PDA

View Full Version : CNN: Can Democracy Thrive in Africa?



Tom Odom
08-17-2010, 04:35 PM
CNN started an interesting series today with this article online. As stated in the article, the answer to the question is much shaped by the definition of democracy.


Editor's note: This year 17 African nations mark 50 years of independence from their former colonial rulers. Eight of those countries celebrate their anniversary in August, they include Benin, Ivory Coast and Gabon. CNN.com is marking this major milestone with special coverage in August analysing the continent's past, present and future.

(CNN) -- When African countries gained independence from 1960 onwards, they faced the challenge of building their structures from scratch.

Their former European masters had mostly not encouraged the idea of accountability and any pre-colonial institutions had been destroyed, according to most historians.



Recent events in Rwanda echo my concerns that President Kagame may be his own worst enemy (http://smallwarsjournal.com/blog/2008/07/print/book-review-a-thousand-hills-r/): he just was reelected President for another 7 years but key leaders whom I was relatively close to in the 90s have now been arrested on various charges. That is a significant drift toward the arbitrary decision-making common to big man politics away from the consensus building that used to be the norm.

Time will tell

Tom

Pete
08-17-2010, 05:04 PM
When Rwanda boiled over in '94 I was working as a contractor for the U.S. Army Medical Materiel Agency at Fort Detrick, Md. We had some Cipro stored in a U.S. Army warehouse in the Persian Gulf region shipped to CONUS for potential trans-shipment to Rwanda to treat the diarrheal diseases breaking out there. If I recall correctly the U.S. part of the humanitarian assistance effort there never materialized.

Tom Odom
08-17-2010, 05:15 PM
When Rwanda boiled over in '94 I was working as a contractor for the U.S. Army Medical Materiel Agency at Fort Detrick, Md. We had some Cipro stored in a U.S. Army warehouse in the Persian Gulf region shipped to CONUS for potential trans-shipment to Rwanda to treat the diarrheal diseases breaking out there. If I recall correctly the U.S. part of the humanitarian assistance effort there never materialized.

I was on the ground in Goma for the refugee crisis in which some 70K died from cholera. The US effort was substantial including airlift and supplies. The focus on the effort was water distribution with purification a secondary. The counter-diarrheal effort was not the priority as the deaths were quick--most efforts were to provide rehydration salts and again safe water to prevent further spread. The JTF itself spread out from JTF-A with me in Goma, to Entebbe, and Kigali. Goma with Bukavu as a secondary was the focus for the humanitarian effort. That had its costs politically and strategically in the following years as those efforts did little for victims of the genocide even as we helped those responsible for the genocide.

Tom

Tom

M-A Lagrange
08-17-2010, 06:28 PM
Recent events in Rwanda echo my concerns that President Kagame may be his own worst enemy[/URL]: he just was reelected President for another 7 years but key leaders whom I was relatively close to in the 90s have now been arrested on various charges. That is a significant drift toward the arbitrary decision-making common to big man politics away from the consensus building that used to be the norm.


Tom,

I believed you read that one: Dead Aid: Why Aid is Not Working and How There is a Better Way For Africa from Dambisa Moyo.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dambisa_Moyo

Interesting book written by a native African who worked for the World Bank. Her demonstration on how aid has been supporting the non democratization of Africa is interesting (I stay mostly unconvinced but she does have arguments).
I am personally not convinced that enlighten dictatorship could be in any how the solution, as she proposes. Ivory Coast is a good example of the counter effectiveness of that option.

About the consensus process of decision making… I am even less convinced. We did not witness the same but I was not in the same circles neither.
I believe that the problem lay deeper. Look at the Sudan elections. They were not free, fair and transparent and every body said it was a good election for an African Country. I do believe the problem is there: acceptance of low standards for Africa.
We shall probably never agree on Kagame but I do recognise that he developed his country. The problem now is to have an after Kagame. Same question for Uganda and the after Museweni. The After Kabila (or Kabila renewal) is also problematic. Not even talking of the Wade flirting with authoritarian regime.

The AU decision about ICT is not so much based on a consensus that on the fear of ending up in jail by several members of that noble assembly.

Actually countries like Botswana seems to do good and South Africa remain strong.

M-A

Tom Odom
08-17-2010, 06:57 PM
M-A

While I don't disagree with most of your concerns, i would question the statement regarding acceptance of low standards for Africa. By that I mean whose standards and whose acceptance are we questioning? I agree that in a western sense much is indeed adrift if not absolutely of course when it comes to African leaders. But do our standards count when they are largely dismissed by the Africans' themselves?

It is easy to get irate about Mugabe in Zimbabwe; it is equally fruitless when the greater community of African leadership closes ranks around him in the face of external criticism. My bottom line has been for sometime, if the people with the leadership issue are not inclined, willing, or courageous enough to seek change then I am equally disinclined to suggest forceable change by whatever means.
Best
Tom

M-A Lagrange
08-18-2010, 07:36 AM
M-A

While I don't disagree with most of your concerns, i would question the statement regarding acceptance of low standards for Africa. By that I mean whose standards and whose acceptance are we questioning? I agree that in a western sense much is indeed adrift if not absolutely of course when it comes to African leaders. But do our standards count when they are largely dismissed by the Africans' themselves?

After the last elections in Sudan, the Russian special envoy said that the elections were good quality for Africa.
For me this is exactly what I call the acceptance of low standards. To please some African leaders, we accept that international standards can be lowered to evaluate thing in Africa. Basically what I do not accept is the: "everybody knows that Africa is a mess...", "in Africa, corruption, nepotisum... are cultural..." approach. The idea that Africa cannot be as good as any other part of the world.
I am also a little up set/frustrated by the African leaders who purposely do not seeck to elevate their countries but try to pretend that because Africa is different, they do have the right to have low standards for anything. Most of the people I have inter act with in Africa expect good governance, quality services delivery, reliable security forces... They do not accept the discours from some leaders who look into history to excuse themselves for have low quality governance, kleptocraty, corruption...
I believe the acceptance of low standards comes from both sides: African leaders who do not what to change a system they do profite actually and from the external actors who support them in this.


It is easy to get irate about Mugabe in Zimbabwe; it is equally fruitless when the greater community of African leadership closes ranks around him in the face of external criticism. My bottom line has been for sometime, if the people with the leadership issue are not inclined, willing, or courageous enough to seek change then I am equally disinclined to suggest forceable change by whatever means.

Bashing Mugabe is easy but actually his discourse is coherent from A to Z from the first day to the last. But that does not make him the choice of his people.

The change has to come from Africa, that is sure. But that does not mean that promotion of high quality values has to be dropped. Forcing changes does not work and does support the old guard.
Actually there is a complaisance in Africa in this state of distress.
But interresting enough, some African Leaders are now looking for achosen colonisation:
This time for Africa: Africa calling Indian farmers
ASSOCHAM, India’s apex industry body, has sent a proposal to the external affairs ministry to consider tapping the emerging agricultural opportunities in Africa and offering to act as a facilitator to help Indian farmers reap the benefits of the huge potential that lie in Africa.
“Hoping to address the huge issue of food shortage, these countries have begun inviting overseas farmers to come and cultivate their lands. These governments are willing to lease land free of cost for 99 years”, ASSOCHAM secretary general DS Rawat said.
Farmers were free to cultivate the land and raise any crop and sell it to the domestic market and also export.
“It is a win-win situation for the farmers and for the African governments”, said Assocham director Om S Tyagi.
“Since the lease is for 99 years, it means that a farmer is in control of the land for his life time. It means land for roughly around three generations,” he said.
The countries that were in the forefront trying to attract agriculturists were Sudan and Ethopia, he said.
http://farmlandgrab.org/14776

M-A

John T. Fishel
08-18-2010, 11:07 AM
Tom, interesting thread, but I want to return to your seemingly minor point. As a political scientist and an old guy, I assert that for democracy to exist three conditions need to be present:
1. Free, competitive, and periodic elections to select leaders open to a majority of the adult population as voters.
2. Sufficient freedom of speech, press, religion, and assembly so that electoral campaigns can be organized and policies widely debated.
3. An impartial mechanism for the settlement of disputes that in most Western states is an independent court system. (Not required is American style judicial review - see the UK.)
If all of these conditions are not present, then you do not have democracy but something else. What that something else is may be "good" or "bad" but it is not democracy. I would argue that this definition is both universal and necessary for the concept of democracy to have any meaning.

Cheers

JohnT

Tom Odom
08-18-2010, 03:06 PM
Tom, interesting thread, but I want to return to your seemingly minor point. As a political scientist and an old guy, I assert that for democracy to exist three conditions need to be present:
1. Free, competitive, and periodic elections to select leaders open to a majority of the adult population as voters.
2. Sufficient freedom of speech, press, religion, and assembly so that electoral campaigns can be organized and policies widely debated.
3. An impartial mechanism for the settlement of disputes that in most Western states is an independent court system. (Not required is American style judicial review - see the UK.)
If all of these conditions are not present, then you do not have democracy but something else. What that something else is may be "good" or "bad" but it is not democracy. I would argue that this definition is both universal and necessary for the concept of democracy to have any meaning.

Cheers

JohnT

JohnT

As a westerner I would agree. As an Africanist interpreting probable African reactions, maybe so, maybe not, depending on whom you speak to and of what you speak.

M-A

Reference the debate on assistance, here are the relevant pieces from the CNN series:


Why foreign aid is important for Africa (http://www.cnn.com/2010/OPINION/08/13/aid.africa.abugre/index.html)

Nairobi, Kenya (CNN) -- The idea that those who have should share with those who don't is inherent in most societies -- insects, animals and humans alike.

Sharing is essential to maintain and protect the collective, and empathy is an essential value of what it is to be human. It is inhuman to watch another dying of hunger and not share when you have more than enough to eat.

International aid is the instrument by which this very human practice occurs in modern times across borders, and should ordinarily not be controversial. But it is -- very much so....


Why foreign aid and Africa don't mix (http://www.cnn.com/2010/OPINION/08/12/africa.aid.calderisi/index.html)

By Robert Calderisi, Special to CNN
Friday, Charles Abugre of the UN Millennium Campaign writes for CNN about why aid is important for Africa and how it can be made more effective.

(CNN) -- I once asked a president of the Central African Republic, Ange-Félix Patassé, to give up a personal monopoly he held on the distribution of refined oil products in his country.

He was unapologetic. "Do you expect me to lose money in the service of my people?" he replied.

That, in a nutshell, has been the problem of Africa. Very few African governments have been on the same wavelength as Western providers of aid....


Now I will say that in offering the 2 sides to the question, the 2 commentators are talking apples versus oranges. the first centers on food and aid in general and disaster assistance specifically. When he does refer to developmental assistance, he uses Asia to make a positive case. The second uses the developmental definition for assistance. He is, however, honest enough to say that some countries have broken the dependency mold he uses as an argument against assistance.

Best
Tom

Rex Brynen
08-18-2010, 04:05 PM
A happen to be graphing the Freedom House (http://www.freedomhouse.org/template.acfm?page=1) scores for various regions the other day (as part of a project on the depressing state of political freedom in the Arab world), and I'll post the results here since they show Africa too. They show fairly clearly the improvement caused by so-called "third wave" democratization in the 1990s--and the subsequent stalling and even retrenchment as hybrid electoral-authoritarian regimes emerge.

http://prrnblog.files.wordpress.com/2010/08/graph.jpg

Freedom House scores both political and civil liberties on a 1-7 scale, where 1=most free. Therefore, when looking at the graph a lower numerical score is "more free". I have some quibbles with their coding (especially pre-1990s), but I do with Polity IV (http://www.systemicpeace.org/polity/polity4.htm) and all the other quantitative indicators too.

M-A Lagrange
08-18-2010, 05:33 PM
Rex,
Interesting graphic. Africa seems to enjoy a better democratic life than Arab countries.
What I “fear” the most at the moment in Africa is the tendency to look at other models than Westerns ones as better. Not that westerns models are better.
There is a strong tendency to justify autocratic regimes by looking into Asian models, especially China, to justify that democracy is not adapted to Africa. What I would not like to see is a similar reject of democracy because of economical unrelated non development. And that Africa falls in the same model/pit than Arab countries because of the failure of “democratic” regimes.
In addition, I would just say that I have seen excellent work made by individuals coming from South America or Asia in the electoral process in Sudan which has been completely undermined by Africans (not all of them far from it. ! or 2 but that’s enough to maintain a bad reputation). Why? Because they fear their neighbour most of the time or do not want to be confronted with issues. If no voice is raised then there is no problems. Hopefully things are changing.



Tom,

I do agree with you, using relief aid to justify the success or failure of development aid does not make a lot of sense. I am also “afraid” of the tendency to drop development aid on the shoulders of humanitarian organisations. Humanitarian/relief work is not development and vice versa.
The path between the 2 still needs to be found. :rolleyes:

Pol-Mil FSO
08-18-2010, 06:37 PM
The latest edition of Der Spiegel has an article that reiterates the argument that development aid does more harm than good by fostering dependency:
http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,712068,00.html

That said, I think that the recent referendum in Kenya is a positive development - hopefully an opportunity to break away from an ethnic-based and corruption-fueled model of governance.

