So what you are saying is that had you (the US) made its position clear right up front then all those wars could have been avoided?No that's not what I was saying -- or said. However, that is a fair catch and a logical inference. It is reasonably accurate. We seem gauche, blase and more concerned with beer and barbecue than with the broader world -- and we are. Most Americans really wish the rest of the world would tend to itself and leave us alone to ponder the Kardashians. So others tend to think we can be pushed about; sadly true -- to a point...

Unfortunately, those two political parties start jockeying for power and tend to get over involved in one thing or another and the next thing you know, somebody decides we are so frivolous that we won't fight over a minor point. Not a good plan; we can be irrational about that, one never knows what's going to punch into our comfort zone or when that might happen. IOW, the point at which we get excited is difficult to predict.

You can rely on the fact that impinging on our commercial ability or a firm physical threat will bring action -- but a lot of people seem to miss that.

Good example is Iraq. We got pinged and probed by a number of folks from all over the ME for years and really sort of took it and just yapped about it instead of really deterring it. Bad mistake on our part, it only encouraged escalation of the probes and minor attacks. So we inadvertently, trying to be nice guys and not escalate did little and thereby did not make our position clear.

In the event, Bush decided we needed to send the ME a message to back off. He realized that the lack of adequate response by his four predecessors from 1979 until 2001 were a significant factor in causation and he feared that his successor might not take the action he believed (as do I) was needed. The fact that France, Germany and Russia had supplanted us and the UK in local commercial dominance there was considered but the US Congress likely wouldn't buy that as an adequate reason (regardless, that folded into the actual as opposed to publicly stated rationale for the attack). A Threat -- even one that was insignificant -- OTOH would if used arouse enough (not all; that politically dissenting 1/3 again...) of Congress to allow a strike. So away we went... ;)

Wasn't about oil other than in the sense that we wanted minimum disruption to the world oil supply (we really want China and India to have all the oil they need...). Afghanistan and Pakistan are in South Asia, not the ME -- so no message to the ME would be received from anything done to them. An attack on Iran or Saudi Arabia would have meant a major oil disruption, so they were not options. Iraq, OTOH, was a minor supplier, had a pariah government and was strategically located in the heart of the ME... ;)

Yeah, had the US made its position clear right up front then most of its wars could have been avoided. The War of 1812 was a commercial dominance and potential threat thing, the War with Mexico and the Spanish American War were land grabs that only only partly occurred due to lack of clarity, all the others including Afghanistan and Iraq were due to misconceptions on the part of opponents. Even our Civil War fits that.

Regardless, our seeming cultural introspection and our electoral process are a big factor in causing that recurring problem. Those are unlikely to change...

M-A Lagrange
04-18-2010, 05:28 PM
JMA,

I think first that the departure or lower interrest for Africa from former colonial powers (Europe) is an African will. Africa wants to have african problems solved by african. And that's a good thing.
Now, if you ask me if I think this is a good thing for Europe, my answer will be no. Not because Africa is not capable to take care of its self alone but because, at least in the case of France, it is done for no good reasons.

Coming back to the US involvement in Africa. What Ken is saying is a very much a common opinion in the US. I think it was in a post from David that I read that Stefen Ellis was asking for the Europeam to be more involved in Liberia. It's funny in the sense that USA are the former colonial power in Africa. :rolleyes:

Saying so, I do agree that for long the post 2001 grand strategy of chaos damage control of USA, specially in Africa has been quite difficult to see as productive. But today, let say since 3 years, I would say that there is a US strategy over Central/Horn of Africa.

For Austral Africa... I unfortunately do not see the same. But I think it is very much difficult for any European state to come to rescue South Africa and Zimbabwe. It's a shame because there were great people coming from there.

M-A

PS, Thanks David. I was just trying o bring back JMA and Ken to the central subject: Sudan. But anyway, it is certainly more confortable for eveyone to have this discussion separated.

Thanks.

JMA
04-27-2010, 12:41 PM
JMA,

I think first that the departure or lower interrest for Africa from former colonial powers (Europe) is an African will. Africa wants to have african problems solved by african. And that's a good thing.
Now, if you ask me if I think this is a good thing for Europe, my answer will be no. Not because Africa is not capable to take care of its self alone but because, at least in the case of France, it is done for no good reasons.

Really you need an understanding of Africa. African leaders do not want outsiders starting to push for human rights or linking aid to good governance. They have a very nice little thing going.

