Africom Stands Up 2006-2017

[KingJaja]

David,

Can I put it a bit more bluntly? The US simply lacks the understanding/context to form an effective military partnership with many African states.

Why is this so? You cannot understand a nation from the comfort of a fortress-like embassy in the capital. The US will either get played or have to depend on the judgement of former colonial powers like Britain and France (who might have their own agenda).

How does the US break this vicious circle? Don't know.

[Bill Moore]

David,

Can I put it a bit more bluntly? The US simply lacks the understanding/context to form an effective military partnership with many African states.

Why is this so? You cannot understand a nation from the comfort of a fortress-like embassy in the capital. The US will either get played or have to depend on the judgement of former colonial powers like Britain and France (who might have their own agenda).

How does the US break this vicious circle? Don't know.

Over the past few decades I have come to believe that our Department of State really doesn't mind driving blind. They're not an organization that habitually questions their assumptions. They push whatever their agenda is and seek the most expedient means to pursue that agenda, and in many cases do so without even trying to understanding of the context and how this will play out over time. Of course even if they wanted to gain understanding, that understanding will remain elusive if they don't navigate outside of diplomatic circles. This is not true for all embassies, but it does reflect the culture of most. The classic book, "The Ugly American" still accurately represents the culture of our country teams in too many cases.

The military is little better as this particular example points out. We too quickly rush to the easiest path so we take a "by, with, and through" approach. Any willing surrogate will do, and then we'll fool ourselves into believing we're on the legitimate path to victory regardless of how flawed our surrogates eventually prove themselves to be.

If we continue to rush in without first gaining understanding it is probable that we'll continue to create new problems, sometimes more problems, than the ones we attempted to solve. I think the only way to move beyond this haphazard approach is to make a concerted effort on gaining a holistic understanding of these issues in collaboration with multiple others (our views need to be challenged to see if they stand up to the sniff test). How we organize to do this is the million dollar question. Another issue in my opinion is that we all too often have policy influenced by think tanks in D.C.. They should be voice, but over the years they gained excessive influence.

The good news for us is that all we're all collectively stupid. I haven't seen any other powerful nations do it any better than we do, so relatively we're not that bad, but that shouldn't be our standard.

[jmm99]

from Bill Moore:
Over the past few decades I have come to believe that our Department of State really doesn't mind driving blind. They're not an organization that habitually questions their assumptions. They push whatever their agenda is and seek the most expedient means to pursue that agenda, and in many cases do so without even trying to understanding of the context and how this will play out over time. Of course even if they wanted to gain understanding, that understanding will remain elusive if they don't navigate outside of diplomatic circles. This is not true for all embassies, but it does reflect the culture of most. The classic book, "The Ugly American" still accurately represents the culture of our country teams in too many cases.

Besides full agreement with what you say above, your cite to "The Ugly American" brings back memories of reading it as a serial, starting in the Saturday Evening Post, October 4, 1958 (http://www.ebay.com/itm/Saturday-Evening-Post-October-4-1958-Ugly-American-Vintage-Magazine-/190761426750?_trksid=m263&_trkparms=algo%3DSIC%26its%3DI%26itu%3DUCI%252BIA% 252BUA%252BFICS%252BUFI%26otn%3D20%26pmod%3D180832 651419%26ps%3D50). Of course, that was something of a "pastel" world - not yet colored by Vietnam:

http://i.ebayimg.com/t/Saturday-Evening-Post-October-4-1958-The-Ugly-American-Vintage-Magazine-/00/s/NDgwWDY0MA==/$T2eC16VHJIQE9qUHtG6gBQtSTvYur!~~60_12.JPG

So, one has to "adjust" (refine, tweak) "The Ugly American" to meet current realities.

But, this point is as valid today as it was then: "Of course even if they wanted to gain understanding, that understanding will remain elusive if they don't navigate outside of diplomatic circles." I was reminded of that not that long ago because of an experience that must remain confidential. Simply stated, Embassy X not only elected not to navigate outside of diplomatic circles, it was unmannerly to boot.

Of course, as the old saying goes: "Discipline is a matter between officers; manners are a matter between gentlemen."

Regards

Mike

[John T. Fishel]

As you well know, Mike the "ugly" American, COL Hillanddale - a very, very thinly disguised Ed Lansdale - was the hero of the book. He always got out of both the Embassy and the capital and the military compounds. The FAO program is designed to make its officers educated in the language and the cultures of the regions / countries they are assigned to. For the most part, it does a good job although I have educated some FAOS who never quite succeeded in comprehending the culture where they were assigned. I know a number of FSOs - some of whom have become ambassadors - who can immerse themselves ina culture as well as any FAO. At least one such FSO - Bill Meara who was occasionally online here when I joined - is one who was not only an FSO but a FAO, SF, and qualified Psyop officer. Part of the answer of getting out of the embassy is to remember that the FS is a commissioned service and to do your job you must take some risks.

Cheers

JohnT

[davidbfpo]

Anyone care to offer an explanation how AFRICOM's future looks post-Mali? In particular if Congress wants to make a cut in spending.

The thread title was topical and useful. I don't think only the Pentagon is wilfully blind to local realities. Yes the DoD and AFRICOM can point the finger at other USG partners - did anyone within USG say "not sure about this boss or ma'm?"

[J Wolfsberger]

... did anyone within USG say "not sure about this boss or ma'm?"

And watch their boss demolish their career while completely ignoring the warning?

How well do you think Hillary Clinton or Susan Rice would react to be told that maybe, just maybe, there might be something in the situation they'd overlooked, and the decision they'd made might make things worse?

This get's to the essence of the problem KingJaja brought up: "Can I put it a bit more bluntly? The US simply lacks the understanding/context to form an effective military partnership with many African states."

Because it isn't the good people John T. refers to who are in control, it's credentialed idiots who call the shots.

[jmm99]

My complaint did not rest upon "The Ugly American", Col. Hillanddale (Lansdale), FAOs (like Tom Odom), or even with "The Quiet American" of Graham Greene.

Nope, it rested upon straight-up DoS Foggy Bottom diplomatic types who would do well to read and follow their own protocol manuals and avoid insulting potential indigenous friends.

Regards

Mike

[J Wolfsberger]

We are in violent agreement.:D

[KingJaja]

This statement by General Carter Ham shows that the US doesn't get it.


“We’ve focused exclusively on tactical and technical,” General Ham said in a speech in January in Washington. “We didn’t spend probably the requisite time focusing on values, ethics and a military ethos that says when you put on the uniform of your nation, then you accept the responsibility to defend and protect that nation, to abide by the legitimate civilian authority.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/02/12/world/africa/militant-threats-test-pentagons-role-in-africa.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

I guess the good general is unaware that MANY African officers have passed through Sandhurst and Saint Cyr. They received better training there than AFRICOM could ever hope to deliver.