Fuchs
08-18-2010, 10:39 PM
Africa has several problems that keep it from developing well (along its own paths).

Insufficient contact among African nations is one key problem (much traffic infrastructure such as railroads was built for overseas exports - orthogonal to the coastline - instead of for the connection of countries/then-colonies).

Another key problem is the lack of a middle class that could actually work out a path of development that works well.

Yet another key problem is the lack of an effective bureaucracy that can harness the workforce of the country.
(I read often of great unemployment and underemployment. This is essentially a waste of workforce. These people get fed anyway, with a bit more food they could be involved in productive projects (dams, irrigation systems, roads, buildings built with local materials, education, training and much more). The European model of a state fails so badly in Africa that they cannot even harness the country's workforce as well as ancient Egyptian Pharao's and Chinese emperors were able to.)


Western-style democracy isn't even close to perfection and doesn't need to be emulated - they might someday find and adopt a better model, at least a better one for themselves. Democracy needs to grow, it cannot simply be introduced. They need to develop the(ir) pillars of democracy, and that will likely involve the development of forms of democracy that suit their conditions.

Rex Brynen
08-19-2010, 12:00 AM
Western-style democracy isn't even close to perfection and doesn't need to be emulated - they might someday find and adopt a better model, at least a better one for themselves.

I also suggest that we avoid using the term "Western style democracy." There little similarity between the structures of, say, the political-institutional structures of the UK, France, and the US.

Moreover, one could argue that the most successful example of a democratic parliamentary system—not in terms of quality, but certainly in terms of sheer number of voters and in certainly in terms of remarkable stability despite all the poverty and ethnic cleavages stacked against it—is.... India.

John T. Fishel
08-19-2010, 11:06 AM
If one looks at India in terms of the definition I gave of democracy, one finds that it meets all 3 of the criteria I proposed. Does it do so in exactly the same way as the US, UK, France, or Germany (or any other established democracy)? No. But it does do so.

Cheers

JohnT

Rex Brynen
08-19-2010, 12:11 PM
If one looks at India in terms of the definition I gave of democracy, one finds that it meets all 3 of the criteria I proposed. Does it do so in exactly the same way as the US, UK, France, or Germany (or any other established democracy)? No. But it does do so.

Cheers

JohnT

Yes, and you proofread too! God that last post of mine was full of typos...

Bob's World
08-20-2010, 10:42 AM
(I posted this on another thread a few minutes ago, but it really fits better here):

Africa is a fascinating and troubled land, with many challenges. I believe firmly that bad systems produce bad results, and Africa has not been able to escape the vortex of borders and governance imposed upon them by others; nor the corrupting effects of the primary goal of virtually everyone who goes to Africa to extract some resource for their own profit elsewhere, with little inclination by outsider or insider alike to actually invest in Africa and her people alike.

Labels like "failed state" are not particularly helpful, as most of these are nations with fractured populaces and cultures that were not developed under a Westphalian construct of governance, but rather had these foreign concepts imposed upon them. Bad systems. I would really like to see our State Department step back from the current insanity gripping our own government and stop forming departments focused on things like "Counterterrorism," "Counterinsurgency" and "Democracy"; and instead recast themselves as a "Foreign Office" with the majority department being focused on States; but with a "Non-State" office designed to work policy and diplomacy with the ever growing in number, size and purpose family of powerful organizations (legal and illegal) outside of the state construct. I don't need a State Department to do CT, that is a very limited tactical mission done very well domestically by the FBI, and overseas by the CIA and SOF. Similarly there (IMO) really is no such thing as foreign COIN, only Domestic COIN. As to democracy, I have to side with our founding fathers on that one. No foreign power has the standing to tell any other populace how to govern as each has the inalienable right to self determination. Democracy itself is a dangerous concept in its pure form and must be contained and controlled within carefully designed and enforced limitations, such as we imposed with our Constitution when the Confederation threatened to destroy our young nation with the chaos of raw democracy. A "Self Determination" Division would serve us well. Again, bad structures lead to bad results and we are getting bad results from our policy as they are shaped and implemented in structures designed for a world emerging out of WWII that no longer exists.

Africa could probably profit from a lot less foreign charity and exploitation; and instead getting together to develop 3-4 EU-like structures committed to common security and economic development goals that do not eradicate the state structures, but rather that reconsolidates people with common heritages and shares resources more effectively. Not sure if they can get there but it seems to be the evolution of governance globally.

Just looking at Western Civilization over the past 2200 years or so as the Romans expanded their influence we went from Tribal to City States / Feudal to Westphalian States, to confederations of sovereign states (American States under the Articles of Confederation; the EU) to broader structures of shared sovereignty (USA under the Constitution; perhaps a United States of Europe some day as they evolve?)

I could see Africa growing in stability if they could work toward a similar path, where they could develop a few broad confederations that could someday evolve into large, powerful and stable nations, or something similar to that that makes sense in their cultures. One such structure could be a Caliphate. We should become the champion of such a concept, not the obstacle to.

The world is evolving; and we need to be careful that we don't wake up one day and find that we are standing on the wrong side of history. Each of those changes in governance structures I described above was associated with old powers falling away and new powers emerging. Each was also associated with some significant change in information technology (Roman Roads, nautical navigation, printing press, steam and internal combustion power harnessed, electronic communications) that brought isolated groups together into more effective alliances.

Too much of our efforts in Africa is just flailing at the symptoms of problems, rather than stepping back and taking a broader view.

Pete
08-21-2010, 03:46 AM
Africa is a fascinating and troubled land, with many challenges. I believe firmly that bad systems produce bad results, and Africa has not been able to escape the vortex of borders and governance imposed upon them by others ...
Yet another visionary scheme to reform the world? For the time being at least we should be sure to keep our powder dry.

Bob's World
08-21-2010, 09:46 AM
Yet another visionary scheme to reform the world? For the time being at least we should be sure to keep our powder dry.

I assume you mean keep throwing good money after bad? It is our most likely course, but I doubt it is one that will produce more than a largely ineffective mitigation of the symptoms of the problems there.

Bad systems and bad policies breed untold problems. For example, if one really wanted to curb corruption in Afghanistan they would begin by fixing the constitution that sets conditions that make corruption inevitable; not by arresting some dumb bastard thrown under the bus by his equally corrupt political rivals. But it is easier to just hack at those branches; and as you say, it requires no vision to do so.

M-A Lagrange
08-21-2010, 11:54 AM
Africa could probably profit from a lot less foreign charity and exploitation; and instead getting together to develop 3-4 EU-like structures committed to common security and economic development goals that do not eradicate the state structures, but rather that reconsolidates people with common heritages and shares resources more effectively. Not sure if they can get there but it seems to be the evolution of governance globally.



Sénégal: 50 ans après, l'éclatement de la Fédération du Mali dans l'oubli
La Fédération du Mali, formée en janvier 1959 à Dakar, regroupait initialement le Sénégal, le Soudan français, la Haute-Volta (Burkina Faso) et le Dahomey (Bénin).
Ces deux derniers pays s'en retirent très vite et laissent seuls Sénégalais et Soudanais dans cette aventure fédérale, boudée également par le dirigeant ivoirien Félix Houphouët Boigny.
Le Soudanais Modibo Keïta est président du gouvernement fédéral et le Sénégalais Léopold Sédar Senghor préside l'Assemblée fédérale.
La Fédération va sombrer notamment devant les difficultés du partage des postes (présidence et assemblée, ministère des Affaires étrangères, chef d'Etat-major de l'armée).
Elle éclate dans la nuit du 19 au 20 août 1960, les Sénégalais dénonçant une "tentative de coup d'Etat de Modibo Keita", accusation rejetée par les Soudanais.
Selon des historiens, la France n'a jamais été favorable à la Fédération du Mali et a oeuvré à son éclatement.http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5iXvo33EtjCVaL78Tq7YmzGZ4-8hA

I translate:
50 later, the disbanded federation of Mali is forgotten
The federation of Mali, created on January 1959 in Dakar, was initially regrouping Senegal, French Sudan (Mali), Haute Volta (Burkina Faso) and Dahomay (Benin).
Those two last countries quickly quitted this federal adventure also not supported by the Ivorian president Felix Houphouet Boigny.
The Suadanese (Malian) Modibo Keita was president of the federation and the Senegalese Leopold Sedar Senghor president of the federal assembly.
The federation will fall mainly because of the difficulties to share power postings as president and assembly president, foreign affairs office, chief of the armies.
During the night of August 19 to 20, the federation will explode, the Senegalese denouncing a coup attent from Modobo Kaita. Accusation refuted by the Sudanese (Malian).
It is also said that France was not supportive and worked to its destruction.

Well, France did work to the destruction of this federation, I guess. But my point is not there. As so often in so many countries, sharing power is an issue and brings good idears on their knees.
A United State of Africa is just a dream for now. The main hiccup is that people in power do not feel confident enough in their position. And they have good reasons for that. The first one being the fact that most of them do not have support from their populations and even less from their armies.
The first thing to build in too many countries is a real national army which is not a competitor for civilian power and civilian entrepreneurs.
What ever you do, with or without aid, if you cannot pass the hiccup to have an army that is separated from power and whom officers are not allowed to interfere with the public debate and use the State assets to intimidate competitors… then you are building a useless fake state.
As anthropologists have shown, chiefs had to respond to their people and being chief was both enjoying privileges and the burden of real obligations. Most of the time, obligations were so heavy that it was worst being the chief.
But that went lost in time and now, too many believe that being in power is just enjoying privileges. But times are changing...

And Bob,
labels as failed states (or fake state should I say) are usefull as they allow to put a generic name on a reallity. That does not mean that failed states are all the same and exclusively Africa. To be very honest, the actual Iraki or Afghan governments are failed states.

the question is much more: now that we can name the disease, it's time to find a cure. Labelling is not curring and on that we do definitively agree.

Bob's World
08-21-2010, 02:52 PM
I think its a bad label that confuses the point to call a people that come from a culture where "state" are a foreign concept and then judging them as "failed" when they don't do it well, or reject it altogether.

Kind of like characterizing Michael Jordan as a "Failed Baseball Player," yes, it is true, but it is a derogative label that misses the point altogether. Maybe we just need to help these guys get back to the form of governance that comes natural to them and stop trying to make them something they aren't.

This is why I think it is time to retire the "State Department" for a Foreign Office with State, and non-state departments within it.

Uboat509
08-22-2010, 06:36 PM
I was in Niger during this most recent coup and for several months afterwards. The CSRD is apparently doing all the right things to transition back to some form of representative democracy but I would argue that even if everything goes the way that it is planned now, that the corruption, nepotism and patronage will still be there eating away at whatever positive moves that the new government makes. Until you get rid of that rot, throwing a veneer of "Western style" democracy isn't going to be successful and you won't get rid of that rot until Africans themselves decide to get rid of it themselves.

Pete
08-22-2010, 09:04 PM
In terms of U.S foreign policy, what to do about "failed states" -- or whatever we decide to call them -- might turn out to be to 21st century foreign policy as Containment of communism was to the 20th. Should other terrorist strikes on U.S. or European soil be mounted from any of these places a quick retaliatory strike disproportionate enough to send an emphatic message could be a more desirable policy option than years of having troops on the ground conducting COIN operations. A few weeks ago the Washington Post reported that a new kind of high-explosive technology every bit as destructive as nukes is being developed, and for some decades the U.S. would be the sole possessor of the weapon.

Dayuhan
08-23-2010, 05:48 AM
Tom, interesting thread, but I want to return to your seemingly minor point. As a political scientist and an old guy, I assert that for democracy to exist three conditions need to be present:
1. Free, competitive, and periodic elections to select leaders open to a majority of the adult population as voters.
2. Sufficient freedom of speech, press, religion, and assembly so that electoral campaigns can be organized and policies widely debated.
3. An impartial mechanism for the settlement of disputes that in most Western states is an independent court system. (Not required is American style judicial review - see the UK.)
If all of these conditions are not present, then you do not have democracy but something else. What that something else is may be "good" or "bad" but it is not democracy. I would argue that this definition is both universal and necessary for the concept of democracy to have any meaning.

I’d have to add the need for some sort of institutionalized method of protecting minorities from the tyranny of the majority… possibly not a requirement for democracy to exist, but probably necessary to make democracy any more attractive than the alternatives. Granted, an impartial mechanism for the settlement of disputes might in some sense embrace this, but even an impartial court system will not necessarily protect minorities if the majorities are making the laws.


I assume you mean keep throwing good money after bad? It is our most likely course, but I doubt it is one that will produce more than a largely ineffective mitigation of the symptoms of the problems there.

Bad systems and bad policies breed untold problems. For example, if one really wanted to curb corruption in Afghanistan they would begin by fixing the constitution that sets conditions that make corruption inevitable; not by arresting some dumb bastard thrown under the bus by his equally corrupt political rivals. But it is easier to just hack at those branches; and as you say, it requires no vision to do so.