The best thing for Africa is for the world to walk away and leave it to its own devices. This will never happen because of Africa's natural and mineral resources. China has become the biggest player and the US and the rest will be lucky to get the crumbs.

To accept the reality of the situation is the most sensible course of action.

JMA
04-27-2010, 01:19 PM
We will accord China the respect due a nation of over a billion people, just as we accord India the same respect. Respect and fear are two different things and in our childish way, we tend to react negatively to wagging fingers. Thine, Chine or other...:D

You do the British a disservice with the coat tail remark. One could almost sense that you were upset over British and US refusal to help in Rhodesia. If so, understandable and certainly your prerogative. Many probably agree with you.

The world has watched Britain slowly come to terms with her diminished status in the world and seen how she has fallen back on the "special relationship" she has with the US to maintain some degree of dignity befitting her previous status as "Empire". Everyone (intelligent observer) knows that the 'special relationship' was never a partnership of equals but rather one where Britain was no more than a side-kick.

I am not upset about any refusal to help Rhodesia as I was a South African who served in Rhodesia for ideological reasons and not to perpetuate any race dominated social model. We were all quite surprised that the Brit response to UDI was so weak kneed.

But your comment appears to indicate that the transition in Zimbabwe took place because of the failure of US and Brit support. Not at all. It was the US and the UK that installed Mugabe in power in Zimbabwe. Why they even used the Rhodesian SAS to drop the bridges in Zambia to effectively prevent any invasion by Zipra and thereby put ZAPU out of the game leaving the field open to Mugabe. And like in Rwanda both stood back while Mugabe carried out a genocide to settle old tribal scores.

So by 2010 the Brits have come to accept that they are tolerated to work in the shadow of Uncle Sam. The sun had long set on the Empire but it took 50 years for the Brits to accept it.

The US finds itself in the same position now. The only remaining question is how long will it take for the US to realise the China is the new super power?

Now to set the record straight I have only a healthy disrespect for all governments, the US and the UK included. BUT... I have a huge amount of respect for the forces of both. I hope you are intelligent to recognise the difference.

Ken White
04-27-2010, 01:24 PM
So by 2010 the Brits have come to accept that they are tolerated to work in the shadow of Uncle Sam. The sun had long set on the Empire but it took 50 years for the Brits to accept it.

The US finds itself in the same position now. The only remaining question is how long will it take for the US to realise the China is the new super power?50 years or so at a minimum. Then we go back to the old 'balance of power' game. Won't that be fun. :D

We can do the math. Don't forget India who will also be a super power. Math, again. The Indians may well beat the Chinese to the top of the heap. :cool:

JMA
04-27-2010, 01:55 PM
50 years or so at a minimum. Then we go back to the old 'balance of power' game. Won't that be fun. :D

We can do the math. Don't forget India who will also be a super power. Math, again. The Indians may well beat the Chinese to the top of the heap. :cool:

So with which of the two next superpowers, China or India, can we expect the US to establish a 'special relationship' with?

Ken White
04-27-2010, 02:14 PM
most likely a continuing conflict here in the States over which one should receive precedence.

Bottom line is that while all nations have 'special relationships,' for the US as those others, those relationships get trumped by national interest so we'll waffle back and forth.

Steve Blair
04-27-2010, 02:21 PM
Bottom line is that while all nations have 'special relationships,' for the US as those others, those relationships get trumped by national interest so we'll waffle back and forth.

And this is pretty much the same for any country one might care to name. Folks like to single out the US, but I can't think of any nation that is likely to ignore a "special relationship" when its own perceived national interests come into play.

That said, the US has always had a strange relationship with China...one that borders on love/hate in more ways that either party may want to admit. But at this point it's all academic....

Rex Brynen
04-27-2010, 02:26 PM
This will never happen because of Africa's natural and mineral resources. China has become the biggest player and the US and the rest will be lucky to get the crumbs.

There's no doubt that the Chinese have become increasingly important economic actors in Africa, and will continue to do so. Also, Chinese investment is more strategic, and more closely linked with political engagement.

However, at the moment, Chinese DFI in Africa continues to be dwarfed by that of the US, UK, France, Germany, and Japan by several orders of magnitude (http://www.unctad.org/en/docs/iteiia20071_en.pdf). Indeed, in many years Indian (and even Malaysian) investment in Africa exceeds that of China too.

JMA
04-27-2010, 06:29 PM
There's no doubt that the Chinese have become increasingly important economic actors in Africa, and will continue to do so. Also, Chinese investment is more strategic, and more closely linked with political engagement.