He probably isn't aware that a good number of really nasty leaders/insurgents had advanced degrees in philosophy/political science etc (examples include Robert Mugabe & Hissen Habre).

All Nigerian regular combatant officers pass through a Military University (they do four year courses in Engineering, Arts, Sciences) & all short service officers are college graduates.

(Officers lead most revolts & plan most coups).

The second naive assumption is that the US is going to train children, that none of these men had motivations for joining the Armed Forces. The life of an African soldier is rough, extremely rough - and nobody willingly submits himself to that life without expecting something in return - you can figure out what that means.

I went for a series of interviews for Military School, none of the guys I met where in any doubt about their motivations for joining the Army.

To assume that US training will simply erase those motivations is extremely naive. (The Nigerian Army is very prickly about the condescending tone of "US training").

[SWJ Blog]

U.S. Army Hones Antiterror Strategy for Africa, in Kansas (http://smallwarsjournal.com/blog/us-army-hones-antiterror-strategy-for-africa-in-kansas)

Entry Excerpt:



--------
Read the full post (http://smallwarsjournal.com/blog/us-army-hones-antiterror-strategy-for-africa-in-kansas) and make any comments at the SWJ Blog (http://smallwarsjournal.com/blog).
This forum is a feed only and is closed to user comments.

[AdamG]

FORT RILEY, Kan. — Here on the Kansas plains, thousands of soldiers once bound for Iraq or Afghanistan are now gearing up for missions in Africa as part of a new Pentagon strategy to train and advise indigenous forces to tackle emerging terrorist threats and other security risks so that American forces do not have to.

The first-of-its-kind program is drawing on troops from a 3,500-member brigade in the Army’s storied First Infantry Division, known as the Big Red One, to conduct more than 100 missions in Africa over the next year. The missions range from a two-man sniper team in Burundi to 350 soldiers conducting airborne and humanitarian exercises in South Africa.

The brigade has also sent a 150-member rapid-response force to Djibouti in the Horn of Africa to protect embassies in emergencies, a direct reply to the attack on the United States Mission in Benghazi, Libya, last year, which killed four Americans.

“Our goal is to help Africans solve African problems, without having a big American presence,” said Lt. Col. Robert E. Lee Magee, a West Point graduate and third-generation Army officer whose battalion has sent troops to Burundi, Niger and South Africa in the past several months, and whose unit will deploy to Djibouti in December.

http://mobile.nytimes.com/2013/10/19/world/africa/us-prepares-to-train-african-forces-to-fight-terror.html?from=us

[Stan]

Seems this thread has once again gained some much needed momentum.
Some great posts and equally great responses ! I’ll begin with David’s 09.2013 post.

Let’s first discuss the “almost always normal” process that takes place with training:

We offer or the host country requests - Both parties have to agree to training in or outside of the host country. It’s simply cheaper to send four instructors to Mali that a platoon of Mali to South Carolina. So, it happens in country.
The Country Team (as many or as few of the embassy members deemed necessary which varies from post to post) assesses the situation and the Host Country provides their concurrence and trainees. Once this has happened and the CT finds it a good idea, a Pre-Deployment Site Survey is organized (which often includes instructors that will eventually come back and perform the training). The PDSS determines that the CT is on the right path and that this training is tailored to the caliber of trainees in question and the problem is adequately addressed through training. It could and has worked out that we cannot provide the required assistance and training.

The CT then begins the vetting process both in country and then at home to DOS. Let’s keep in mind that vetting does not determine nor discriminate against one’s race, religion, or sexual orientation. It is designed to vet out human rights violators/violations.

The Pentagon is only as blind as the Country Team will allow !

DoD does not pull the hamstrings. The Ambassador (State Dept) does. If the CT fails to inform and address cultural issues prior to vetting, that’s their bad. If the CT’s agenda is politically driven, then all of the above mentioned info is just Bravo Sierra at this stage (that’s pretty much norm in Africa).

Kingjaja: I stress that it is the Host Country that determines and accepts training, and, provides the candidates. They can and have refused. But that rarely happens with free training, free conference trips to Europe and free equipment. Your military commander or President can tell the CT that the training being offered is below our candidates’ educational levels. At that point the PDSS will tune or turn off the training. In most cases, the PDSS will figure that out during the visit and take into consideration what the Host Country needs (this assumes the Host Country was requesting assistance and not the CT offering assistance). If the Host Country is not transparent, the system won’t work and will be a detriment to both parties. Having said that the US needs to be transparent too; not only with the host country but also her own public.

The US gets played because the CT is weak and lacks what most former colonial powers have learned over the decades. We also get played because the offered assistance is politically driven. Something neither you nor I can control. We just get to run with it and try and fix it along the way. See Bill’s excellent post !


“The Nigerian Army is very prickly about the condescending tone of "US training"

If that was the case, their voices are not being heard at the CT and AFRICOM. All they need do is refuse. That however will more than likely be the last time they are offered assistance. Not something your administration is willing to risk (apparently).

General Ham is little more than a victim of his own command. He doesn’t make up his own speeches and is dependent on both his team and the CT in the host country. He is however on the blame line !

Hei Mikka ! It is up to each and every one of us to ensure we are not the culturally challenged ugly American. Some things do happen outside of the Diplo Circle at embassies. That depends on just how much the Ambassador values your opinion and trusts your judgment. That also means you need to have some big cojones at the CT, and, as John W opined, you could end up with a very short career path !

JohnT, Great post ! There are some great FSOs and FAOs. Some of the mistakes that keep FSOs from excelling are their 2 or 3-year cycles. If something new crosses their desk and there is little time to make the grade, the project dies. Can’t get the award in, then Foxtrot it ! Too much dependency on the end result being credited to a single person for an end of tour award. Had that happened here in 98 we would have never succeeded. Some great FAOs kept that from happening and the momentum and money never stopped.

Regards, Stan

[davidbfpo]

Stan,

Thank you for your wise words as an experienced African "old hand".

It does appear from this latest "puff" NYT article on the Kansas-based brigade that little has been learnt - from Mali - and sadly it appears the USA's only helping hand for Africa comes in a uniform with a gun and just maybe a drone.

The same article appears on SWJ Blog and has one comment by hitman483 (who I don't think is a SWC contributor) :
This has to be a joke. The military, specifically, the US Army is coming up with a Foreign Internal Defense (FID) strategy for the African continent. So we are going to mentor, train, and advise different countries National Security Forces in Africa on how to defeat insurgencies and terrorists attacks. OK, we couldn't beat the insurgencies in Iraq or Afghanistan and the Army is putting plans together for FID in Africa. LOL, I can't wait to see this. US Army conventional forces conducting Irregular Warfare training. This is a lose, lose all day long.