How much vision does it require to see that it is neither our responsibility nor our right to diagnose the root causes of other people’s problems or to impose our own preferred solutions? We may choose to try to alleviate symptoms if it makes us feel better to do so, or if we believe that failure to do so would compromise our interests. Attempts to fix other countries, however, are generally uncalled for and rarely effective.

It might be true that “if one really wanted to curb corruption in Afghanistan they would begin by fixing the constitution”, but unless one is an Afghan one might be better advised to back off and mind one’s own business.

Dayuhan
08-23-2010, 05:56 AM
I was in Niger during this most recent coup and for several months afterwards. The CSRD is apparently doing all the right things to transition back to some form of representative democracy but I would argue that even if everything goes the way that it is planned now, that the corruption, nepotism and patronage will still be there eating away at whatever positive moves that the new government makes. Until you get rid of that rot, throwing a veneer of "Western style" democracy isn't going to be successful and you won't get rid of that rot until Africans themselves decide to get rid of it themselves.

It is true that Africans will have to get rid of that rot themselves. It's also true that it's likely to take them a while to do it, just as it took us a while to do it. The glossy version of our own history that we teach in school often leads us to forget - if we ever knew it - that for much of our own history corruption, nepotism, and patronage were as prevalent as they are in Africa today. The same is true of Europe, which for much of its history experienced not only corruption, nepotism, and patronage but a level of political violence far greater than what we see in Africa today.

Africa's process of political definition may have been arrested by colonialism, but once resumed, why should we assume that it would run more smoothly or peacefully than similar processes elsewhere?

Bob's World
08-23-2010, 10:28 AM
I’d have to add the need for some sort of institutionalized method of protecting minorities from the tyranny of the majority… possibly not a requirement for democracy to exist, but probably necessary to make democracy any more attractive than the alternatives. Granted, an impartial mechanism for the settlement of disputes might in some sense embrace this, but even an impartial court system will not necessarily protect minorities if the majorities are making the laws.



How much vision does it require to see that it is neither our responsibility nor our right to diagnose the root causes of other people’s problems or to impose our own preferred solutions? We may choose to try to alleviate symptoms if it makes us feel better to do so, or if we believe that failure to do so would compromise our interests. Attempts to fix other countries, however, are generally uncalled for and rarely effective.

It might be true that “if one really wanted to curb corruption in Afghanistan they would begin by fixing the constitution”, but unless one is an Afghan one might be better advised to back off and mind one’s own business.

...only that we have a duty to understand what it is that actually must be done in order to get off of the path to instability, and onto the path toward stability. In the end, the Host nation must choose the path, and take their own journey. If we make the decision for them, or carry them down the path it is not likely to be an effective engagement as it will lack the legitimacy of self determination and popular sovereignty.

I post these thoughts not to prescribe what we must do, only to help us understand what must be done. There is a difference. Less is more. We over engage currently, often in the wrong places and in ineffective ways. DOD is reconfiguring itself currently to go even deeper down this path, I understand why they are doing that (we need to do something, and DOD is an action organization), but I believe the nuances of how to achieve success are not well represented by organizations such as CNAS that has the SEC DEF's ear.

This will all balance out, an over correction is probably better than no correction at all. But I believe that COL Gentile plays a critical role as well, in persistently reminding that there are still states that must be deterred, and wars that will need to be fought when deterrence fails. I would add to that that we must evolve to learn how to expand deterrence in new ways beyond state structures as we move into the future. We are indeed in an age of strategic uncertainty, where we end up on the other side will depend on how well we navigate in the fog and darkness, and how well we can focus on where we are going, not on where we came from.

Powers rise and fall in these historic cycles of uncertainty, and arguably the US was the first power to rise in the current cycle, and we need two hands to count all of those that have fallen. This cycle is likely to be several generations long, so the question is not who was first to rise, but rather who will be last. I believe that the US, for all of its current challenges has the best prospects to be last man standing; but only if we remain committed to our principles as a nation that brought us here (not the current values we assess to those principles), and continue to embrace change. To resist it and seek to consolidate and hold the world static is to be bypassed or defeated by those who continue to press.

Dayuhan
08-23-2010, 11:32 AM
I post these thoughts not to prescribe what we must do, only to help us understand what must be done. There is a difference. Less is more.

Possibly I misinterpreted this, posted on another thread dealing with the same subject...


Soooo, snipe at the symptoms, but ignore the problems?

I have to go with Henry David Thoreau on this one:

"There are a thousand hacking at the branches of evil to one who is striking at the root."

I choose to hack at the root.

"I choose to hack at the root" seems to go beyond merely understanding what must be done, but possibly I overextended the metaphor.

davidbfpo
08-26-2010, 08:33 AM
A focus on Zimbabwe, the intricate power play by that superb player Robert Mugabe, but it was the last paragraph that caught my attention:
Professor Goran Hyden of the University of Florida gives a very precise summation in his paper entitled “Between State and Community: Challenges to redesigning governance in Africa” by saying:

“Recent deliberations over what to do with the problematic forms of governance in Zimbabwe shows that the rule that you are either with me or against me continues to be a powerful force in deciding relations between African heads of state and the rest of the world” (2006:16).

Link:http://www.opendemocracy.net/clifford-chitupa-mashiri/mugabes-zero-sum-game?utm_source=feedblitz&utm_medium=FeedBlitzEmail&utm_content=201210&utm_campaign=On-Demand_2010-08-25%2018:05

JMA
08-26-2010, 09:51 AM
A focus on Zimbabwe, the intricate power play by that superb player Robert Mugabe, but it was the last paragraph that caught my attention:

Link:http://www.opendemocracy.net/clifford-chitupa-mashiri/mugabes-zero-sum-game?utm_source=feedblitz&utm_medium=FeedBlitzEmail&utm_content=201210&utm_campaign=On-Demand_2010-08-25%2018:05

Realism must prevail here. The Greeks and Romans started trials with this democracy thing hundreds of years ago but the 1967 coup d'état (Greece) and fascism in Italy (1922-43) proves how fragile this whole democracy thing can be. Stable democracy in Africa? Not in the lifetimes of anyone alive today.

John T. Fishel
08-27-2010, 01:30 AM
In fact, Dayuhan, the argument you make is much the same as that made during the ratification debate over the US constitution. Many of those present at the Convention argued that a Bill of Rights was not needed because the structure of the govt protected rights... I would argue that the minimal conditions of the definition I proposed generally protect minority rights through the requirement for sufficient freedom of speechm press, assembly, and religion coupled with an impartial independent mechanism for disput settlement minimally protect the rights of the minoriities. Of course, I would never object to getting specific in the constitution of a state.;)

Cheers

JohnT

Dayuhan
08-27-2010, 10:06 PM
I would argue that the minimal conditions of the definition I proposed generally protect minority rights through the requirement for sufficient freedom of speechm press, assembly, and religion coupled with an impartial independent mechanism for disput settlement minimally protect the rights of the minoriities. Of course, I would never object to getting specific in the constitution of a state.;)


And I would argue that given the frequency and vigor with which minorities are stomped by majorities even when structural protections are present, the protection needs to be as specific as possible, and needs regular review to see that it's actually functioning.

It is an old argument; dress us up archaic and we could re-enact the debates of the founding fathers. The debate endures because the issue is so fundamental to any system based on majority rule.

Fuchs
08-27-2010, 10:34 PM
The best protection for minorities is not written on paper, but based on party power games.

A minority can become a key player, even a king-maker. It can be the decisive few per cent in a democracy. It can play the role of state-loyal group that is above average involved in national authorities.

The truly powerless minorities are those which
- have no economic power
- are not represented in state authorities (especially executive positions such as justice, police, city planning)
- have no own party, nor do form a wing of a powerful party


The Turkish people in Germany are such a minority. The only thing that's left for them is indeed the constitutional protection and the rule of law. They failed to gain influence through anything else. In fact, even much smaller minorities are much more powerful because of better political strategies.

JMA
08-27-2010, 11:36 PM
The best protection for minorities is not written on paper, but based on party power games.

A minority can become a key player, even a king-maker. It can be the decisive few per cent in a democracy. It can play the role of state-loyal group that is above average involved in national authorities.

The truly powerless minorities are those which
- have no economic power
- are not represented in state authorities (especially executive positions such as justice, police, city planning)
- have no own party, nor do form a wing of a powerful party


The Turkish people in Germany are such a minority. The only thing that's left for them is indeed the constitutional protection and the rule of law. They failed to gain influence through anything else. In fact, even much smaller minorities are much more powerful because of better political strategies.

Ok, so where in Africa do we see a healthy multi-party democracy?

That not being in place where do we see a rock solid constitution with minority rights guarantees entrenched?

Economic power? That's an easy one. Just grab it and to hell with the consequences.

So Africa gets zero out of your three. As I said, not in the lifetimes of any living person...

Fuchs
08-28-2010, 12:17 AM
It's a classic mistake to look at past & present and conclude from that on the future. Much can change.

My lifetime will (hope so) reach well beyond 2050. Africa's states will be about twice as old as now in 2050.

Dayuhan
08-28-2010, 01:23 AM
Everything will change. How it will change, and how fast, and into what... these are things none of us know.

Western Europe took several centuries to define its internal political structures and move from rule by whimsical and generally inept hereditary autocrats to functioning democracy, and the process was accompanied by a level of violence that made Idi Amin look like Gandhi by comparison. Maybe the Africans can do better.

JMA
08-28-2010, 06:16 AM
It's a classic mistake to look at past & present and conclude from that on the future. Much can change.

My lifetime will (hope so) reach well beyond 2050. Africa's states will be about twice as old as now in 2050.

Is it not also a classic mistake to make policy based on wishful thinking?

If grounds for short term optimism can be provided then please do so. Can't see the point of going to bed at nights with ones fingers crossed hoping that things will be different when one wakes in the morning.

Take Afghanistan and its tribal make-up... what are the chances of a great leap forward in the next 50 years there? Zip, nada, nothing. It would take a Peter the Great to drag that lot kicking and screaming into the 21st century. Chances of that happening?

JMA
08-28-2010, 06:24 AM
Everything will change. How it will change, and how fast, and into what... these are things none of us know.

Western Europe took several centuries to define its internal political structures and move from rule by whimsical and generally inept hereditary autocrats to functioning democracy, and the process was accompanied by a level of violence that made Idi Amin look like Gandhi by comparison. Maybe the Africans can do better.

If you believe that past genocides in Europe excuse the same in Africa then that's fine. So we can chalk up a 1m person genocide as an improvement on a 5m person one, yes?

Feel so sad for the millions who are dying while others somewhere believe things are not that bad in Africa.

JMA
08-28-2010, 06:27 AM
In fact, Dayuhan, the argument you make is much the same as that made during the ratification debate over the US constitution. Many of those present at the Convention argued that a Bill of Rights was not needed because the structure of the govt protected rights... I would argue that the minimal conditions of the definition I proposed generally protect minority rights through the requirement for sufficient freedom of speechm press, assembly, and religion coupled with an impartial independent mechanism for disput settlement minimally protect the rights of the minoriities. Of course, I would never object to getting specific in the constitution of a state.;)

Cheers

JohnT

In the African context who would enforce the provisions of such a constitution?

Dayuhan
08-28-2010, 06:31 AM
If you believe that past genocides in Europe excuse the same in Africa then that's fine. So we can chalk up a 1m person genocide as an improvement on a 5m person one, yes?

Feel so sad for the millions who are dying while others somewhere believe things are not that bad in Africa.

Did I say things weren't bad, or that European genocides excuse African genocides? The point is simply that given human precedent elsewhere, we've no reason to expect anything other than what is, nor have we any reason to think we're superior. Neither have we any reason to think we should or could "fix" Africa. They need to work things out their own way, and it's likely to be ugly, just as it was for us.

JMA
08-28-2010, 06:45 AM
Did I say things weren't bad, or that European genocides excuse African genocides? The point is simply that given human precedent elsewhere, we've no reason to expect anything other than what is, nor have we any reason to think we're superior. Neither have we any reason to think we should or could "fix" Africa. They need to work things out their own way, and it's likely to be ugly, just as it was for us.

Thanks for the clarification.

I would say that it is the very unwillingness to criticise or demand/expect better out of Africa for fear of being charged with superior behaviour or racism that contributes to the current state of affairs. And if the gang of thugs (the leadership) sitting in that AU (club) can prevent interference in the internal of sovereign states in respect to human rights abuses and the like then they can continue with impunity. They have reached that point where they have outsiders making excuses for their actions. Well done to them.

"fix" Africa? Africa cannot fix itself so what you want to do? Ring-fence it and them get on with it? Same for medieval Afghanistan?

Dayuhan
08-28-2010, 08:13 AM
I would say that it is the very unwillingness to criticise or demand/expect better out of Africa for fear of being charged with superior behaviour or racism that contributes to the current state of affairs.

I'm not sure how my expectations or demands contribute to Africa's current state of affairs: I rather doubt that anyone in Africa gives a damn what I expect or demand. And while I would certainly hope that Africans will sort out their affairs faster and with less misery than Europeans, I'm not sure it would be reasonable to expect or demand it.