However, at the moment, Chinese DFI in Africa continues to be dwarfed by that of the US, UK, France, Germany, and Japan by several orders of magnitude (http://www.unctad.org/en/docs/iteiia20071_en.pdf). Indeed, in many years Indian (and even Malaysian) investment in Africa exceeds that of China too.

Don't worry about investment right now. You need to watch how the Chinese are tying up the rights to mineral and natural resources way into the future. And guess where all that stuff will be headed?

Dayuhan
04-27-2010, 10:40 PM
Don't worry about investment right now. You need to watch how the Chinese are tying up the rights to mineral and natural resources way into the future. And guess where all that stuff will be headed?

Doesn't make any difference at all. These resources are fungible, whatever China gets from Africa means they get less from other suppliers, which is then available for others to buy. China is doing the US a favor by investing in production in high risk environments where Americans don't want to go: they bring more material onto the market, that keeps prices down. They take the risk, we share the benefit. What's not to like? Much better for us to have China investing in new production than to have them using that pile of dollars to bid against us for the right to buy existing production.

"Tying up" anything in unstable political environments is a risky business, especially where long term investments with extended recovery horizons are involved. You make a deal with a government, you put in a few billion, or more than a few, and all of a sudden a new government wants a new deal. What do you do, send the Marines? Not likely. Western companies have learned about this the hard way; the Chinese are likely to run into it as well.

The notion of China as an unstoppable rising economic juggernaut is also misplaced... they have their share of problems and chickens have a way of coming home to roost. Look to some upheavals in the medium term future, potentially with major political implications. Remember when the simplistic among us were declaring that Japan was the rising power of the future?

JMA
04-28-2010, 05:19 AM
Doesn't make any difference at all. These resources are fungible, whatever China gets from Africa means they get less from other suppliers, which is then available for others to buy. China is doing the US a favor by investing in production in high risk environments where Americans don't want to go: they bring more material onto the market, that keeps prices down. They take the risk, we share the benefit. What's not to like? Much better for us to have China investing in new production than to have them using that pile of dollars to bid against us for the right to buy existing production.

"Tying up" anything in unstable political environments is a risky business, especially where long term investments with extended recovery horizons are involved. You make a deal with a government, you put in a few billion, or more than a few, and all of a sudden a new government wants a new deal. What do you do, send the Marines? Not likely. Western companies have learned about this the hard way; the Chinese are likely to run into it as well.

The notion of China as an unstoppable rising economic juggernaut is also misplaced... they have their share of problems and chickens have a way of coming home to roost. Look to some upheavals in the medium term future, potentially with major political implications. Remember when the simplistic among us were declaring that Japan was the rising power of the future?

I suspect the Chinese will be happy that some are reading the situation that way.

Dayuhan
04-28-2010, 06:05 AM
I suspect the Chinese will be happy that some are reading the situation that way.

Probably true. Irrational sinophobia is of no use to the Chinese, nor is it of any use to anyone else.

AdamG
04-28-2010, 03:31 PM
http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2010/05/the-next-empire/8018

The Next Empire
All across Africa, new tracks are being laid, highways built,ports deepened, commercial contracts signed—all on an unprecedented scale, and led by China, whose appetite for commodities seems insatiable. Do China’s grand designs promise the transformation,at last, of a star-crossed continent? Or merely its exploitation? The author travels deep into the heart of Africa, searching for answers.

M-A Lagrange
05-10-2010, 12:33 PM
Really you need an understanding of Africa. African leaders do not want outsiders starting to push for human rights or linking aid to good governance. They have a very nice little thing going.

The best thing for Africa is for the world to walk away and leave it to its own devices. This will never happen because of Africa's natural and mineral resources. China has become the biggest player and the US and the rest will be lucky to get the crumbs.

To accept the reality of the situation is the most sensible course of action.

Hello JMA

The aid against good governance dispute is not the one I am looking at. If most African leaders do not want to have to comply with good governance, on the otherhand, donors as European powers are tired to borrow money to them.
But the question of divorce (can we call it that way) between "european powers" and Africa is deeper. Africa leaders are too quick to claim West to abuse them.
And by the way, as far as I can see, Africa Leaders do not want to be in charge of the business. They were not that quick to provide troops and equipment for Darfur or DRC...