Department of State (DOS) should handle this. Because, it's the police that will be out in front. Once again, insurgencies and terrorists are criminals, not combatants. Organized narcotics gangs, and organized crime have the same makeup of terrorist and insurgent cells. The behavior is the same. It's a shame the military doesn't understand this.

The author is a former Embedded Police Mentor and former Law Enforcement Professional. Assigned to Special Operations Task Force South (SOTF South)from 2010-2012.

[Stan]

David,
I have not a clue what advance preparations have been accomplished to adequately prepare the brigade for Africa.

My first thought would be nothing (which is not as bad as it sounds). If I pump you up with all my experience and you get there and discover I'm but an old Africa hand beyond his time, then we have accomplished nothing. If however, I give you little to nothing other than some language and cultural advanced training (that's all I received in 84), we stand the chance that you (the individual soldier burned out 5 times on some desert missions) will hopefully think outside the box and figure out what's best. Hence the need for a PDSS.

The uniform and a gun is typical of non-Africa corps personnel that have in fact had too many tours in a combat zone. The PDSS will cover that high hurdle and preclude yet another SNAFU in Africa. A firearm in Africa is a joke and Africans are less likely to comprehend our goal and intent.

Seems hitman does not understand nor has he worked with embassies abroad.

A shame, because that is exactly where most of the US Military reside (blind to what really happens at an embassy and/or DOS).

Break - off to comment on hitman's post at the blog !


Stan,

Thank you for your wise words as an experienced African "old hand".

It does appear from this latest "puff" NYT article on the Kansas-based brigade that little has been learnt - from Mali - and sadly it appears the USA's only helping hand for Africa comes in a uniform with a gun and just maybe a drone.

The same article appears on SWJ Blog and has one comment by hitman483 (who I don't think is a SWC contributor) :

[KingJaja]

Stan,


The US gets played because the CT is weak and lacks what most former colonial powers have learned over the decades. We also get played because the offered assistance is politically driven. Something neither you nor I can control. We just get to run with it and try and fix it along the way. See Bill’s excellent post !

So what can the US do to avoid getting played? I look at Mali and I doubt the French would have been played like the US was played.

I cannot emphasise how important it is not to get played - Africa is now quasi-democratic; what this means is that virtually every government in Sub-Saharan Africa represents some sectional/ethnic interest, while the opposition to government represents entirely different sectional/ethnic interests.

The British & French know who is bull####ting & who isn't, because they created the mess in the first place. They have deep, first hand knowledge of each African nation and they (especially the French) are unlikely to tell the US everything they know.

In an increasingly connected, better-educated Africa (for example: 48 million Nigerians have access to the Internet), the US cannot afford to engage Africa as she did during the Cold War. It is a lot different and a lot more complicated.

[KingJaja]

The US Military should be used very sparingly in Africa. Given our history, the terms "US Military" and "CIA" ring alarm bells.

If a combination of police/FBI can do the job, why not use them? Why are you telling us "you are preparing a brigade for operations in Africa"? You want all the "Pan-Africanist intellectuals & journalists" (and they are quite a few of them) to blow off steam?

[SWJ Blog]

U.S. Military Investing Heavily in Africa (http://smallwarsjournal.com/blog/us-military-investing-heavily-in-africa)

Entry Excerpt:



--------
Read the full post (http://smallwarsjournal.com/blog/us-military-investing-heavily-in-africa) and make any comments at the SWJ Blog (http://smallwarsjournal.com/blog).
This forum is a feed only and is closed to user comments.

[Stan]

Hey Kingjaja !

We are working with the French in Mali, but that is mostly international and humanitarian organizations. The US got played due in part to the Country Team and the input provided by the Host Country. I had very good relations with the French in Zaire, but I also spoke French and Lingala, so that bridged the gap in understanding. I also realized just how much the Zairois hated the French. That combination made for some interesting times !

Our current administration does little to make the French feel welcome. That makes for some bad cocktail parties in Africa :o Our diplomatic corps -- some or all of the CT really need a course in diplomacy when working in Africa. I work with the foot soldiers and meet with Generals only when required. The US gets played thinking they are smarter than the Africans.... Bad mistake.

Regards, Stan


Stan,

So what can the US do to avoid getting played? I look at Mali and I doubt the French would have been played like the US was played.

I cannot emphasise how important it is not to get played - Africa is now quasi-democratic; what this means is that virtually every government in Sub-Saharan Africa represents some sectional/ethnic interest, while the opposition to government represents entirely different sectional/ethnic interests.

The British & French know who is bull####ting & who isn't, because they created the mess in the first place. They have deep, first hand knowledge of each African nation and they (especially the French) are unlikely to tell the US everything they know.

In an increasingly connected, better-educated Africa (for example: 48 million Nigerians have access to the Internet), the US cannot afford to engage Africa as she did during the Cold War. It is a lot different and a lot more complicated.

[Stan]

Exactly !

The Country Team also has a Legal Attache (FBI). In fact, the CT should be reviewing whether the Department of Justice is not the better choice as a training provider. Considering the problems with counterinsurgency, the FBI would be the better trainer.


The US Military should be used very sparingly in Africa. Given our history, the terms "US Military" and "CIA" ring alarm bells.

If a combination of police/FBI can do the job, why not use them? Why are you telling us "you are preparing a brigade for operations in Africa"? You want all the "Pan-Africanist intellectuals & journalists" (and they are quite a few of them) to blow off steam?

[KingJaja]

Our current administration does little to make the French feel welcome. That makes for some bad cocktail parties in Africa Our diplomatic corps -- some or all of the CT really need a course in diplomacy when working in Africa. I work with the foot soldiers and meet with Generals only when required. The US gets played thinking they are smarter than the Africans.... Bad mistake

US isn't going to go very far in Francophone Africa (that's most of the Sahel) if it doesn't work well with the French or develop a very solid understanding of that region.

[Stan]

Kingjaja,
Seems with the latest news of spying on French Diplomats, we may have set relations and cultural differences back another decade :D

[KingJaja]

Kingjaja,
Seems with the latest news of spying on French Diplomats, we may have set relations and cultural differences back another decade

True, but there are other issues at play here.

The French know they are too weak to hold on to Francafrique forever & they guess they'll need some American help to protect their interests (against the rapidly advancing Chinese).

There's something known as Western interests (why the US has never felt the need to distance itself from the legacy of really awful former colonial masters in Africa like Belgium & Portugal is a never ending source of amazement) - anyway US & France need to work together to protect Western interests (whatever that means).