I suppose Africans might have had a hypothetical right to demand or expect better than they got from the gang of European thugs that ran the place during the age of colonies, but their expectations and demands meant as little in that time as ours do in this time.


And if the gang of thugs (the leadership) sitting in that AU (club) can prevent interference in the internal of sovereign states in respect to human rights abuses and the like then they can continue with impunity. They have reached that point where they have outsiders making excuses for their actions. Well done to them.

"fix" Africa? Africa cannot fix itself so what you want to do? Ring-fence it and them get on with it? Same for medieval Afghanistan?

The question of whether or not we should fix Africa seems somewhat moot until we consider the question of whether or not we can fix Africa. I don't think we can, though I suspect that we could mess it up even more. If you look at the number of dollars and troops we've applied to fixing Afghanistan, and then extrapolate based on relative size and population, it's fairly clear that we haven't a fraction of the dollars or troops that would be required to fix Africa. Then of course we have to consider that the dollars and troops so far applied to Afghanistan have yet to fix anything... I suppose we'll have to leave it to the Chinese, who have a lot more dollars and a lot more troops than we have. They'll choke on it of course, but so would we; better them than us.

Certainly the Africans can't fix Africa right away. Neither can we, or anyone else. I suspect that over the course of a century or two they can probably pull it off. For much of the 19th and 20th centuries East Asia and Latin America seemed beyond salvation; I'm not sure I'd call either "fixed", but they've managed considerable forward progress since we got it through our thick skulls that they needed to sort out their own affairs without our "help".

tequila
08-28-2010, 11:56 AM
"fix" Africa? Africa cannot fix itself so what you want to do? Ring-fence it and them get on with it? Same for medieval Afghanistan?


Just wondering where you get the idea that Africa is somehow incapable of "fixing" itself. Yes, few African countries look much like Western Europe or the U.S. - guess what, 40 years ago, neither Western Europe or the U.S. looked much like they do now either. Minority rights were hardly secure, unless it was the right to occupy second-class status enforced by both law and enthusiastic violence by the majority.

A common failing of the present is to assume that the current state of affairs somehow represents the natural static order of things. Afghanistan is in chaotic violence now (well, parts of the south and east, but that's all that gets reported in the West so it must be so, right?), so it must have always been in chaotic violence! East Asia is peaceful and prosperous, so it must have always been so, no? Africa is poor and afflicted with poor governance - surely it must have always been that way. Of course 40 years ago East Asia was consumed in mass violence, starvation, war, and terror while Africa experienced a generally peaceful transition to self-rule. Who knows what the next 40 years will bring? I do know this - it's probably not going to look much like the present.

JMA
08-28-2010, 02:40 PM
Just wondering where you get the idea that Africa is somehow incapable of "fixing" itself. Yes, few African countries look much like Western Europe or the U.S. - guess what, 40 years ago, neither Western Europe or the U.S. looked much like they do now either. Minority rights were hardly secure, unless it was the right to occupy second-class status enforced by both law and enthusiastic violence by the majority.

The word "fix" is in inverted commas for the reason that what constitutes "fix" in terms of Africa is not defined and therefore totally subjective.

What do you think constitutes "fix"?

Again you look backwards to justify slow forward progress. (Why do people do this?)

Your 40 year standard (don't know where you pick this figure from - maybe you can explain that?) does not on the face of it seem meaningful or relevant to the potential for democracy to thrive in Africa.

Way before minority rights come basic human rights. I don't see violence necessarily by the majority as the main problem but rather violence inflicted by a military and police supported ruling elite upon the majority (to keep in power and their snouts in the trough).


A common failing of the present is to assume that the current state of affairs somehow represents the natural static order of things. Afghanistan is in chaotic violence now (well, parts of the south and east, but that's all that gets reported in the West so it must be so, right?), so it must have always been in chaotic violence! East Asia is peaceful and prosperous, so it must have always been so, no? Africa is poor and afflicted with poor governance - surely it must have always been that way. Of course 40 years ago East Asia was consumed in mass violence, starvation, war, and terror while Africa experienced a generally peaceful transition to self-rule. Who knows what the next 40 years will bring? I do know this - it's probably not going to look much like the present.

Not sure of that being a common failure as I can't think who thinks that anything is static. Forwards, backwards slow or fast there is always movement.

Can you support your contention that the area Afghanistan now covers was once peaceful and orderly? Interested to see if you are able.

Again the 40 year frame of reference... what exactly is the relevance?

OK, so now back to the present. What about this thread and whether democracy can thrive in Africa. Certainly not happening now so... will that be possible in your lifetime? Ok then your children's lifetime? Your grandchildren's lifetime? ....

South Asia? Do you maybe mean Southeast Asia?

JMA
08-28-2010, 04:57 PM
I'm not sure how my expectations or demands contribute to Africa's current state of affairs: I rather doubt that anyone in Africa gives a damn what I expect or demand. And while I would certainly hope that Africans will sort out their affairs faster and with less misery than Europeans, I'm not sure it would be reasonable to expect or demand it.

There are universally accepted human rights. If necessary they need to be enforced. Sadly for the world we have only a tired and wounded US prepared sometimes to make an attempt to protect those suffering under some dictator's jackboot. The world needs to be thankful to the US for their interventions over the years.

The difference between then and now is that we have a benchmark to measure just about everything against now so those behind on the curve have little or no excuse not to strive to comply with haste.

So yes the world has the right to make demands on the behaviour of countries... after all was that not what the ineffectual UN was supposed to do (and has failed in each of its four aims)?


I suppose Africans might have had a hypothetical right to demand or expect better than they got from the gang of European thugs that ran the place during the age of colonies, but their expectations and demands meant as little in that time as ours do in this time.

Yes they probably did... but do you have any idea how Africans dealt with Africans before the European thugs arrived?

Why not start with the rise of Shaka Zulu in South Africa or the Mfecane in the area now known as Zimbabwe. So before anyone sheds any tears for Lobengula who felt he was like the fly with the terrible English imperialists being the chameleon think about his (Matebele) victims.


The question of whether or not we should fix Africa seems somewhat moot until we consider the question of whether or not we can fix Africa. I don't think we can, though I suspect that we could mess it up even more. If you look at the number of dollars and troops we've applied to fixing Afghanistan, and then extrapolate based on relative size and population, it's fairly clear that we haven't a fraction of the dollars or troops that would be required to fix Africa. Then of course we have to consider that the dollars and troops so far applied to Afghanistan have yet to fix anything... I suppose we'll have to leave it to the Chinese, who have a lot more dollars and a lot more troops than we have. They'll choke on it of course, but so would we; better them than us.

Not a moot point at all. The sad truth is that the powers just can't leave Africa and its resources alone. If there was an African leader of the stature of Peter the Great who would take his country by the scruff of its neck and drag it kicking and screaming into the 21 century and thereby set a standard for the rest of Africa to emulate then things can be "fixed".

Why is it that all you seem to consider is military intervention and throwing money at the problem? Ever thought that having so few options in itself may be part of the problem? Africa is not begging for aid it is the governments which plunder their countries which beg for aid which they in turn loot for their own ends while the donors look on blindly.

Can't leave Africa to the Chinese, the West needs the resources too.

I guess the hope is that one day there will be a US administration which will comprise people who have the smarts to figure this all out... not happened so far.


Certainly the Africans can't fix Africa right away. Neither can we, or anyone else. I suspect that over the course of a century or two they can probably pull it off. For much of the 19th and 20th centuries East Asia and Latin America seemed beyond salvation; I'm not sure I'd call either "fixed", but they've managed considerable forward progress since we got it through our thick skulls that they needed to sort out their own affairs without our "help".

There are certainly some things which can be "fixed" right away and others will be a work in progress for many years to come. Can the people of Africa wait all those years for a chance to live in an enlightened country with a strong rule of law and the protection of a rock solid constitution? Just by dealing with corruption Africa will be able to take a giant stride forward. It won't take much to do if there is the will...

M-A Lagrange
08-28-2010, 06:03 PM
somehow, I feel like some are discussing of a continent which is located on Mars or elsewhere in a galaxy far away a long time ago. :rolleyes:
The idea that all plagues in Africa are due to colonisation is a non sense. Just like all development was stopped by europeans through slave trade. In such business you need 2 guys to robe the third one. And among the 2 bad guys, one native.

Such approach of this continent does participate to the counter efforts of several leaders and their clique to justify that what applies all around the world should not apply to the African continent because they are different and have suffered a lot.

It will take time but things will change, with or without the US, UN or EU or even the Chinese. It will most probably requires that a generation of leaders pass away and all the state servants they put in place too.

Africa is a sweet but harsh mistress, even for the african people. ;)

Dayuhan
08-29-2010, 01:11 AM
There are universally accepted human rights. If necessary they need to be enforced. Sadly for the world we have only a tired and wounded US prepared sometimes to make an attempt to protect those suffering under some dictator's jackboot. The world needs to be thankful to the US for their interventions over the years.

This isn't about what needs to be done or what should be done, it's about what can be done. The US can't enforce human rights, in Africa or anywhere else. We haven't the money or the manpower. Neither, realistically, has anybody else.


The difference between then and now is that we have a benchmark to measure just about everything against now so those behind on the curve have little or no excuse not to strive to comply with haste.

Who is this "we" of which you speak? The inmates here at SWJ? The White People? The process of political evolution is messy and violent. It always is, it has been everywhere. The former colonies are "behind the curve" in this process because the process was interrupted for several centuries. Now the process has restarted, and surprise surprise, it's just as messy and violent as it always has been. "We" - whoever "we" are - may or may not have the "right" to demand or expect that Africa will comply with our standards, but since "we" haven't the capacity to enforce compliance, the "right" is irrelevant.

Who, in your view, are "we", and what exactly do you propose that "we" do?


Yes they probably did... but do you have any idea how Africans dealt with Africans before the European thugs arrived?

Of course. They dealt with each other the same way that Europeans dealt with each other in their centuries of thuggery. They dealt with each other in the same way that European settlers dealt with native populations in North America and Australia. The strong crushed the weak. This is not an African trait, it is a human trait. The Africans are no better, no worse, no different than anyone else... why should we expect or demand that they should be?


Not a moot point at all. The sad truth is that the powers just can't leave Africa and its resources alone.

What would you have "the powers" do... assuming without evidence that "the powers" are capable of doing anything on a collective basis?


If there was an African leader of the stature of Peter the Great who would take his country by the scruff of its neck and drag it kicking and screaming into the 21 century and thereby set a standard for the rest of Africa to emulate then things can be "fixed".

There isn't one, nor can we create one. Maybe someday there will be one. Russia existed as a distinct political entity for several centuries before it generated Peter; maybe with luck Africa can generate an equivalent within a century or two... or it might turn out that a personal saviour isn't what generates change in Africa at all.


Why is it that all you seem to consider is military intervention and throwing money at the problem? Ever thought that having so few options in itself may be part of the problem?

What option do you propose?


Can't leave Africa to the Chinese, the West needs the resources too.

The Africans, like everybody else, will sell the resources to the highest bidder, regardless of who intervenes or who invests. If investors get pissy about the terms of the deal, the deal will be changed, unilaterally. How long do you think it will be before some multi-billion dollar Chinese resource extraction enterprise gets nationalized? What do you think the Chinese will do about it?


I guess the hope is that one day there will be a US administration which will comprise people who have the smarts to figure this all out... not happened so far.

Perhaps you should enlighten us. What would you have us do?

And from M-A...


The idea that all plagues in Africa are due to colonisation is a non sense.

Of course it is. The idea that colonizers have no responsibility for the current state of affairs is equal nonsense. If nothing else, the egregiously perverse "national" boundaries inherited from the colonial age constitute a massive obstacle to progress.

All people, everywhere, have to gradually sort out the political identities that suit them, and to find ways for the entities they define to coexist without destroying each other. In Europe this process required centuries of almost continuous bloodshed. In the colonies the process was delayed by foreign occupation. That doesn't mean the process was made harder or easier, more or less complex, it was just delayed. When the colonists left the process picked up where it had stopped. It's going to be messy, as it has been everywhere else.


Such approach of this continent does participate to the counter efforts of several leaders and their clique to justify that what applies all around the world should not apply to the African continent because they are different and have suffered a lot.

Does it make any more sense to expect that Africans should be able to bypass stages in their political development that every other region has had to pass through just because we find those stages distasteful?


It will take time but things will change, with or without the US, UN or EU or even the Chinese. It will most probably requires that a generation of leaders pass away and all the state servants they put in place too.

With this I agree... if they do it in a single generation that would actually be a quite remarkable achievement. I would expect several.

M-A Lagrange
08-29-2010, 08:46 AM
And from M-A...
Of course it is. The idea that colonizers have no responsibility for the current state of affairs is equal nonsense. If nothing else, the egregiously perverse "national" boundaries inherited from the colonial age constitute a massive obstacle to progress.