Michael F
05-10-2010, 01:52 PM
Call me "futurist" but:

With the Electronic Herd, thousands investors use their savings (billions US$ every day), economies and countries have to compete each other to attract investments if they want to keep the pace of the economy or get left dead along the road economically (like North Korea, Iran,...).

These thousands and other hedge funds are attracted by high returns on investment and FAST. African countries whatever their political system will have to plug to Globalization if they want to survive. You can have the best gold mine in the world, if you are constantly in a state of civil war or corruption, investors won't come and your big mine won't produce a lot to feed your civil war or corruption. You are basically feeding on your own blood.

If you provide a safe, corrupt free environment, most African countries have untapped ressources that can attract these investors.

These thousand investors, much more than China or EU or US are for me, the biggest geoplotical game changers in Africa. Kabila, Kagame,...understand it.
These thousands investors require stability, transparency, good governance and if you don't provide, one click of the mouse on any trade website and their money is GONE. It's like an international/every minute referendum on how good/bad your country and its economy is.


The influence of China, US or EU over Africa looks pale in camparaison to the much defuse but HUGE influence of the electronic herd. 8 Billions US$ in 2008 came from the electronic herd as investment (not loans), while CHINA came with about 14 Billions in loans mostly.

As an African President, i would rather go to Wall Street and convince them to invest than beg Beijing for a loan i have to repay later even if it means cleaning corruption, improve education,...

FYI:
http://seekingalpha.com/article/34246-investing-in-africa-the-world-s-last-great-opportunity

http://www.africaneconomicoutlook.org/en/outlook/growth-of-aid-to-africa/foreign-direct-investment/

JMA
05-11-2010, 02:37 AM
Hello JMA

The aid against good governance dispute is not the one I am looking at. If most African leaders do not want to have to comply with good governance, on the otherhand, donors as European powers are tired to borrow money to them.
But the question of divorce (can we call it that way) between "european powers" and Africa is deeper. Africa leaders are too quick to claim West to abuse them.
And by the way, as far as I can see, Africa Leaders do not want to be in charge of the business. They were not that quick to provide troops and equipment for Darfur or DRC...

This 'divorce' will not happen as Africa is sitting on natural resources and China is more than willing to fill the gap if western countries pull out. Western countries will try to remain engaged with Africa, will compete with China and finally lose out to China as the dominant player. China needs the natural resources to fuel its economy and is growing in confidence and is already shouldering the US out of the way, so what chance have the UK and France?

JMA
05-11-2010, 02:45 AM
As an African President, i would rather go to Wall Street and convince them to invest than beg Beijing for a loan i have to repay later even if it means cleaning corruption, improve education,...

Well you are not an African President.

A loan from Beijeng can be directly diverted into a a Swiss bank account and the only thing the Chinese want is a lock onto the particular natural resources they have a strategic interest in. The Chinese are not interested in all that human rights and 'good governance' stuff.

So your African President signs a deal with the Chinese to allow them exclusive access to exploit a certain range of natural and mineral resources for the next 50 years in exchange for the Chinese to build a showpiece sports stadium (and quietly make a deposit into a certain Swiss bank account). And the Chinese will import their own (trustworthy) labour to do most of this work.

You may not like it but there is nothing you or anyone can do about it.

Dayuhan
05-11-2010, 05:05 AM
So your African President signs a deal with the Chinese to allow them exclusive access to exploit a certain range of natural and mineral resources for the next 50 years in exchange for the Chinese to build a showpiece sports stadium (and quietly make a deposit into a certain Swiss bank account). And the Chinese will import their own (trustworthy) labour to do most of this work.


The deal in actuality will only be valid until a few colonels get tired of the crumbs, decide that the President needs an intimate meeting with a bullet, and figures out that they can earn much more from nationalizing the investment and selling the goods to the highest bidder than they could from bribes.

Bribing your way into African contracts is nothing new... it didn't always work out well for Western companies back in the day, and I suspect that the Chinese may encounter a few surprises down the way. I wouldn't be at all surprised to see a severe anti-Chinese backlash coming along in many of these countries, especially where they are importing large numbers of laborers and acquiring agricultural land. The way that many Chinese treat Africans personally may emerge as an irritant as well. I'm remembering a comment from an Angolan businessman, along the lines of "we thought the whites were racist, we didn't know what racism was until we dealt with the Chinese".

We'll see how it works out, but I suspect that China's neocolonial venture in Africa will trip up on many of the same issues that have derailed other neocolonial ventures. As long as the money is coming in they're likely to be tolerated, but when the mines and factories and farms are built and the money's going out, that's likely to change.