So China will force France & US to work together - and US will never query French policy in Africa. Hasn't done that once in 400 years, won't do that tomorrow.

[M-A Lagrange]

True, but there are other issues at play here.

The French know they are too weak to hold on to Francafrique forever & they guess they'll need some American help to protect their interests (against the rapidly advancing Chinese).

There's something known as Western interests (why the US has never felt the need to distance itself from the legacy of really awful former colonial masters in Africa like Belgium & Portugal is a never ending source of amazement) - anyway US & France need to work together to protect Western interests (whatever that means).

So China will force France & US to work together - and US will never query French policy in Africa. Hasn't done that once in 400 years, won't do that tomorrow.

I would be surprised if that happens ever. The idea that China in Africa is a threat for everybody since it is a threat to US is, IMHO, over rated.
France let Chad sell oil to China without any problems. It is even the french companies who denied the offer in the first place.
What is more interesting is the African wind of change that is now blowing on the China/Africa relations.
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/18/world/africa/china-finds-resistance-to-oil-deals-in-africa.html?pagewanted=all&goback=.nmp_*1_*1_*1_*1_*1_*1_*1_*1_*1_*1.gde_2163 586_member_274912827#!

The basic thinking that former and new colonial powers will take care of Africa security issues is, IMHO, also much over rated on the continent. Africa is adjusting, so should also the observers.

[KingJaja]

Interesting piece by David Danelo


Consequently, if you are a sub-Saharan West African and want to acquire a citizen’s national pride (as an American or European may suggest you should), doing so requires accepting certain aspects of British, French or Portuguese heritage as your own. Notwithstanding Liberia, which was founded by freed U.S. slaves under somewhat suspicious circumstances, the machinations of colonial powers are the only reason your country exists in its current configuration. They constitute the primary reason you speak to and relate with the rest of the world in French (most of West Africa), English (Nigeria, Ghana, Sierra Leone and Gambia) or Portuguese (Guinea-Bissau). And of course much the same applies to east, central and southern Africa as well. -

See more at: http://www.the-american-interest.com/article-bd.cfm?piece=1471#sthash.TziLaGKb.dpuf

[KingJaja]

I would be surprised if that happens ever. The idea that China in Africa is a threat for everybody since it is a threat to US is, IMHO, over rated.
France let Chad sell oil to China without any problems. It is even the french companies who denied the offer in the first place.
What is more interesting is the African wind of change that is now blowing on the China/Africa relations.
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/18/world/africa/china-finds-resistance-to-oil-deals-in-africa.html?pagewanted=all&goback=.nmp_*1_*1_*1_*1_*1_*1_*1_*1_*1_*1.gde_2163 586_member_274912827#!

The basic thinking that former and new colonial powers will take care of Africa security issues is, IMHO, also much over rated on the continent. Africa is adjusting, so should also the observers.

M.A Lagrange,

This is what the former US Assistant Secretary of State for African Affairs said about China:


He argues that China is not seen in Washington as a military or security threat at the moment. But he says there are, what he calls "tripwires" in Africa for the US when it comes to China.

"Have they signed military base agreements? Are they training armies? Have they developed intelligence operations? Once these areas start developing then the US will start worrying," he says.

"The United States will continue to push democracy and capitalism while Chinese authoritarian capitalism is politically challenging. The Chinese are dealing with the [Zimbabwean president] Mugabe's and [Sudanese president] Bashir's of the world, which is a contrarian political model."

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-11955516

So Western diplomats fear China's rise in Africa - & they will drive the policy thrusts.

[Stan]

I would be careful using Wikileaks as a source of Western intelligence and their thoughts.

The quoted concerns and documents are but a bunch of junior staff with ridiculous and profound thoughts from their desktops. Those that fear to even breach the city walls into what is really the city where all walks of life live day to day.

We were also cautioned on a potential rise in Chinese influence in Zaire. What we determined was they were taking over defunct construction contracts that most Westerners abandoned long ago.

Yes, they are after natural resources. But to take over the continent for security or intelligence :rolleyes:

Hanging onto 8% of the US debt, China is not a big deal. Imagine the pressure if we say "the hell with you" and stop paying :D

It takes two to tango !

[KingJaja]

I would be careful using Wikileaks as a source of Western intelligence and their thoughts.

The quoted concerns and documents are but a bunch of junior staff with ridiculous and profound thoughts from their desktops. Those that fear to even breach the city walls into what is really the city where all walks of life live day to day.

We were also cautioned on a potential rise in Chinese influence in Zaire. What we determined was they were taking over defunct construction contracts that most Westerners abandoned long ago.

Yes, they are after natural resources. But to take over the continent for security or intelligence :rolleyes:

Hanging onto 8% of the US debt, China is not a big deal. Imagine the pressure if we say "the hell with you" and stop paying :D

It takes two to tango !

On an unrelated note, if any global power is culturally unsuited for engagement with Africa, then it must be the US.

I look at the hundred odd years of relationship between the British and the ruling class in Nigeria's North - deep, solid, personal relationships. US has nothing near to that and if the US were to try to cultivate those relationships in this day and age, it would be accused of favoring one part of Nigeria over the other.

If you look at cultural similarities, Chinese have a lot in common with Africans - extended families, respect for elders, respect for culture & a sense of "morality" that tolerates bribery. Americans on the other hand, are often seen as "rigid" & possibly "moralistic" (both the French & British had to compromise a lot during colonial rule - they might not tell Americans that).

In Nigeria, the Chinese are already speaking Hausa, Berom & other native languages. They have an instinctive understanding of the land - many Americans will struggle to grasp that; the cultural gulf is far too wide.

Smarter people than myself have pointed out how complex West Africa & Africa are. Neat nation states don't exist & terrorism isn't a problem, but merely the symptom of a problem - i.e. the Tuareg rebellion long precedes the 2012/13 assault on Mali by Al Qaeda.

Does the US have the right mind set to navigate through these cultural landmines? I doubt it. Americans lack the patience to deal with deep rooted historical issues, we've seen it time and time again: Vietnam, Afghanistan, Iraq - I don't think Africa will be any different.

[Stan]

On an unrelated note, if any global power is culturally unsuited for engagement with Africa, then it must be the US.

I would say that if any Western Government is culturally inept in the WORLD, it is the USG. Not to kick a dead horse herein, but our government abroad is run by State, and the personnel she employs tend to embarrass me. Little I can do about that !


I look at the hundred odd years of relationship between the British and the ruling class in Nigeria's North - deep, solid, personal relationships. US has nothing near to that and if the US were to try to cultivate those relationships in this day and age, it would be accused of favoring one part of Nigeria over the other.