All people, everywhere, have to gradually sort out the political identities that suit them, and to find ways for the entities they define to coexist without destroying each other. In Europe this process required centuries of almost continuous bloodshed. In the colonies the process was delayed by foreign occupation. That doesn't mean the process was made harder or easier, more or less complex, it was just delayed. When the colonists left the process picked up where it had stopped. It's going to be messy, as it has been everywhere else.

Dayuhan,

Sengor was saying, Africa will have finally deal with slavery the day African will recognise their responsability in it. It is the same with colonisation. Through, I am not saying that Europeans did not do it and had only positive influx. This is a very racist position which I reject in block without taking time to discuss it. Europ had a responsability in it and Europ had bad influence. Now, please, we are 50 years later in most of the sub saharian countries. (And what about US influence in Liberia...:()
My point is that even in Europe, Boundaries were imposed on the people: look at Yugoslavia, Poland that disapeared for centuries, the German minorities in Poland... The question is not there. Also, my experience is that people have true nationalist feelings in the Great Lake region for exemple. A congolese is a Congolese and he denise the right to be Congolese to Rwandese. The same with people from Burundi, South Sudan... Their personal history within those "artificial" boundaries in the last 50 years has shaped their national perception. The true problematic is TOO MANY SEE AFRICA HAS ONE SINGLE ENTITY. It is NOT. And then, the political use of ethnicity by all political actors, internal and external. Do you really think that coming from Bourgogne I have anything in comun with someone coming from Alsace or Provence part from a language and a school teaching?
It is the same with ethnicity. Yes it is stronger in Africa than in other places but as much as anywhere else. What makes it so artificially importante is the use politicians did and still do of it. But I know more and more individuals who just do not care from which ethnic group you are, what is important is that you come from the same country. (With some bemol, I accept that).


Does it make any more sense to expect that Africans should be able to bypass stages in their political development that every other region has had to pass through just because we find those stages distasteful?

No but if it can be minimised, then it should. Political evolutionism is no reason for social darwinism.


With this I agree... if they do it in a single generation that would actually be a quite remarkable achievement. I would expect several.

Let say I am optimistic. But still, please, when it comes to Africa, do not forget that it is a continent with countries as different as Tunisia and Zimbabwe. Do you really think the political and maturation process in Ethiopia is the same as in Swaziland?

Dayuhan
08-29-2010, 09:06 AM
My point is that even in Europe, Boundaries were imposed on the people: look at Yugoslavia, Poland that disapeared for centuries, the German minorities in Poland... The question is not there. Also, my experience is that people have true nationalist feelings in the Great Lake region for exemple. A congolese is a Congolese and he denise the right to be Congolese to Rwandese. The same with people from Burundi, South Sudan... Their personal history within those "artificial" boundaries in the last 50 years has shaped their national perception.

Certainly true. My point is simply that Africans are in the process of defining their political identities and affiliations. The state of this process and the manner in which it is carried out will of course vary considerably from place to place. Sometimes it may even be peaceful. It must, though, be worked out by Africans: no outside power can come in and decide what people should be part of what nation, where national boundaries should be, and how these emerging nations should interact with one another.

The process has involved violence and will involve more violence, as it has everywhere else. Africans have had to endure and will still have to endure absolutely horrible governance... just like everybody else has had to. The extent to which the outside world can change this is, I fear, quite limited.



No but if it can be minimised, then it should. Political evolutionism is no reason for social darwinism.

Agreed... we must do what we can. There are quite severe limits, though, to what we can do... and if we try to alleviate misery by taking charge ourselves, we may do as much harm as good. Our efforts to "fix" other places have not always been entirely successful.

M-A Lagrange
08-29-2010, 10:36 AM
Kenya’s PM party distances itself from Bashir’s visit as more details emerge on trip


We would like to point out to Kenyans and the international community that this was indeed a very unfortunate visit that could put into question the commitment of the government to implement the Constitution of the second republic in letter and spirit Nyong told a news conference on Saturday according to Capital FM website.

As we maintain cordial relations with our neighboring countries, we must not forget or disregard our equally important adherence to international conventions and commitments,” Nyong said.

This is definitely not a good beginning to compound a new Constitution with an act of impunity Orengo said adding that besides the explanation, Kenya had to take full responsibility.

We first have to give an explanation to ourselves because we broke our law that is supreme, besides violating an international agreement that we are a signatory.

http://sudantribune.com/spip.php?article36107

JMA
08-29-2010, 12:35 PM
Kenya’s PM party distances itself from Bashir’s visit as more details emerge on trip


We would like to point out to Kenyans and the international community that this was indeed a very unfortunate visit that could put into question the commitment of the government to implement the Constitution of the second republic in letter and spirit,” Nyong told a news conference on Saturday according to Capital FM website.
[quote]As we maintain cordial relations with our neighboring countries, we must not forget or disregard our equally important adherence to international conventions and commitments Nyong said.

This is definitely not a good beginning to compound a new Constitution with an act of impunity Orengo said adding that besides the explanation, Kenya had to take full responsibility.

We first have to give an explanation to ourselves because we broke our law that is supreme, besides violating an international agreement that we are a signatory.
http://sudantribune.com/spip.php?article36107

One needs to bear in mind that repercussions arising from the 2007 post-election violence in Kenya itself may well lead to ICC indictments for those currently serving within the current government.

Now looking at Mugabe's sheltering of another criminal, Mengistu, probably in so doing setting the example of "African solidarity" for the potential of he himself needing to seek shelter from justice at some point in the future.

The same could possibly be said of those Kenyans who may need a sanctuary safe from the ICC in the future. Bashir would no doubt return the favour. (Or at least they would be banking on it)

Look even that club of dictators and thieves who make up the AU would have to start to take the Rome Statute seriously if:

1) The US ratified the Rome Statute,
2) There was international pressure to comply and sanctions if they don't.

Note: This would offer a golden opportunity for the Brits to get out of the expense of the use of Kenya for near to valueless military training.

JMA
08-29-2010, 04:50 PM
Dayuhan,

Sengor was saying, Africa will have finally deal with slavery the day African will recognise their responsability in it. It is the same with colonisation. Through, I am not saying that Europeans did not do it and had only positive influx. This is a very racist position which I reject in block without taking time to discuss it. Europ had a responsability in it and Europ had bad influence. Now, please, we are 50 years later in most of the sub saharian countries. (And what about US influence in Liberia...:()
My point is that even in Europe, Boundaries were imposed on the people: look at Yugoslavia, Poland that disapeared for centuries, the German minorities in Poland... The question is not there. Also, my experience is that people have true nationalist feelings in the Great Lake region for exemple. A congolese is a Congolese and he denise the right to be Congolese to Rwandese. The same with people from Burundi, South Sudan... Their personal history within those "artificial" boundaries in the last 50 years has shaped their national perception. The true problematic is TOO MANY SEE AFRICA HAS ONE SINGLE ENTITY. It is NOT. And then, the political use of ethnicity by all political actors, internal and external. Do you really think that coming from Bourgogne I have anything in comun with someone coming from Alsace or Provence part from a language and a school teaching?
It is the same with ethnicity. Yes it is stronger in Africa than in other places but as much as anywhere else. What makes it so artificially importante is the use politicians did and still do of it. But I know more and more individuals who just do not care from which ethnic group you are, what is important is that you come from the same country. (With some bemol, I accept that).

No but if it can be minimised, then it should. Political evolutionism is no reason for social darwinism.

Let say I am optimistic. But still, please, when it comes to Africa, do not forget that it is a continent with countries as different as Tunisia and Zimbabwe. Do you really think the political and maturation process in Ethiopia is the same as in Swaziland?

Ignorance of Africa mixed in with the arrogance of "the smartest guy in the room" makes for a lethal cocktail. I have a friend who served in the USMC and later Rhodesia as an officer who went on to teach college in Virginia and has said that he constantly has to explain and re-explain that Africa is a content of 52 sovereign countries (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_sovereign_states_and_dependent_territories _in_Africa) and not one country.

I read recently of a person who introduces himself as coming from Yorubaland but since the British colonization has become a Nigerian (for better or worse). Now considering all the wailing and gnashing of teeth about colonial borders does anyone else find it strange that the AU (and the OAU before) refuses to consider realigning colonial boundaries which cut peoples/tribes/nations in half? If they are not going to do anything about it why spend all the time complaining?

Then there are 2,000 languages in Africa (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Languages_of_Africa) (250 in Nigeria alone). I wonder if all this worries/concerns/matters to some whiz-kid from an Ivy-league university who runs the Africa Desk at the state department? Don't I get a good laugh when asked if I speak African... you bet.

In east Africa the Arabs were the middle men in the slave trade. They bought from the local chiefs and then sold on to the Portuguese or whoever. If the demand rose the local chief brought slaves back from his raids as they were worth more alive than dead. Never heard anything about the role of the local chiefs of the dominant tribes (other than from Sengor) and not much said about the Arab middlemen/wholesalers. Strange isn't it. Especially when it works differently when it comes to the drug supply chain where the users are seen as victims and the middlemen and producers are routinely interdicted. Then again its the old producers argument of "if there was no demand there would be no incentive to produce and supply". You go figure.

It is sheer ignorance of Africa in most cases that makes western/foreign actions such a joke. If there are problems in Africa dig a little and you will find and ethnic/tribal/clan or religious issue at the source. Yet the "smart guys" half a world away make decisions oblivious of the issues and underlying circumstances. Made all the worse when the decisions result in death and suffering often on a massive scale.

I can remember in post apartheid South Africa when the Zulu nation wanted a federal system as opposed to a unitary state system. Guess what, the US and the West said they could not support the Balkanisation of South Africa. When challenged by saying the the federal powers wanted were less than other afforded to the states in the US the US representative just said ... "Oh!"

Yes the various areas of Africa vary greatly from each other. Realising this and accepting it is the first step towards success. Thereafter one can begin to try to understand the specifics of the particular areas of interest. Can there ever be an Africa expert? No, but there are certainly people who have a great understanding of Africa (mostly Africans themselves) and know where to find the specific on a particular area quickly.

It was always all about social Darwinism (survival of the fittest) until the colonisers arrived. Then we saw a switch to the more biblical "the meek shall inherit the earth (in literal translation). If the Brits had not intervened/colonised the south area of Africa and defeated the Zulu, the Ndabele and the Ngoni there would certainly not have been too many of the minor tribes in South Africa around, not the Shona in Zimbabwe nor the Chewa in Malawi.

We can go on and on... but lets leave it there for now.

Rex Brynen
08-29-2010, 09:10 PM
I wonder if all this worries/concerns/matters to some whiz-kid from an Ivy-league university who runs the Africa Desk at the state department? Don't I get a good laugh when asked if I speak African... you bet.

On the other hand, I imagine the folks in the Bureau of African Affairs get a good laugh when anyone suggests there's a single guy on an "Africa Desk" at the Department of State. :rolleyes:

jmm99
08-29-2010, 11:34 PM
the present Assistant Secretary of State for African Affairs (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assistant_Secretary_of_State_for_African_Affairs), Johnnie Carson (http://www.state.gov/r/pa/ei/biog/123210.htm) ("Here's Johnnie"):


.... served as desk officer in the Africa section at State's Bureau of Intelligence and Research (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bureau_of_Intelligence_and_Research) (1971-1974) .....

Not an Ivy-Leaguer though.

:)

Mike

JMA
08-30-2010, 06:58 AM
On the other hand, I imagine the folks in the Bureau of African Affairs get a good laugh when anyone suggests there's a single guy on an "Africa Desk" at the Department of State. :rolleyes:

A single guy running the "desk"? I was talking about the guy in charge. But smart comment anyway. Now... do you have something of value to add?

JMA
08-30-2010, 07:01 AM
the present Assistant Secretary of State for African Affairs (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assistant_Secretary_of_State_for_African_Affairs), Johnnie Carson (http://www.state.gov/r/pa/ei/biog/123210.htm) ("Here's Johnnie"):

Not an Ivy-Leaguer though.

:)

Mike

I wonder if he speaks African? ;)

M-A Lagrange
08-30-2010, 07:52 AM
JMA,

Last time I went to US (20 years ago) I was asked if Berlin was still the capital of France. Let say I took it as a joke. :D

But I believe we were talking about the path to democracy. Look at what our good old friend Museweni is doing:
Uganda's president wants to extend his rule to 30 years
http://www.timeslive.co.za/africa/article628733.ece/Ugandas-president-wants-to-extend-his-rule-to-30-years

As a colleage of mine from the Great lakes was telling me: yes, I have idears on what my country needs and what I want. But can they listen to me?

I gess not.

Dayuhan
08-30-2010, 08:40 AM
Ignorance of Africa mixed in with the arrogance of "the smartest guy in the room" makes for a lethal cocktail. I have a friend who served in the USMC and later Rhodesia as an officer who went on to teach college in Virginia and has said that he constantly has to explain and re-explain that Africa is a content of 52 sovereign countries (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_sovereign_states_and_dependent_territories _in_Africa) and not one country.