I don't think it's accurate to say the Chinese are "shouldering the US out of the way". They're simply operating in environments far beyond the risk tolerance of US companies.

M-A Lagrange
05-11-2010, 07:25 AM
Hy JMA

Well, you seem to be eager with Chinese. I do follow much of what you say on their presence in Africa: dirty deals and imported manpower. But this is not working on the long run, France and UK made that experience long ago. About USA, as you so well said: USA policy in Africa has not been consistent enough in the last 20 years to really allow USA to be a big player on that continent. But they do have something going on today. South Africa and Austral Africa might not be the priority of Africom, I would admit that.

As you mentioned in one of your post in the beginning of the discussion, this is in relation with what is happening in Sudan. And I do agree more and more on that point. Sudan past elections and coming referendum are a corner/white stone for Africa, do the cntinent like it or not.
I am actually working on the comparison I did on Sudan referendum and Berlin conference. And what you are saying is finding some echo in me. But I would not be that pessimistic (well not that dark in the darkness). China is like any other economical power: they will soon need fair and free legal environment to do business, even in Africa. On that point, I think that Dayuhan is close to reallity.

But what I really feel behind bitterness in your posts is the need for Africa leader to change. And I do agree with that feeling. But what role do you see for Africa in its future? Do you really think that solution is in external power? I know, you said leave Africa alone. But it’s a little short young man :D

Michael F
05-11-2010, 08:29 AM
Well you are not an African President.

A loan from Beijeng can be directly diverted into a a Swiss bank account and the only thing the Chinese want is a lock onto the particular natural resources they have a strategic interest in. The Chinese are not interested in all that human rights and 'good governance' stuff.

So your African President signs a deal with the Chinese to allow them exclusive access to exploit a certain range of natural and mineral resources for the next 50 years in exchange for the Chinese to build a showpiece sports stadium (and quietly make a deposit into a certain Swiss bank account). And the Chinese will import their own (trustworthy) labour to do most of this work.

You may not like it but there is nothing you or anyone can do about it.

A loan from Beijing might allow for some corruption, and not benefit the local companies (as the workforce and expertise is brought from China), that's not the issue and i don't deny it.

The Namibian example is very revealing: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/china/5851056/Hu-Jintaos-son-linked-to-African-corruption-probe.html

Now, look at the economics of a deal in Africa:
"Profit = Sales - Taxes (almost non existent) - Corruption money. "
You can easily conclude that Corruption is a diverted form of Tax (instead of benefiting most, it benefits only a few but for the payer, it makes no economic difference). Additionnaly, corruption is an unstable, secret potentially ever increasing tax because unregulated.

Countries going greedy on taxes (or corruption) tend to scare investors away.

Let's make two distinctions here: African Countries with little ressources and with huge ressources.


Little ressources: For countries with little ressources like Namibia, Rwanda,... with little attractivity to investors, high taxes or corruption further reduce already meager potential benefits for the investor. It just decreases the interest of investing in those country.


Lots of ressources: For countries like DRC or Angola, with lots of ressources, again the corruption tax reduces their attractivity but the potential gains of investing there far outweight the losses due to corruption. So What ? Anti-corruption laws in most western countries are making it increasingly difficult for western companies to sweeten their deals but China has different standards. Again, the Electronic Herd is the mitigating factor: THE VERY FACT that you mention the link between China and Corruption is part of the solution. China is investing around the world. It can hardly continue disreguarding "good governance" practice for long if it gives it a bad name.

Let me give you an example: The Milk scandal. Chinese corrupt officials killed many by using improper milk. http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/china/2007-07/09/content_5421631.htm
The Chinese authorities had to hit hard on those companies to avoid other Chinese food companies to loose all their markets abroad.

My conclusion being, China will learn, as we did, that bad practice by our companies in Africa bring short term advantages but long term disadvantages:
* Bad image in main client markets ( i mean the real big ones-EU, US),
* Corruption feeding leads to more corruption untill benefits are outweight by disavantages
* Companies that tend to use corruption abroad import it back to their homeland.

In both cases, China's dealing with corrupt governments will have to change, on the short term for the less juicy countries, on the long term for the most juicy countries.

Fedding corruption to gain market shares is a great entrance strategy but rapidly it becomes a huge liability.

Slowandsteady
05-11-2010, 04:47 PM
There's no doubt that the Chinese have become increasingly important economic actors in Africa, and will continue to do so. Also, Chinese investment is more strategic, and more closely linked with political engagement.