I once had a Zairian tell me about the Brits in Zaire vs the Yanks. I now live with an Estonian who bitterly complains about Russians. Don’t take this personally, but every culture on earth has something bad to say about another. Easier to adapt to your local norm, stand back and laugh. You, my friend, have a “hard on” for AFRICOM, despite the fact you know very little about it. I back you on the culturally inept at embassies in Africa, but, without your government’s support, this bickering will go nowhere. I recommend a trip to Rhodes in the summer with loud and obnoxious Brits and worse yet, rich Chinese and Russians on vacation together.


If you look at cultural similarities, Chinese have a lot in common with Africans - extended families, respect for elders, respect for culture & a sense of "morality" that tolerates bribery. Americans on the other hand, are often seen as "rigid" & possibly "moralistic" (both the French & British had to compromise a lot during colonial rule - they might not tell Americans that).

We are all to some extent culturally challenged. The Chinese both in Africa and here live like dogs. I don’t see the respect or morality and would prefer to be an ignorant Yank.


In Nigeria, the Chinese are already speaking Hausa, Berom & other native languages. They have an instinctive understanding of the land - many Americans will struggle to grasp that; the cultural gulf is far too wide.

That may very well be because few speak Chinese, so there is little left to do but get with the local language and cultural gap. If not a soul in Nigeria spoke a single word of English, that would be a different matter and the majority of diplomats would then be required to learn your local language. IMO, there is little in Africa that could be concluded as instinctive.



Does the US have the right mind set to navigate through these cultural landmines? I doubt it. Americans lack the patience to deal with deep rooted historical issues, we've seen it time and time again: Vietnam, Afghanistan, Iraq - I don't think Africa will be any different.

The USG does not have the right mindset, but the Americans I work and live with do. Would you care to strike a comparison with Vietnam and Afghanistan, so that I can see where you are going with this ? I'm only in my late 50s, so you may very well know more about those campaigns than I.

Regards. Stan

[KingJaja]

Stan,

I was trying to bare my mind. Yes, Chinese actually speak English (& pidgin), but probably due to their socio-economic status (which is closer to the "natives"), they tend to be more at "ground level".

We agree that the USG will be challenged in its engagement in Africa. Africa is of relatively little importance to the American people & it is very difficult to sell a sustained, significant engagement there to them.

I don't have a "hard on" for AFRICOM, my views on AFRICOM are typical for an educated African (go to South Africa, you'll hear an earful). Isn't it better for me to say what's on my mind, so we can arrive at a common understanding?

About the last point - the Vietnamese saw their war in nationalist terms, it took the US a bit of time to see it that way. In Iraq, it took the US quite some to understand the rifts between Shia & Sunni or the internal workings of Iraqi society.

I see the same thing at play in Mali. Mali is being framed in terms of the "war on terror" - but it goes deeper. The French know well enough that the Tuaregs have had a long running rebellion against first French colonialists, then with the government in Bamako. Will the US have the patience to untangle this mess & engage productively with all parties in the conflict? I doubt it.

Northern Nigeria is no less complex - the US ambassador here has made statements that are so ill-judged that he had to be summoned to explain what exactly he meant.

[Stan]

Stan,

I was trying to bare my mind. Yes, Chinese actually speak English (& pidgin), but probably due to their socio-economic status (which is closer to the "natives"), they tend to be more at "ground level".

OK, my bad ! I often get where you’re coming from ;)
One’s status at an embassy abroad is bit tricky. Although I had more freedom that others and the trust of the Ambassador, I couldn’t go around acting or looking like a homeless person. At least not as a US Soldier.


We agree that the USG will be challenged in its engagement in Africa. Africa is of relatively little importance to the American people & it is very difficult to sell a sustained, significant engagement there to them.

There are over 260,000 Nigerians living in America and 10% of those have post graduate degrees. That’s not only a big deal, that’s a strong voice. They are either not supporting you back home, or have no immediate intentions of returning “home”. In comparison, there are but 25,000 Estonians living in America. Also very well educated, but, staunch supporters in Washington.


I don't have a "hard on" for AFRICOM, my views on AFRICOM are typical for an educated African (go to South Africa, you'll hear an earful). Isn't it better for me to say what's on my mind, so we can arrive at a common understanding?

No problems with you spilling your guts. At least I get to intervene and explain the nuts and bolts :D


About the last point - the Vietnamese saw their war in nationalist terms, it took the US a bit of time to see it that way. In Iraq, it took the US quite some to understand the rifts between Shia & Sunni or the internal workings of Iraqi society.

Yes, most are still stymied by the cultural gap. But, entering those countries for purely political reasons is where most see the underlying problems. French colonial rule in Vietnam was certainly not a demonstration of cultural awareness either.


I see the same thing at play in Mali. Mali is being framed in terms of the "war on terror" - but it goes deeper. The French know well enough that the Tuaregs have had a long running rebellion against first French colonialists, then with the government in Bamako. Will the US have the patience to untangle this mess & engage productively with all parties in the conflict? I doubt it.

As of late September there is little more being planned for Mali other than release of aid and continuing cooperation with international players. Even before President Keita was inaugurated, US involvement was limited to logistical support to the French. I doubt Obama wants another disaster, and I doubt the American public will support him if he was to.


Northern Nigeria is no less complex - the US ambassador here has made statements that are so ill-judged that he had to be summoned to explain what exactly he meant.

I was unable to find any recent statements by Ambassador McCulley. Are we talking about the current Chargé d’Affaires Maria Brewer ? She has been in charge since August 2013 (meaning there is no Ambassador in Abuja).

Regards, Stan

[KingJaja]

OK, my bad ! I often get where you’re coming from
One’s status at an embassy abroad is bit tricky. Although I had more freedom that others and the trust of the Ambassador, I couldn’t go around acting or looking like a homeless person. At least not as a US Soldier.

The Chinese (due to their socio-economic status) are more likely to live among natives & move around natives without arousing too much suspicion. Now if any of the many Chinese I see around Nigeria (all nooks & crannies) are involved in intelligence gathering or in-country studies - then Beijing is likely to have a better understanding of Africa within a generation than any Western power.


There are over 260,000 Nigerians living in America and 10% of those have post graduate degrees. That’s not only a big deal, that’s a strong voice. They are either not supporting you back home, or have no immediate intentions of returning “home”. In comparison, there are but 25,000 Estonians living in America. Also very well educated, but, staunch supporters in Washington.