I read recently of a person who introduces himself as coming from Yorubaland but since the British colonization has become a Nigerian (for better or worse). Now considering all the wailing and gnashing of teeth about colonial borders does anyone else find it strange that the AU (and the OAU before) refuses to consider realigning colonial boundaries which cut peoples/tribes/nations in half? If they are not going to do anything about it why spend all the time complaining?

Then there are 2,000 languages in Africa (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Languages_of_Africa) (250 in Nigeria alone). I wonder if all this worries/concerns/matters to some whiz-kid from an Ivy-league university who runs the Africa Desk at the state department? Don't I get a good laugh when asked if I speak African... you bet.

In east Africa the Arabs were the middle men in the slave trade. They bought from the local chiefs and then sold on to the Portuguese or whoever. If the demand rose the local chief brought slaves back from his raids as they were worth more alive than dead. Never heard anything about the role of the local chiefs of the dominant tribes (other than from Sengor) and not much said about the Arab middlemen/wholesalers. Strange isn't it. Especially when it works differently when it comes to the drug supply chain where the users are seen as victims and the middlemen and producers are routinely interdicted. Then again its the old producers argument of "if there was no demand there would be no incentive to produce and supply". You go figure.

It is sheer ignorance of Africa in most cases that makes western/foreign actions such a joke. If there are problems in Africa dig a little and you will find and ethnic/tribal/clan or religious issue at the source. Yet the "smart guys" half a world away make decisions oblivious of the issues and underlying circumstances. Made all the worse when the decisions result in death and suffering often on a massive scale.

I can remember in post apartheid South Africa when the Zulu nation wanted a federal system as opposed to a unitary state system. Guess what, the US and the West said they could not support the Balkanisation of South Africa. When challenged by saying the the federal powers wanted were less than other afforded to the states in the US the US representative just said ... "Oh!"

Yes the various areas of Africa vary greatly from each other. Realising this and accepting it is the first step towards success. Thereafter one can begin to try to understand the specifics of the particular areas of interest. Can there ever be an Africa expert? No, but there are certainly people who have a great understanding of Africa (mostly Africans themselves) and know where to find the specific on a particular area quickly.

It was always all about social Darwinism (survival of the fittest) until the colonisers arrived. Then we saw a switch to the more biblical "the meek shall inherit the earth (in literal translation). If the Brits had not intervened/colonised the south area of Africa and defeated the Zulu, the Ndabele and the Ngoni there would certainly not have been too many of the minor tribes in South Africa around, not the Shona in Zimbabwe nor the Chewa in Malawi.

We can go on and on... but lets leave it there for now.

An impressive slaughter of the straw men, but you're responding to points that nobody here has made.

I'm still wondering what you wish to see done, and who you think should do it..

Tom Odom
08-30-2010, 02:34 PM
This one is refreshing. Hopefully the ideas will continue to blossum.

Tom


Why Africa needs 'cheetahs,' not 'hippos' (http://www.cnn.com/2010/OPINION/08/25/ayittey.cheetahs.hippos/index.html)
By George Ayittey, Special to CNN
August 27, 2010 6:37 a.m. EDT

Editor's note: George Ayittey is a Ghanaian economist and the author of several books on Africa, including "Africa Unchained" and the forthcoming "Defeating Dictators in Africa and Around The World." In 2008, Ayittey was listed by Foreign Policy magazine as one of the "Top 100 Public Intellectuals" of our time. He writes for Africa 50, CNN's special coverage looking at 17 African nations marking 50 years of independence this year.

(CNN) -- Currently, Africa -- a continent immensely rich with mineral resources and yet mired in poverty -- suffers from a catastrophic leadership failure or monumental deficit of leadership.

Since 1960, there have been 210 African heads of state, but just try to find 10 -- just 10 -- good ones among them. Names like Mandela, Nkrumah, Nyerere easily come to mind but then rapidly fall off.

But there is hope in what I call the "Cheetah Generation."

The Cheetah Generation refers to the new and angry generation of young African graduates and professionals, who look at African issues and problems from a totally different and unique perspective.

M-A Lagrange
08-30-2010, 07:31 PM
This one is refreshing. Hopefully the ideas will continue to blossum.

Tom

Tom,

Yes it is refreshing. Remember the 80/early 90. We were all looking for the young dynamic African entrepreneur. Yes it was a white elephant as it was done through development aid but he finally came. Let say, it is time for him to take over power. At the only condition that he does not turn into a Ravalomanan.
And I do admire the Madagascar people who have been able to push him out of power (for the best, what ever their situation is now) without extreme violence.

JMA
08-31-2010, 09:30 AM
This isn't about what needs to be done or what should be done, it's about what can be done. The US can't enforce human rights, in Africa or anywhere else. We haven't the money or the manpower. Neither, realistically, has anybody else.

[snip]

With this I agree... if they do it in a single generation that would actually be a quite remarkable achievement. I would expect several.

Over time I have come to understand there are two stock answers that are developed to justify intervention or justify taking no action.

When a murderous dictator is the enemy of your enemy (or is prepared to be so temporarily) then you see them pull out the stock answer to justify taking no action.

Its all too much like a high school debating society. That would be OK if they did not insult our intelligence by seeming to think we are not on to them and their game.

"We" would in this instance would include those of an IQ of more than 100 but less than 160 who are smart enough to see through this charade yet have the common sense not try to think they would get away with such a ridiculous game if they were to try it. (The smartest guy in the room theory falls down as found in the following research - Does Super-High IQ= Super-Low Common Sense? (http://www.science20.com/rogue_neuron/does_superhigh_iq_superlow_common_sense)

The world has moved a little along from the days of unbridled thuggery. It has become less of an option for the developed world and those in the undeveloped world who still thing that genocide is still an option should be put on notice that it will not be tolerated any more. I believe the ICC is starting to make headway in this regard with that den of thieves and murderers the AU putting in a last ditch stand.

Of course doesn't help when you have a western leader who is willing to cast aside his morals, ethics and the rest to make a commercial deal with the devil yet still have the gall to go to church on Sundays. ( Blair secretly courted Robert Mugabe to boost trade (http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/blair-secretly-courted-robert-mugabe-to-boost-trade-2065557.html) - this comes as no surprise to those who have come to realise that Foreign and Commonwealth Office is an absolutely amoral organisation)

So you put the thugs of the world on notice not to chance their arm because if they do the rest of the world will come after them in no uncertain terms.

Yes there will always be those like Blair and before him Margret Thatcher who will be able to turn a blind eye and that makes for a difficult process to get international consensus on anything. But that should never stop people, their leaders and their country from taking a stand on such issues - its called moral courage.

You are correct there is no African "Peter the Great" at the moment so the world will just have to apply pressure on the AU mafia to start to behave in a more democratic and less corrupt manner. The AU is the main problem followed by the states which are prepared to sell their souls in order to do business with certain African countries.

As to the options. It would be a start if the western world accepted that their so-called diplomacy towards Africa has been an abysmal failure and that if they took the time to learn about Africa they would realise that each circumstance is as different as chalk and cheese.

Yes the situation is exacerbated by the new scramble for African resources led by the Chinese who it remains to be seen how they will handle their relations with Africa (having the opportunity to learn from the failures of others).

JMA
08-31-2010, 09:59 AM
This one is refreshing. Hopefully the ideas will continue to blossum.

Tom

George Ayittey (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Ayittey) is seen as positively dangerous to the current AU member state leadership and hence the local propaganda generally portrays him as an Uncle Tom.

See why below...

====================================

On July 24, 2005, in the TV program Wide Angle, Professor Ayittey discussed social, political and economic development in Africa with Anchor, Bill Moyers:

GEORGE AYITTEY: In Africa, we see our governments as the problem. In fact, one Lesotho traditional chief said as much back in 1989, “Here we have two problems, rats and the government.”

BILL MOYERS: Rats and the government?

GEORGE AYITTEY: Yes, it is because Africans see government as the problem. In fact, we call them vampire states because they suck the vitality out of the people, their own people. A vampire state is a government which has been captured or hijacked by a phalanx of bandits and crooks who use instruments of the state to enrich themselves, their cronies and tribesmen and exclude everybody else. It’s called the politics of exclusion.
Now, if you want to understand why America is rich and Africa is poor, ask yourself, how do the rich in each of these areas make their money?
Take the US, for example. The richest person is Bill Gates. He's worth something like $64 billion. How did he make his money? He made his money in the private sector by selling something, Microsoft computer software. He has something to show for his wealth.
Now, let’s go to Africa. Who are the richest in Africa? The richest in Africa are African heads of state and ministers. How did they make their money? They made their money by raking it off the backs of their suffering people. That is not wealth creation. It is wealth redistribution.

BILL MOYERS: By stealing the money?

GEORGE AYITTEY: By stealing the money!

BILL MOYERS: But you see, that’s what troubles those of us who are looking for a way to be helpful to Africa. Why and how would they steal money given to AIDS programs and money given to build a civil society?

GEORGE AYITTEY: It’s because they hold the key institutions in the state. They control the military. They control the media. They control the judiciary. They control the electoral commission. They control the civil service. They control the central bank. This is why it is very important to take these institutions out of their hands.

BILL MOYERS: Jeffrey Sachs, who’s advising Kofi Annan at the UN on how to solve poverty and develop the third world, says, “The poor are poor because of failing infrastructure, poor energy sources, geographic isolation, disease and natural disasters that inevitably conspire to foil progress.”

GEORGE AYITTEY: Well, if you go to an African village and tell them this, very few villagers will believe you because they clearly see where the problem is. If you want to understand why Africa is in such a rut, there’s one word which describes it. And that’s ‘Power’.
Power is what describes the condition of Africa. The inability, or the adamant refusal, of African leaders to relinquish or share power has been the bane of development in Africa. Zimbabwe would have been saved if Mugabe were willing to step down or share political power. Isn’t it ironic that a continent with so much, actually has so little. That a people blessed with such an abundance of natural resources are, in fact, poverty stricken and deprived of even the slightest bit of wealth.”

Dayuhan
09-01-2010, 02:13 AM
So you put the thugs of the world on notice not to chance their arm because if they do the rest of the world will come after them in no uncertain terms.


The problem with this, to put it bluntly, is that the rest of the world won't come after them, in any terms.

All this talk about coming after them, not tolerating, of expectations and demands... it all assumes that there's somebody out there with the will and the capacity to enforce demands, to enforce what will or will not be tolerated, to come after people. Who is that somebody supposed to be?

From an American perspective, before we talk about doing anything, there are some issues that have to be addressed... quite a few issues, actually:

There has to be something we can do. There's no point in talking about "doing something"; you need a clear idea of exactly what you propose to do, and what you expect to accomplish.

There has to be a realistic assessment of the probability of success, and the likelihood of unintended adverse consequences.

There has to be a clear assessment of likely costs, in money and in lives, and the expected benefit to us has to exceed the cost.

There has to be a clear assessment of political will: we are a democracy and our government is accountable to our populace. There's no point in starting what our voters won't let us finish.

The proposed action has to be consistent with our interests. We are not a charitable institution; we can't afford to be.

If any of these assessments comes up unfavorably, we will do nothing, and that's exactly what we should do. We don't have the right, the obligation, or the capacity to go charging around trying to fix other countries, in Africa or anywhere else.

I think you'll find that most countries with the capacity to "do something" run through similar assessments, with similar outcomes.



As to the options. It would be a start if the western world accepted that their so-called diplomacy towards Africa has been an abysmal failure and that if they took the time to learn about Africa they would realise that each circumstance is as different as chalk and cheese.


It's easy to point out failure... what do you propose that you think might succeed?

Of course every case is different. Why don't you select a single case and suggest a course of action? Might start with the most egregious problem cases... say, any of Guinea, Nigeria, Chad, DRC, Somalia, Zimbabwe. What exactly would you have us do, in light of the criteria reviewed above?

It's worth noting, as a start, that economic sanctions and aid conditionality have not been terribly successful at influencing the behaviour of bad governments. It's also worth noting that military intervention is not an option in any but an extreme case that directly impacts the interests of whoever is going to intervene: it's too expensive, the probability of success is too low, the cost/benefit equation is too unfavorable, and it is not politically acceptable in the countries that have the potential to intervene.

M-A Lagrange
09-01-2010, 09:29 AM
It's easy to point out failure... what do you propose that you think might succeed?



Dahuyan,

From a US perspective, Africa as a continent has to be secured against the proliferation of armed groups and terrorist organisations such as AQIM, the Sheebab…
This is for the Saharan part of Africa: a huge sea of sand almost empty and open to any kind of traffic.

When it comes to the West coast, you find the problematic of Liberia/Ivory Coast/Sierra Leone/Guinea (the Mano River problematic). This needs to be stabilised and US should definitively stop working against the interest of their allies (like France…). The question there is raw materials (Cocoa, coffee, iron, rubber, diamonds…) and small arms and drug.

When you go to the horne you have the problematic of the petrol sea road and the Somali pirates. Also you have the problematic of small arms and drug.