However, at the moment, Chinese DFI in Africa continues to be dwarfed by that of the US, UK, France, Germany, and Japan by several orders of magnitude (http://www.unctad.org/en/docs/iteiia20071_en.pdf). Indeed, in many years Indian (and even Malaysian) investment in Africa exceeds that of China too.

If you look at Mozambique, I think there's a realization in the upper echelons of the establishment of what getting involved with China entails:

China’s Relations with Mozambique: A Mixed Blessing
http://csis.org/blog/china%E2%80%99s-relations-mozambique-mixed-blessing

Former Mozambican ambassador:


Lets stop blaming the Chinese, they have money and they want to buy. Nobody is forcing us to rape our resources; we are being paid generously for it. In the end, my friend, it’s up to us to decide how we want to do business. This is our country, so it’s our fault.

As a side note, in 2007 South African President Thabo Mbeki cautioned that China risked replicating in Africa a “colonial relationship” of the kind that existed under white rule.

http://en.ismico.org/content/view/439/15/

I don't believe it's likely these statements will turn into actions, so long as China keeps paying up.

Dayuhan
05-12-2010, 12:50 AM
I don't believe it's likely these statements will turn into actions, so long as China keeps paying up.

These investments run in a cycle. Early on, the leaders are getting bribes, so they're happy, and the populace sees roads, mines, and factories being built, so they're happy. As things go on, a gradual disillusionment sets in, as it becomes clear that most of the "investment" is going back to China, that the foreigners are bringing their own labor instead of hiring locally, and that local folks are increasingly being treated as second-class citizens in their own country. As the investment reaches the point where it's generating returns (and let's face it, the Chinese wouldn't be going in if they didn't think they'd take out more value than they bring in), it becomes clear that the resources are being stripped and the only ones earning out of it are the leaders. At this point the foreign presence becomes a focus point for political opposition and eventually can generate serious disorder.

We'll see what happens... but if a European country did what the Chinese are doing I suspect most of us would see it as a recipe for disaster. Why should it be any different for the Chinese?

M-A Lagrange
05-15-2010, 09:48 AM
From Dayuhan
We'll see what happens... but if a European country did what the Chinese are doing I suspect most of us would see it as a recipe for disaster. Why should it be any different for the Chinese?



Macmillan admits to bribery over World Bank Sudan aid deal

Macmillan, the British publishing giant, has admitted it made "corrupt payments" in an attempt to win a World Bank aid contract in Africa.
A Macmillan Education representative made the undisclosed bribery payments to a local official in an unsuccessful attempt to secure the multi-million pound contract for an education project in southern Sudan.
The World Bank said it had banned Macmillan from bidding for any of its contracts for six years.
Macmillan, which focuses on educational and scientific books, has been added to the World Bank's "debarred" list, which names and shames organisations found to have acted corruptly.
Leonard McCarthy, vice president of integrity at the World Bank, said: "[The ban] demonstrates the World Bank's unwavering commitment to ensuring all those who participate in World Bank-financed projects, including those who do not actually get contracts, are held to the highest levels of integrity, while also encouraging companies to come forward and join our fight against corruption."
A spokesman for the World Bank said: "Macmillan admitted engaging in bribes in an attempt to get a contract to print textbooks for the education rehabilitation project in south Sudan."
The payments were offered between 2008 and 2009.
International donors have committed to pumping more than $1.5bn (£1bn) into World Bank projects in Sudan to help the war-ravaged country recover from decades of bitter conflict.
A spokesman for Macmillan, which has drafted in an emergency press team to deal with the scandal, said: "We will not tolerate improper behaviour as a company, and the fact that we have worked closely with the World Bank to reach this agreement is evidence of that.
"There is no suggestion that these concerns have affected any of Macmillan's other principal businesses, and it is the case that they are confined to a limited part of our education business."
Macmillan, which is owned by Germany's Verlagsgruppe Georg von Holtzbrinck, declares in its "anti-bribery policy" that it has a "zero tolerance approach to acts of bribery and corruption".
In its mission statement Macmillan states that "businesses should work against all forms of corruption, including bribery and extortion".
The ban was originally set in place for eight years, but was reduced to six after Macmillan admitted to the bribery. It may be reduced by a further three years if the company continues to cooperate with the World Bank's "compliance monitoring program".
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/mediatechnologyandtelecoms/media/7683139/Macmillan-admits-to-bribery-over-World-Bank-Sudan-aid-deal.html

We always blame the Chinese to encourage corruption… But we better have a look at our selves!
What Chinese may be accused of is to have sky rocketted corruption (They can pay ridiculous amouts of money with more 0 than anyone else that’s for sure.) but not to be THE corrupter criminalizing Africa.