Nigerians in the US are divided along ethnic & religious lines. 260,000 isn't very significant in a nation of 300 million - especially a nation that has little interest in Africa. In addition, Nigerians don't exactly have a stellar reputation in the US. So I don't see US attitudes towards Nigeria changing in my lifetime.


Yes, most are still stymied by the cultural gap. But, entering those countries for purely political reasons is where most see the underlying problems. French colonial rule in Vietnam was certainly not a demonstration of cultural awareness either.

I don't know much about the French in Indo-China, but I know a lot about the British in Nigeria (and the French must have done something similar in their colonies). Understanding native cultures was the key to a successful colonial enterprise. The Brits governed Nigeria with a few thousand administrators and soldiers, so they had to lean heavily on local administration structures.

For example, in Northern Nigeria, the British used Islamic emirs to administer the empire, collect taxes & administer justice. They made mistakes along the way - and they adjusted. This was very similar to British rule in India through the "Maharajahs".

In South Western Nigeria, the traditional leadership structure was less absolute, women were better represented in the traditional structure - once again, the British adjusted to the peculiarities of that part of Nigeria.

In the South East, traditional rule was more democratic and an attempt by the British to impose "warrant chiefs" & collect taxes led to a riot by market women in 1929 (in Aba). The British had to adjust, and make more use of "district commissioners".

The British & French had scores of "district commissioners" (or their equivalent) who not only spoke the native languages but had a pretty good understanding the lay of the land. The British Army was structured a lot differently from today's US Army - there was the "Colonial/Indian Army" (in which officers spent entire careers in) and the regular British Army.

My point? British & French have institutional knowledge that the US will never/can never have.


I was unable to find any recent statements by Ambassador McCulley. Are we talking about the current Chargé d’Affaires Maria Brewer ? She has been in charge since August 2013 (meaning there is no Ambassador in Abuja).

I didn't know McCulley was no longer ambassador? He was queried over his call for the Nigerian government to establish a "Ministry of Northern Affairs". He was unaware that the term "Northern Nigeria" was pregnant with political symbolism or that it would be difficult to make a case for diversion of Niger Delta resources to solve a problem in Nigeria's North when the Niger Delta is also grappling with its own insurgency.

Added to that is the impression that US was telling Nigeria how to run its internal affairs.

Simply put, a UK High Commissioner is unlikely to be caught making such a gaffe - they understand context better.

[KingJaja]

Stan,

One more thing - you aren't going to see the Brits playing a significant role in the military of former French colonies. Similarly you won't see the French playing a significant role in the military of former British colonies. Both nations have their "comfort zones" and tend to stick with them.

Unfortunately, the US has no such advantages in Africa (except say, Liberia).

Finally, if you consider that US interests in Africa are mainly oil & gas & counter-terrorism (which I don't think will be sustained for long) - I don't think US will have a significant, sustained role in Africa. The interest isn't there, the economic case is weak (US isn't that interested in Africa's commodities, except oil & gas) and US is also downsizing.

On the other hand, China, India & other BRIC nations have a serious economic case for multi-decade engagement with Africa. So US, as always, will be a marginal player in Africa.

[jmm99]

of Sub-Saharan Africa to the US - based on the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative (USTR) (http://www.ustr.gov/about-us/mission) data.

Here are the big three.

Canada (http://www.ustr.gov/countries-regions/americas/canada):


U.S. goods and services trade with Canada totaled over $680 billion in 2011 (latest data available for goods and services trade). Exports totaled $337 billion; Imports totaled $343 billion. The U.S. goods and services trade deficit with Canada was $6 billion in 2011.

Canada is currently our largest goods trading partner with $616 billion in total (two ways) goods trade during 2012. Goods exports totaled $292 billion; Goods imports totaled $324 billion. The U.S. goods trade deficit with Canada was $32 billion in 2012.

Trade in services with Canada (exports and imports) totaled $84 billion in 2011 (latest data available). Services exports were $56 billion; Services imports were $28 billion. The U.S. services trade surplus with Canada was $28 billion in 2011. ...

China (http://www.ustr.gov/countries-regions/china-mongolia-taiwan/peoples-republic-china):


U.S. goods and services trade with China totaled $539 billion in 2011. Exports totaled $129 billion; Imports totaled $411 billion. The U.S. goods and services trade deficit with China was $282 billion in 2011.

China is currently our 2nd largest goods trading partner with $503 billion in total (two ways) goods trade during 2011. Goods exports totaled $104 billion; Goods imports totaled $399 billion. The U.S. goods trade deficit with China was $295 billion in 2011.

Trade in services with China (exports and imports) totaled $36 billion in 2011 (preliminary data). Services exports were $25 billion; Services imports were $11 billion. The U.S. services trade surplus with China was $13 billion in 2011. ...

Mexico (http://www.ustr.gov/countries-regions/americas/mexico):


U.S. goods and services trade with Mexico totaled $500 billion in 2011 (latest data available for goods and services trade). Exports totaled $224 billion; Imports totaled $277 billion. The U.S. goods and services trade deficit with Mexico was $53 billion in 2011.

Mexico is currently our 3rd largest goods trading partner with $494 billion in total (two ways) goods trade during 2012. Goods exports totaled $216 billion; Goods imports totaled $278 billion. The U.S. goods trade deficit with Mexico was $61 billion in 2012.

Trade in services with Mexico (exports and imports) totaled $39 billion in 2011 (latest data available). Services exports were $25 billion; Services imports were $14 billion. The U.S. services trade surplus with Mexico was $11 billion in 2011. ...

So, we are dealing in ~ 1.7 trillion $US, in two way trade in goods and services, with these three primary trading partners.

Moving on to our first region, the Western Hemisphere (http://www.ustr.gov/countries-regions/americas):


U.S. goods and services trade with the Western Hemisphere totaled $1.7 trillion in 2011. Exports totaled $817 billion; Imports totaled $865 billion. The U.S. goods and services trade deficit with the Western Hemisphere was $47 billion in 2011.

The United States has $1.4 trillion in total (two ways) goods trade with Western Hemisphere countries during 2011. Goods exports totaled $646 billion; Goods imports totaled $751 billion. The U.S. goods trade deficit with the Western Hemisphere was $105 billion in 2011.

Trade in services with the Western Hemisphere (exports and imports) totaled $285 billion in 2011. Services exports were $171 billion; Services imports were $113 billion. The U.S. services trade surplus with the Western Hemisphere was $58 billion in 2011. ...

The Pacific Rim countries (including China) amount to somewhat less than the Western Hemisphere:

Korea 125
Japan 267
China 539
HK 54
Taiwan 85
Aus-NZ 71
Misc 2
ASEAN 228

A total of 1.371 trillion $US. Thus, so far regionally, the US "pivots" should be first to the Western Hemisphere and then to the Pacific Rim, which the United States (as a nation) comes very close to physically touching.