In Central Africa, you have, well name it: diamonds, rare minerals, gold, uranium, oil… And an all bunch of countries that need to go out of civil war. They need to build credible invest environment for them to attract major companies. And small arms and drug…

In Southern Africa, JMA must know better than me, you have agricultural products, drug and small arms…

To say that there is room for US and other to come and support the emerging new Africa. The thing is that US, as the Europeans should be in position to condition their support to respects of engagements (I know easier to say than to do). The trick is that you have wild players as China who wants to put a feet in Africa and does not give a sierra about Africa. But they will have to come to the same view than the westerners: what you need in Africa is a safe investing environment.
As Tom and JMA pointed previously, you have talents in Africa. The shame is that they need to expatriate out side of the continent to make money and ENJOY it.

So the main question is: is it worst for US to keep on strengthening the democratic agenda (Good governance, human rights, democratisation…) in Africa. China has taken the decision to not play by that agenda and they have the financial means to not play it.
As JMA pointed so well, many leaders are ready to take that hand because following the “westerner” path will bring them one day or another to face ICC or trial from their population.
Recently, they also decided to go by the “chosen colonisation” with China and India by selling them land for Indian and Chinese to make it productive (just like African people were bad farmers…).

China and India have chosen to do cooperation in Africa through private sector. Soon will come the day both of them will need a secured economical and legal environment. Just like west.

And there is the nuclear question with its dirty roads.
I do believe that the democratic agenda has to be kept but may be promoted through the need of safe economical environment rather than through the problematic of Human Rights. It’s like a package and all depend on what angle you look at it. It’s more attractive if there is private business, at what all African people are very good at, than high moral values that no one is willing to look at closely, including US and western powers.

Saying so, Uganda and Rwanda are not a real model because, just like Ivory coast, the question is: what after the strong man? And for the moment it is, just like Louis 14 said: apres moi le deluge...

Here are my 0.2$ incentives.

M-A

Dayuhan
09-01-2010, 11:23 AM
M-A,

I quite agree that the US should support and promote democratic development where it exists... throughout the developing world, not only in Africa. I agree that the US should promote investment and economic engagement where the conditions to support these things exist, again throughout the developing world.

The problem is that in many places there is no democratic development, and the minimal conditions needed for investment and economic development do not exist. The question of what, if anything we should or could do in these circumstances is very much open, and I see no good answers.

What I find frustrating in JMA's comments is the frequent reference to expectations and demands, to not tolerating certain actions, to going after bad governments, or people who do not conform to our expectations and demands. These things may or may not be desirable, but it doesn't matter, because they aren't possible unless somebody has the will and the capacity to do the enforcing... and I don't see anyone who does.

On the positive side, we can take some hope from developments in Latin America. Only a few decades ago Latin America was a global epicenter of Big Man politics. Terms like "banana republic" and "tinpot dictator" were coined in reference to the regions generation of monomaniacal despots, and the Latin American dictator in a medal-draped uniform became a standard caricature. Today those days may not be completely behind us, but a huge amount of progress has been made, more than many expected. It's not sure that African nations can do the same, but they might... and it's worth noting that the improvement in Latin America followed a general decrease in outside intervention.

Rex Brynen
09-01-2010, 05:33 PM
On the positive side, we can take some hope from developments in Latin America. Only a few decades ago Latin America was a global epicenter of Big Man politics. Terms like "banana republic" and "tinpot dictator" were coined in reference to the regions generation of monomaniacal despots, and the Latin American dictator in a medal-draped uniform became a standard caricature. Today those days may not be completely behind us, but a huge amount of progress has been made, more than many expected. It's not sure that African nations can do the same, but they might... and it's worth noting that the improvement in Latin America followed a general decrease in outside intervention.

Thoughtful posts--I agree with you completely.

What also happened in Latin America was a tipping point of sorts--as democratizations occurred, popular and regional expectations shifted in a particular direction. Democracy came to be widely seen as the norm, not an aberration. This effect (among many others) was also at work in post-Soviet Eastern Europe, where to be "European" is widely understood to be synonymous with democratic governance.

As you say, Latin America faces numerous and continued challenges, including massive social inequality and populist authoritarianisms of the "Bolivarist" kind. Still, it is a remarkable change.

JMA
09-16-2010, 12:27 PM
In Southern Africa, JMA must know better than me, you have agricultural products, drug and small arms…

To say that there is room for US and other to come and support the emerging new Africa. The thing is that US, as the Europeans should be in position to condition their support to respects of engagements (I know easier to say than to do). The trick is that you have wild players as China who wants to put a feet in Africa and does not give a sierra about Africa. But they will have to come to the same view than the westerners: what you need in Africa is a safe investing environment.
As Tom and JMA pointed previously, you have talents in Africa. The shame is that they need to expatriate out side of the continent to make money and ENJOY it.

So the main question is: is it worst for US to keep on strengthening the democratic agenda (Good governance, human rights, democratisation…) in Africa. China has taken the decision to not play by that agenda and they have the financial means to not play it.
As JMA pointed so well, many leaders are ready to take that hand because following the “westerner” path will bring them one day or another to face ICC or trial from their population.
Recently, they also decided to go by the “chosen colonisation” with China and India by selling them land for Indian and Chinese to make it productive (just like African people were bad farmers…).

China and India have chosen to do cooperation in Africa through private sector. Soon will come the day both of them will need a secured economical and legal environment. Just like west.

What you say is true. It is that the West has not consolidated its experience of Africa into knowledge. This is on one hand frustrating while being somewhat laughable on the other.

There was a window of opportunity for the West to tie support and aid to Africa to governance, human rights and other such issues. This was not done and the end result is that China and India (as you said) have taken advantage of the situation.

Do any of these "smart" kids who now make policy in the West ever stop to consider what China and India want from Africa? Apart from the natural resources they are looking at the wide open spaces. You are correct in that increasingly (especially China) is getting into agriculture in Africa with the intention of growing food for consumption in China... using imported Chinese labour. So China has no incentive to care about the AIDS pandemic or genocides and wars that keep the African population growth in check. They want access to natural resources and land for agriculture and are not going to let stuff like human rights and governance get in the way. The world has taken note. Sri Lanka could not have resolved their Tamil Tiger problem without the support of China which allowed them to do what it takes to crush an insurgency like they were facing. The western powers complained about up to 40,000 civilian casualties in the last stages of the war by Sri Lanka secure in the loving arms of uncle Hong just flashed them the finger.

Now if China did not own the US things may be a little different around the world today.

Rex Brynen
09-16-2010, 01:13 PM
Do any of these "smart" kids who now make policy in the West ever stop to consider what China and India want from Africa?

Yes, they do.

JMA
09-16-2010, 03:55 PM
Yes, they do.

Then how come they act as if they don't?

Rex Brynen
09-16-2010, 06:36 PM
Then how come they act as if they don't?

I think you mean "why don't they act the way I think think they should act," which is a very different thing.

JMA
09-16-2010, 07:54 PM
I think you mean "why don't they act the way I think think they should act," which is a very different thing.

No not at all.

Maybe you can provide some examples of where these whiz kids have got anything right in terms of Sub-Saharan Africa?

Dayuhan
09-16-2010, 08:51 PM
No not at all.

Maybe you can provide some examples of where these whiz kids have got anything right in terms of Sub-Saharan Africa?

What exactly do you mean by "right", and what exactly do you want the US to do?

JMA
09-17-2010, 05:13 AM
What exactly do you mean by "right", and what exactly do you want the US to do?

LOL... I appreciate this is getting difficult for you. What about half a dozen examples of successes in foreign policy interventions in Africa by the US or the West?

Dayuhan
09-17-2010, 07:30 AM
LOL... I appreciate this is getting difficult for you. What about half a dozen examples of successes in foreign policy interventions in Africa by the US or the West?

You're not answering the question. What exactly do you mean by "right" and what exactly do you want us to do?

If "success" is accomplishing one's goal, than to have a successful foreign intervention you must first have a clear goal that is achievable with the resources and within the time frame that you are willing to commit to it. In the absence of such a goal, success cannot be achieved and intervention is best avoided. Our interventions in Africa (and many other places) have generally lacked such goals, and thus would have been better avoided.

Are you trying to make a point? If so, please reveal it.

Dayuhan
09-17-2010, 10:03 AM
Do any of these "smart" kids who now make policy in the West ever stop to consider what China and India want from Africa? Apart from the natural resources they are looking at the wide open spaces. You are correct in that increasingly (especially China) is getting into agriculture in Africa with the intention of growing food for consumption in China... using imported Chinese labour. So China has no incentive to care about the AIDS pandemic or genocides and wars that keep the African population growth in check. They want access to natural resources and land for agriculture and are not going to let stuff like human rights and governance get in the way.

So what? Why should I, or any American, care? Could be seen as Africa's problem, or China's, but it's certainly not ours... and we have more than enough problems of our own without meddling in anyone else's.

I'm quite happy to see the Chinese investing in oil production or mining ventures in high-risk environments. It's not like they're competing with our companies, Western companies haven't the risk tolerance to even consider these projects. They take the risk, we share the benefit, what's not to like?

Of course you cvould ask whether these projects are of any benefit to Africa or Africanns, but that's for the Africans and the Chinese to work out.

JMA
09-17-2010, 10:22 AM
You're not answering the question. What exactly do you mean by "right" and what exactly do you want us to do?

If "success" is accomplishing one's goal, than to have a successful foreign intervention you must first have a clear goal that is achievable with the resources and within the time frame that you are willing to commit to it. In the absence of such a goal, success cannot be achieved and intervention is best avoided. Our interventions in Africa (and many other places) have generally lacked such goals, and thus would have been better avoided.

Are you trying to make a point? If so, please reveal it.

Methinks playing with semantics is the last refuge of a scoundrel.

But I will play along.

I prefer successful as in "having succeeded or being marked by a favorable outcome". So I suggest successful in the long term for Africa rather than to meet a parochial (US, Russian, China etc) goal.

If success in your opinion is based on have a clear goal then why is it that you and others who have a lot to say on matters such as nuclear weapons development articulate no such clear goal?

Here we talk about "can democracy thrive in Africa".

So what is your clear goal on this one? To let Africa evolve at it own pace without US and maybe other intervention regardless of human rights abuses and the odd genocide?

My view would be to keep raising the bar using the "carrot and the stick" method and holding Africa through the AU and the states individually to these rising standards.

There is IMHO a duty to interfere to secure and protect the universal rights of citizens in any country. (The brave western countries are more likely to intervene in Somalia or the Congo than say in Tibet for instance)

OK one more time then, can you name a half dozen or so interventions which have led to improved and increasing democracy in Africa (presuming that is your clear goal of course)?

JMA
09-17-2010, 10:26 AM
So what? Why should I, or any American, care? Could be seen as Africa's problem, or China's, but it's certainly not ours... and we have more than enough problems of our own without meddling in anyone else's.

I'm quite happy to see the Chinese investing in oil production or mining ventures in high-risk environments. It's not like they're competing with our companies, Western companies haven't the risk tolerance to even consider these projects. They take the risk, we share the benefit, what's not to like?

Of course you cvould ask whether these projects are of any benefit to Africa or Africanns, but that's for the Africans and the Chinese to work out.

So what actually, if anything, do you believe in?

Dayuhan
09-17-2010, 09:28 PM
So what actually, if anything, do you believe in?

Limiting myself to what's relevant to the issue at hand...

I believe that Indian and Chinese investment in Africa is not a threat to US interests and is not a matter with which the US need be concerned.

I believe that the US does not have the right, responsibility, capacity, or will to "fix Africa", and that any effort to do so is likely to have bad results for both Africans and Americans.

I believe that unilateral intervention in Africa (or anywhere) should only be taken in the presence of a major threat to US interests, and the ambitions of such intervention must be proportional to our capacity and will.

I believe that "humanitarian intervention" may at times be necessary, but that it has to be multilateral and that necessity and duration of our participation have to be assessed according to our interests.

I could probably think of a few others, but that will do. What do you believe?


Methinks playing with semantics is the last refuge of a scoundrel.

If asking you to express yourself clearly makes me a scoundrel, I'll have to be one. I've been called worse. What do youthinks it should be called when someone consistently offers nothing but snide and unspecific criticisms of existing policy without offering any practical alternative?


I prefer successful as in "having succeeded or being marked by a favorable outcome". So I suggest successful in the long term for Africa rather than to meet a parochial (US, Russian, China etc) goal.

Fine. How is the US supposed to define "successful in the long term for Africa"? Doesn't that have to be defined by Africans? Americans botch things up badly enough when we try to pursue our own interests, and we at least (sometimes) know what those are. How are we supposed to effectively pursue someone else's, even if we had the resources to run about the globe trying to create favorable outcomes for other continents (we don't).


If success in your opinion is based on have a clear goal then why is it that you and others who have a lot to say on matters such as nuclear weapons development articulate no such clear goal?

A clear goal is necessary but not sufficient. The goal also has to be achievable with the resources and within the time frame you're willing to commit to it, and the expected benefit (to us) of achieving the goal has to exceed the expected cost (again to us).