JMA
05-16-2010, 12:46 PM
Hy JMA

Well, you seem to be eager with Chinese. I do follow much of what you say on their presence in Africa: dirty deals and imported manpower. But this is not working on the long run, France and UK made that experience long ago. About USA, as you so well said: USA policy in Africa has not been consistent enough in the last 20 years to really allow USA to be a big player on that continent. But they do have something going on today. South Africa and Austral Africa might not be the priority of Africom, I would admit that.

As you mentioned in one of your post in the beginning of the discussion, this is in relation with what is happening in Sudan. And I do agree more and more on that point. Sudan past elections and coming referendum are a corner/white stone for Africa, do the cntinent like it or not.
I am actually working on the comparison I did on Sudan referendum and Berlin conference. And what you are saying is finding some echo in me. But I would not be that pessimistic (well not that dark in the darkness). China is like any other economical power: they will soon need fair and free legal environment to do business, even in Africa. On that point, I think that Dayuhan is close to reallity.

But what I really feel behind bitterness in your posts is the need for Africa leader to change. And I do agree with that feeling. But what role do you see for Africa in its future? Do you really think that solution is in external power? I know, you said leave Africa alone. But it’s a little short young man :D

I am not bitter I am merely irritated that people from over the seas are not able to learn from history or willing to read enough history from which to learn.

Then we look at the history of mega crooks like Lonrho's Tiny Rowland who bribed his way around Africa much the same way as the Chinese are doing today. With investors/friends like Tiny Rowland and the Chinese Africa does not need investors/friends.

Africa won't be left alone because their are 'wolves' at the door after her natural resources so all we are seeing is a shift in the balance of power as it affects Africa. China rising, India rising, USA shrinking, UK and France being old history and trying to cling on.

The real problem will begin when China begins to depend on the flow of these resources from Africa and something/someone threatens the flow to feed the insatiable Chinese economy. Then we will begin to see China "acting in its national interests".

In the meantime the smart guys will start to learn to speak Mandarin.

JMA
05-16-2010, 12:53 PM
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/mediatechnologyandtelecoms/media/7683139/Macmillan-admits-to-bribery-over-World-Bank-Sudan-aid-deal.html

We always blame the Chinese to encourage corruption… But we better have a look at our selves!
What Chinese may be accused of is to have sky rocketted corruption (They can pay ridiculous amouts of money with more 0 than anyone else that’s for sure.) but not to be THE corrupter criminalizing Africa.

Granted the Chinese are just using the same routine as has been the case for years before. But they are doing it on a far larger scale in tying up the long term rights to the continents natural resources as opposed to the odd book deal or arms deal or whatever. The Chinese are taking it to the next level and they have watched and learned how the West did it. Now they are three to five chess moves ahead of their competition.

JMA
05-16-2010, 12:59 PM
As a side note, in 2007 South African President Thabo Mbeki cautioned that China risked replicating in Africa a “colonial relationship” of the kind that existed under white rule.

http://en.ismico.org/content/view/439/15/


And by September 2008 Mbeki had been forced to resign and now the Chinese are the largest benefactor of the ANC and the 'new' president is cozy with the Chinese.

Ok, so lets watch what happens to the next African leader who dares to warn against Chinese influence in Africa. Just keep your eyes and ears open.

AdamG
05-25-2010, 04:44 PM
BERLIN — A private security firm's plan to deploy more than 100 German ex-soldiers to Somalia to work for a warlord has triggered intense media coverage and was harshly criticized by lawmakers on Tuesday, some of them calling it a possible violation of U.N. sanctions against the war-ridden East African country.

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5gI8DYG23-9xtsFE5vN53gkQC6aFwD9FTTBR81

"Hurry up, Tommy, before zee Germans get here". - Turkish, SNATCH

Chowing
11-21-2011, 03:46 PM
According to a story in the Washington Post Israel may become more involved in East Africa's fight against terrorists. They have a history of suffering at the hands of terrorists in the region.

http://terrorisminafrica.com/2011/11/israel-enters-east-africas-fight-against-terrorism/

KingJaja
11-21-2011, 06:11 PM
Israel has a very strong base of support among the evangelical populations of Kenya, Uganda and Ethiopia. They probably realise that, so they have greater latitude to operate there.