Europe amounts to a bit less than the Pacific Rim:

EU 986
Turkey 20
Switz 80
Norw 15
Russia 43
Ukraine 4

A total of 1.148 trillion $US. The Middle East/North Africa (MENA) (http://www.ustr.gov/countries-regions/europe-middle-east/middle-east/north-africa) countries don't amount to all that much in US economic terms:


The United States had $215 billion in total (two ways) goods trade with MENA countries during 2008. Goods exports totaled $67 billion; Imports totaled $139 billion. The U.S. goods trade deficit with the MENA countries was $72 billion in 2008. ...

Sub-Saharan Africa (http://www.ustr.gov/countries-regions/africa) comes in still lower than the MENA countries:


Total US two-way goods today with sub-Saharan Africa was $72.0 billion in 2012. Goods exports totaled $22.5 billion; Goods imports totaled $49.6 billion. ...

Sub-Saharan Africa has far more ancestral significance to Americans; in 2010, 38.9 million African-Americans (12.6% of total pop.) (Wiki (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/African_American#Demographics)).

Looking at it from an economic standpoint, the US has little reason to be involved in the MENA countries, Sub-Saharan Africa and Central/South Asia ($122 billion), as compared to much more important regions and countries.

Regards

Mike

[KingJaja]

jmm99,


Sub-Saharan Africa has far more ancestral significance to Americans; in 2010, 38.9 million African-Americans (12.6% of total pop.) (Wiki).

Looking at it from an economic standpoint, the US has little reason to be involved in the MENA countries, Sub-Saharan Africa and Central/South Asia ($122 billion), as compared to much more important regions and countries.

I don't think the "ancestral significance" has ever amounted to much - or will ever amount to much in future. This isn't the Israeli lobby in the United States - these are people cut off from their roots - i.e. they know their ancestors came from Africa, but they don't know exactly where, so the links aren't that strong.

The figures don't lie - US is destined to be a marginal player in Africa. I expect its share of African trade to decline as the years go by - and also its interest in the continent.

If Al Qaeda & its affiliates weren't roaming around the Sahel, US would have forgotten about Africa - a long time ago (it has its oil & gas concessions, it would do the usual unimaginative NGO/Aid routine - & that's about it).

[Stan]

My point? British & French have institutional knowledge that the US will never/can never have.


Years ago I would have agreed with you. But that so-called institutional knowledge and those that possessed such talents from a colonial era are all but dead and gone. To say that English and French governments continue to rely on 75 year-old experiences is doubtful. Just as much as today’s Africa is stuck in the 60s. Business and diplomatic practices have to evolve with every new administration both home and abroad.


I didn't know McCulley was no longer ambassador? He was queried over his call for the Nigerian government to establish a "Ministry of Northern Affairs". He was unaware that the term "Northern Nigeria" was pregnant with political symbolism or that it would be difficult to make a case for diversion of Niger Delta resources to solve a problem in Nigeria's North when the Niger Delta is also grappling with its own insurgency.

There is nothing other than what is in the Nigerian press I can read on the former Ambassador’s press release or statement. Not even at State dot GOV. I’d love to read the real transcript should you run across it.


Added to that is the impression that US was telling Nigeria how to run its internal affairs.

Well, that unfortunately is what the Embassy gets to do abroad. Tell the host government what the current US Administration thinks and how to solve problems from 7,000 miles away. Glad I survived those days !


Simply put, a UK High Commissioner is unlikely to be caught making such a gaffe - they understand context better.

Nope, the UK Parliament would never allow such a mistake and the US Congress and Senate could care less if Obama dorks it up !

Regards, Stan

[Stan]

Kingjaja,


Stan,

One more thing - you aren't going to see the Brits playing a significant role in the military of former French colonies. Similarly you won't see the French playing a significant role in the military of former British colonies. Both nations have their "comfort zones" and tend to stick with them.

Unfortunately, the US has no such advantages in Africa (except say, Liberia).


This British article explains things a little better (http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/jan/31/mali-intervention-former-imperial-powers)


As Africa's former rulers, Britain bears some of the responsibility for the way the continent has turned out. Mali became a French territory during the "Scramble for Africa" of the late 19th century: a struggle between European powers to carve the continent up between them, for their own reasons – trade, natural resources – and not Africa's. A little later it was said to be for the Africans' benefit too. Britain was "civilising" them. That was a pretty arrogant claim, especially in view of some of the features of "civilisation" we were bringing them, like exploitative capitalism. In any case no one would argue today that the project was entirely successful: either because it was ill-conceived in the first place, or because we didn't pursue it seriously enough. (Old imperialists would say it was because we "scuttled" too early.) Some of Africa's present-day problems – not by any means all – are due to that. So it's up to us to put things right. "You broke it; you mend it."

Much more at the link !


Finally, if you consider that US interests in Africa are mainly oil & gas & counter-terrorism (which I don't think will be sustained for long) - I don't think US will have a significant, sustained role in Africa. The interest isn't there, the economic case is weak (US isn't that interested in Africa's commodities, except oil & gas) and US is also downsizing.

On the other hand, China, India & other BRIC nations have a serious economic case for multi-decade engagement with Africa. So US, as always, will be a marginal player in Africa.

Even oil and gas may not be sufficient to maintain interests. For the first time since 2000, the US in 2012 did not import LNG from Africa. That same year, Asia overtook Europe in oil and gas from Africa. A good reason to hang around in Africa and let the USA pump oil and gas from her own backyard. :rolleyes:

Regards, Stan

[KingJaja]

Stan,


Years ago I would have agreed with you. But that so-called institutional knowledge and those that possessed such talents from a colonial era are all but dead and gone. To say that English and French governments continue to rely on 75 year-old experiences is doubtful. Just as much as today’s Africa is stuck in the 60s. Business and diplomatic practices have to evolve with every new administration both home and abroad.

The French never really left Africa. Some of my colleagues did a consulting job in Cote D'Ivoire - they still run that place. Same applies to Gabon, Djibouti and most of Francophone Africa.

Question: who controls and regulates the CFA? (currency used in most of Francophone Africa). Answer: the French

For the British it is a bit different, they don't control their ex-colonies like the French, but they work extra hard on ensuring that bonds formed during the colonial era are kept intact.

Bonds formed in Sandhurst are carefully nurtured. The British have a special relationship with Nigeria's most important traditional rulers & those relationships are carefully nurtured (e.g. the Emir of Kano regularly visits Britain).

The US government's only presence in Nigeria is in Lagos and Abuja. In contrast, British council offices are found in all of Nigeria's regions, so they are better positioned to understand Nigeria than the US is.