Look at Afghanistan. The initial goal of removing the Taliban from power was clear and achievable, and was accomplished. The subsequent goal of establishing a centralized, democratic, sustainable government in Afghanistan is probably not achievable with the resources and within the time frame we're willing to commit, and I expect it to fail.


So what is your clear goal on this one? To let Africa evolve at it own pace without US and maybe other intervention regardless of human rights abuses and the odd genocide?

What are our options? I see no convincing evidence that US intervention on any affordable scale is likely to accelerate the pace or alter the course of African development. The costs are very high and the supposed benefits very uncertain. The benefits accruing to those who will bear the cost seem pretty nonexistent.


My view would be to keep raising the bar using the "carrot and the stick" method and holding Africa through the AU and the states individually to these rising standards.

And we should keep doing this because it has worked so well in the past?

I hope you've an abundant supply of carrots and sticks at hand, because we're about out... and how exactly does the US have the responsibility or the right to unilaterally define standards of conduct for other countries?


There is IMHO a duty to interfere to secure and protect the universal rights of citizens in any country. [I](The brave western countries are more likely to intervene in Somalia or the Congo than say in Tibet for instance)

I don't expect to see western countries intervening in Somalia, the Congo, or Tibet any time soon. Biting off what you haven't the capacity or will to chew is not brave, it's dumb.


OK one more time then, can you name a half dozen or so interventions which have led to improved and increasing democracy in Africa (presuming that is your clear goal of course)?

No. Can you? If intervention doesn't advance the goal, why resort to it in the first place? Unless of course you just like the idea of the white saviour descending on Africa to bring order and bestow the gifts of western civiization... that didn't work out so well last time round either, did it?

JMA
09-18-2010, 06:56 PM
Limiting myself to what's relevant to the issue at hand...

Out here in the colonies we hear a lot of talk from a section of the US about what is or isn't in the US interests. You are just another in a long list of US citizens who want to speak on behalf of all of the US (using the 'we') about not getting involved here there and everywhere.

Please go to this site (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_United_States_military_operations) and tell me which of the listed interventions which were really vital to the US best interests.

So an onlooker would be forgiven if believing that you and your ilk do not speak on behalf of the US but rather are pushing a mere minority (albeit vocal) point of view.

For your edification the best US intervention into Africa was George Bush's PEPFAR (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/President's_Emergency_Plan_for_AIDS_Relief) where US$3 billion per year for five years was provided for AIDS interventions in Africa. Clinton was remembered for failing to act in Rwanda's time of need and cutting and running from Somalia.

So no I can't think of any positive intervention by the US in Africa other than PREPFAR... ever. (I maybe let something slip... then maybe not.)

The odds surely are that the US get it right sometime.

Dayuhan
09-19-2010, 12:55 AM
Out here in the colonies we hear a lot of talk from a section of the US about what is or isn't in the US interests. You are just another in a long list of US citizens who want to speak on behalf of all of the US (using the 'we') about not getting involved here there and everywhere.

Do you hear anyone in the US claiming that military intervention in Africa is necessary, desirable, or consistent with US interests? It's actually one of the few things almost everyone seems to agree on.

I suspect the only way you'd get significant US military action in Africa would be a major terrorist attack emanating from an African country. Even then, I'd expect it to be far more limited than what we've seen in Iraq and Afghanistan... Americans will need a few more decades to forget that tossing a regime out is easy and building a new one is very hard.

If the US government or any significant section of the populace thought military intervention in Africa was in the US interest, don't you think you'd see a bit more of it? Don't you think you'd hear more people demanding it? It's fairly obvious that this is not something Americans at any level want to get involved in, for equally obvious reasons.


So no I can't think of any positive intervention by the US in Africa other than PREPFAR... ever. (I maybe let something slip... then maybe not.)

The odds surely are that the US get it right sometime.

If military intervention has generally not had positive consequences, why should we not conclude that "getting it right" would mean less intervention?

If the question is "can democracy thrive in Africa", my opinion would be that it can... eventually, though it might well take a few generations.

If the question is "is American intervention likely to advance the progress of democracy in Africa" - a completely different question - I'd answer "probably not, though there might be a rare and unlikely exception somewhere along the line".


Out here in the colonies...

I was under the impression that South Africa was no longer a colony... did I have that wrong?

If we're talking ex-colonies, I'm in one myself... and indeed one hears a great deal of silly talk, from the US and from many other places.

JMA
09-19-2010, 10:50 AM
I was under the impression that South Africa was no longer a colony... did I have that wrong?

Long time ago. Interesting history you should read up on it at some time.

Then from a military point of view both the Zulu Wars and the Boer Wars are too worthy of study leading to battle field visits.

There you will see the best (Rorke's Drift (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Rorke's_Drift)) and the worst (Isandlwana (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Isandlwana)) of the Brits during the Zulu Wars and not to miss the Horse Memorial (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horse_Memorial) to the 300,000 horses that died in the service of the British during the Second Boer War. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Boer_War)


(I have no personal or financial interest in battlefield tourism in South Africa)

JMA
09-19-2010, 11:27 AM
Do you hear anyone in the US claiming that military intervention in Africa is necessary, desirable, or consistent with US interests? It's actually one of the few things almost everyone seems to agree on.

Yes since the end of the Cold War US interference in Africa has reduced. This has left a void for China to fill and now we see an increase of Al-Qaeda activity. Maybe not such a clever move after all?


I suspect the only way you'd get significant US military action in Africa would be a major terrorist attack emanating from an African country. Even then, I'd expect it to be far more limited than what we've seen in Iraq and Afghanistan... Americans will need a few more decades to forget that tossing a regime out is easy and building a new one is very hard.

Watch what's happening in Yemen and Somalia. Won't be long now.

If you toss out a regime who says you have to build a new one?


If the US government or any significant section of the populace thought military intervention in Africa was in the US interest, don't you think you'd see a bit more of it? Don't you think you'd hear more people demanding it? It's fairly obvious that this is not something Americans at any level want to get involved in, for equally obvious reasons.

Nobody is asking for US military intervention is Africa. It is the interference by proxy that has been the problem. Now if it was not in the US interest why do you think they interfered?


If military intervention has generally not had positive consequences, why should we not conclude that "getting it right" would mean less intervention?

Read that list (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_United_States_military_operations)agai n. Direct US military intervention in Africa has been minimal.

There is of course AFRICOM (United States Africa Command) which is appropriately based in Stuttgart, Germany. The reason for their existence? It appears that by 2015 25% of US oil imports will be from Africa. I suspect we shall see more of the US around in the future.


If the question is "can democracy thrive in Africa", my opinion would be that it can... eventually, though it might well take a few generations.

You need to read more widely to understand that there is growing pressure from within Africa itself to democratise. That the US is seen to be in league with that club of thugs that make up the AU (African Union) means that Africans are happy to receive stuff out of Hollywood but are correctly cautious about comes gift wrapped from the State Department.


If the question is "is American intervention likely to advance the progress of democracy in Africa" - a completely different question - I'd answer "probably not, though there might be a rare and unlikely exception somewhere along the line".

That's your opinion and you are entitled to it.

Support of democracy and democratic institutions in Africa is a low cost option for the US.

Humanitarian intervention with good intentions is always welcome like in Somalia before some hot-dogging cowboys went and screwed it up. So much so that when the real big crisis occurred Clinton sat on his hands and let a million people get butchered in Rwanda. It is just that the US displays such bad judgement so often. What the hell goes on in the State Department?

Dayuhan
09-21-2010, 03:28 AM
Long time ago. Interesting history you should read up on it at some time.

I also live in the midst of interesting (if generally forgotten) colonial history, but I can’t imagine prefacing a comment with “out here in the colonies…” It’s the past, long gone and unlamented.


Yes since the end of the Cold War US interference in Africa has reduced. This has left a void for China to fill and now we see an increase of Al-Qaeda activity. Maybe not such a clever move after all?

A void? How so? Aren’t there a billion or so Africans there? Or is it engraved on stone somewhere that there must always be an outsider to intervene?

In any event, as I said above, Chinese and Indian investment in Africa is not a threat to US interests and does not require a US response. It’s also worth noting that neither China nor India has moved toward military intervention, and it’s hard to see how US intervention would have affected their investments.

It’s also hard to see AQ activity as a consequence of reduced US intervention… in most cases US intervention provides AQ with a propaganda bonus and tends to help them more than it hurts them. Why do you think AQ was so eager to provoke the US into making a military move in Afghanistan?


Watch what's happening in Yemen and Somalia. Won't be long now.

That’s anything but certain. Another 9/11 scale attack is of course possible, but it’s as likely to be planned in Europe or the US as in Yemen or Somalia.
Even if such an attack were to take place, though, I doubt that we’d see the sort of action that we’ve seen in Iraq and Afganistan. We haven’t forgotten those lessons yet… give it a few more years. We wouldn’t be doing regime change in Yemen in any event, as the regime is already nominally friendly to us and hostile to AQ, and we can’t do regime change in Somalia because there’s no regime to change, and (I hope) nobody in the US is foolish enough to try and create one.


If you toss out a regime who says you have to build a new one?

You don’t, though Americans always seem compelled to try. It serves as a justification for having intervened in the first place, and appeals to the missionary instincts that have gotten us into trouble so often in the past. Of course if one intervenes and does nothing after there is always the risk that the conditions that led to the intervention in the first place will be recreated, or that something worse will emerge… but that needs to be assessed on a case to case basis.


Nobody is asking for US military intervention is Africa. It is the interference by proxy that has been the problem. Now if it was not in the US interest why do you think they interfered?

Perception of interest was very different during the Cold War, leading to a great deal of intervention - by proxy and otherwise - that was in retrospect neither necessary nor productive. One hopes some lessons were learned.


There is of course AFRICOM (United States Africa Command) which is appropriately based in Stuttgart, Germany. The reason for their existence? It appears that by 2015 25% of US oil imports will be from Africa. I suspect we shall see more of the US around in the future.

The US imports large amounts of oil from Canada, Mexico, Nigeria and Venezuela… do you see them swarming with US troops? The notion that success in commerce depends on the projection of military force is a vestige of centuries past, and needs to be discarded.


You need to read more widely to understand that there is growing pressure from within Africa itself to democratise. That the US is seen to be in league with that club of thugs that make up the AU (African Union) means that Africans are happy to receive stuff out of Hollywood but are correctly cautious about comes gift wrapped from the State Department.

I’m well aware that the pressure exists, but moving from pressure to democracy takes a while, and moving from democracy to functioning, sustainable democracy can take even longer. In the meantime, the US has to deal with what exists, as do other countries. We can neither reorder the governments of other countries to suit or preference nor pretend that countries not suiting that preference do not exist.


Support of democracy and democratic institutions in Africa is a low cost option for the US.

It’s an excellent option in cases where democracy and democratic institutions exist. Where they do not exist, it’s a bit more difficult. The line between promoting democracy and meddling in other people’s internal politics is vague.


Humanitarian intervention with good intentions is always welcome like in Somalia before some hot-dogging cowboys went and screwed it up. So much so that when the real big crisis occurred Clinton sat on his hands and let a million people get butchered in Rwanda. It is just that the US displays such bad judgement so often. What the hell goes on in the State Department?

The State Dept doesn’t make those calls; comes from higher up and politics are always a factor, as they tend to be in a democracy. Whether or not any given judgment is bad or good depends largely on what is presumed to be the goal… and for better or worse, American politicians tend to place American interests and their own political calculations above the greater good of Africa.

People who complain about American inaction need to understand that – again for better or worse – the days of “that’s horrible, why don’t the Americans do something about it” are gone, and both the impetus and the resources for humanitarian intervention have to be multilateral. We are neither global cop nor global social worker. We can’t afford to be.

JMA
09-27-2010, 01:35 PM
To add another viewpoint to this thread we have an article by Makui Waruiru (a Kenyan):

The Failure of Democracy in Africa (http://takimag.com/article/the_failure_of_democracy_in_africa)

Kiwigrunt
10-02-2010, 01:05 AM
To add another viewpoint to this thread we have an article by Makui Waruiru (a Kenyan):

The Failure of Democracy in Africa (http://takimag.com/article/the_failure_of_democracy_in_africa)

Here (http://www.africancrisis.co.za/Article.php?ID=20130&) is a letter from the same dude, JMA. He sounds like someone who wants to move forward.

JMA
10-02-2010, 07:13 AM
Here (http://www.africancrisis.co.za/Article.php?ID=20130&) is a letter from the same dude, JMA. He sounds like someone who wants to move forward.

Mukui Waruiru wants to be careful of the company he keeps.

He does however provide a point of discussion on a topic where the vast majority of westerners fear to tread.

Another person with a different perspective is George Ayittey (http://www.ted.com/speakers/george_ayittey.html) who is not popular amongst Pan Africanist groups as one can imagine.

His George Ayittey on Cheetahs vs. Hippos (http://www.ted.com/talks/george_ayittey_on_cheetahs_vs_hippos.html) presentation at TED is worth a listen.

bjackson
09-20-2011, 12:09 PM
If African countries did away with corruption then democracy would strive.