KingJaja
11-21-2011, 06:12 PM
People tend to forget that just as there is a radical Muslim population, there is an evangelical christian population

Chowing
11-21-2011, 07:38 PM
Israel has a very strong base of support among the evangelical populations of Kenya, Uganda and Ethiopia. They probably realise that, so they have greater latitude to operate there.

I think you are correct, especially with Ethiopia. A few years back quite a few Ethiopian Jew were allowed to immigrate to Israel. Evangelicals (I consider myself one to some extent) here in the US and East Africa are very uninformed about Israel and scripture concerning them for that matter (but that is for another forum).

Kenyans and Ugandans, in my opinion, have learned to accept aid from almost anyone. In fact, many have learned to depend on it, even connive for it. I understand how they have gotten that outlook, but it has not served them well. They have become too dependent. I find West Africans must less dependent and more willing to speak their mind than East Africans.

Israel could well find open arms in some parts of East Africa, but where they do, they will also find the terrorists right behind them.

Kenya has made some strides against al-Shabaab. I hope that they do not make a wrong move by accepting some help from Israel and end up with an even great terrorist problem.

Chowing
11-21-2011, 07:39 PM
yep, and a Lords Resistance Army. hmmmmmmmmm.

KingJaja
11-21-2011, 11:14 PM
Kenyans and Ugandans, in my opinion, have learned to accept aid from almost anyone. In fact, many have learned to depend on it, even connive for it. I understand how they have gotten that outlook, but it has not served them well. They have become too dependent. I find West Africans must less dependent and more willing to speak their mind than East Africans.

Western perception of East Africa has largely been coloured by humanitarian disasters - Live aid, Ethiopia, Horn of Africa famine etc. Most of "the spend X dollars and send X African children to school" campaigns are centered around East Africa. It creates the impression that East Africans lack agency and have no shame.

However, there is a an emerging business community in Nairobi and many East Africans work hard.

Chowing
11-22-2011, 02:42 PM
Western perception of East Africa has largely been coloured by humanitarian disasters - Live aid, Ethiopia, Horn of Africa famine etc. Most of "the spend X dollars and send X African children to school" campaigns are centered around East Africa. It creates the impression that East Africans lack agency and have no shame.

However, there is a an emerging business community in Nairobi and many East Africans work hard.

I would agree that many (I would say MOST) East AFricans work hard. What I was trying say was that it seems to me that in East Africa there is often the reaction to look for help from outside rather than from local resources. I also agree that things are changing.

Here is an opinion piece in The Nation today discussing Israeli involvement. http://www.nation.co.ke/oped/Opinion/-/440808/1277030/-/mr0dqqz/-/

flagg
11-23-2011, 11:59 AM
Question about Israeli involvement in East Africa:

How much of a factor would the East African Nile River and Egypt's ultimate dependance on it play into Israeli efforts in the region?

If Egypt sees a leadership change and a shift in policy away from detente with Israel I could imagine an opportunity to exert leverage over Egypt by partnering with and to the benefit of upstream Nile River users or working with them all to make efficient use of the resource thru Israeli water/farming tech in exchange for security considerations.

If I were Israeli and I was concerned about Egypt in the medium to long term, I would be putting some effort into influence/control over Nile River water politics.

Chowing
11-28-2011, 07:08 PM
Question about Israeli involvement in East Africa:

How much of a factor would the East African Nile River and Egypt's ultimate dependance on it play into Israeli efforts in the region?

If Egypt sees a leadership change and a shift in policy away from detente with Israel I could imagine an opportunity to exert leverage over Egypt by partnering with and to the benefit of upstream Nile River users or working with them all to make efficient use of the resource thru Israeli water/farming tech in exchange for security considerations.

If I were Israeli and I was concerned about Egypt in the medium to long term, I would be putting some effort into influence/control over Nile River water politics.
You have a point there that I had not even thought of or seen from any news outlet or bloggers. It sounds plausible. This al-shabaab conflict is bringing out a lot of regional issues. I just put up a post on my blog today dealing with the Eritrean and Ogaden clan actions concerning the war on these terrorists. You can see it at www.terrorisminafrica.com

Ethnicity plays an important part in everything African. Africans understand that fact, but few outsiders do. Israelis and Egyptians could bring a new dimension to the fight.

History tells us that no one is out for the "common good."