There are two things: firstly, the US is already at a disadvantage in Africa (with respect to the French & the British). Secondly, the US simply hasn't made or isn't willing to make the same investment in nurturing ties with African nations as the British or the French (at least since the Cold War ended).

Every smart person in Africa knows:

1. The US is losing interest in Africa - if not for oil & counter-terrorism, they would have left immediately after the Cold War ended.

2. Economic interest is key and since the likes of India & China have the most serious future economic interests, then we have to deal with them, whether we like them or not. (For e.g. China is VERY interested in Africa's consumer markets, but the US is too rich to be bothered with African consumers).

[davidbfpo]

Kingjaja,

A couple of points.

I am aware that British officialdom in Nigeria were advised about the rise of Boko Haram, with its attendant dangers, but rejected such inputs from NGOs etc who were actually on the ground in the north-east. Apparently preferring to rely on information from Nigerian liaison.

Yes, RMA Sandhurst does have a number of African cadets and from viewing a couple of Passing Out brochures I'd be surprised if more than two Nigerians attend each year. Generally there are more Arab nationals than Africans; then add in the Caribbean nations, especially Jamaica.

[jmm99]

Sub-Saharan Africa has very little economic significance or influence in the US; its two way trade in goods and services is ~1.5% of the US totals. So, where Africa stands is, as you say, established by the figures.

My point about the larger importance of Africa as an ancestral homeland is also established by the numbers: African-Americans (self-declared) at 12.6% of total population, and the Congressional Black Caucus (http://cbc.fudge.house.gov/members/) (43 of 435 house members) at 10% of the House. If it weren't for those people, the significance of Africa in the US would be even smaller than it is.

No doubt that these are African-AMERICANS (had to do a shout-out on that one); that they are not the "Israel Lobby" (their issues (http://cbc.fudge.house.gov/issues/) are very much American, with some African-American issues); and that the Africans who came here via the Middle Passage developed their unique (and very African-American) sociology based on mixed African traditions (because of different places of African origin), as modified to meet American conditions and the "peculiar institution" of chattel slavery that had been imposed upon them.

Regards

Mike

[KingJaja]

A couple of points.

I am aware that British officialdom in Nigeria were advised about the rise of Boko Haram, with its attendant dangers, but rejected such inputs from NGOs etc who were actually on the ground in the north-east. Apparently preferring to rely on information from Nigerian liaison.

Yes, RMA Sandhurst does have a number of African cadets and from viewing a couple of Passing Out brochures I'd be surprised if more than two Nigerians attend each year. Generally there are more Arab nationals than Africans; then add in the Caribbean nations, especially Jamaica.

You are very correct, RMA Sandhurst has a very small number of African cadets, but the ex-generals that are a significant proportion of Nigeria's ruling elite went to either RMA Sandhurst or Mons, Aldershot.

The Nigerian Army comes from a British tradition, not a US tradition and the Nigerian Defence Academy was initially modeled on RMA Sandhurst before it became a fully fledged university.

Add that to the fact that the first generation of Nigeria's ruling elite were British trained & a lot more Nigerian students study in Britain than the United States, our education system and professional bodies are based on equivalent British bodies, not American bodies.

About Boko Haram, even if British officialdom was correctly briefed about its rise, what could they possibly do? They don't govern Nigeria & the Nigerian government has its own peculiar methods of dealing with these sorts of problems, given its unique challenges like an incompetent police force & inadequate intelligence capabilities.

[KingJaja]

jmm99,


Sub-Saharan Africa has very little economic significance or influence in the US; its two way trade in goods and services is ~1.5% of the US totals. So, where Africa stands is, as you say, established by the figures.

My point about the larger importance of Africa as an ancestral homeland is also established by the numbers: African-Americans (self-declared) at 12.6% of total population, and the Congressional Black Caucus (43 of 435 house members) at 10% of the House. If it weren't for those people, the significance of Africa in the US would be even smaller than it is.

No doubt that these are African-AMERICANS (had to do a shout-out on that one); that they are not the "Israel Lobby" (their issues are very much American, with some African-American issues); and that the Africans who came here via the Middle Passage developed their unique (and very African-American) sociology based on mixed African traditions (because of different places of African origin), as modified to meet American conditions and the "peculiar institution" of chattel slavery that had been imposed upon them.

I think we both agree.

President Obama is an African American, but has his presidency led to increased economic engagement with the African continent or even a serious re-examination of US-Africa policy? No.

Obama released his Africa policy white paper a few months before the last presidential elections. I read it, it read like a badly written college term paper.

About African American engagement with the African continent, what does it mean in practice? Not very much. It means that Jendayi Fraser seen as manipulating the Ethiopians to invade Somalia on behalf of the US government. It means Susan Rice first ignores the Rwandan Genocide then gives a free pass to Kagame to run wild in Congo DRC (in addition to the carte blanche she gave Museveni & Meles Zenawi).

African American engagement with the African continent means that Louis Farrakhan jets off to visit his favorite dictator (Gaddafi or Abacha, pick your choice) or that Jesse Jackson delivers "after dinner speeches" for random dictators or that Oprah builds as school in South Africa (which she thinks is representative of the entire African continent).

In a nutshell, it doesn't mean much.

[KingJaja]

Interesting read, I'd love to read your comments.


A retired lieutenant colonel, who was said to have led the Boko Haram attacks on Damaturu, Yobe State, on Thursday was arrested by security forces during the encounter.

The retired army officer is being detained at a military facility.

It could not be ascertained as of the time of filing this report if he has been moved to Abuja for interrogation or not.

The Director of Army Public Relations, Brig. Gen. Ibrahim, had put the casualty figure on the part of the insurgents at 70 in a statement that was silent on the number of soldiers killed in the attack.

It was however, learnt that nine soldiers including a lieutenant and four policemen lost their lives in the attack.

“The retired lieutenant colonel was properly discharged from the Army and it was a big surprise when he was arrested and identified by those who knew him as a former officer,” an Army source said.

It was further learnt that the attack on security formations in Damaturu was to avenge the seizure of a truck containing military uniforms and arms by security forces.

http://www.punchng.com/news/army-arrests-ex-colonel-who-led-yobe-bharam-attacks/

[jmm99]

though, of course, you come with a Nigerian slant; I come with an American slant; and our rhetoric may sometimes clash (or at least grate) for that reason.

IMO (to the end of post): African-American "engagement" with the African continent is very much the same as American "engagement" with the African continent. Whether a politician's desire for engagement is or was genuine requires knowing the politician. In the case of, say, John Conyers (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Conyers), George Crockett (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_W._Crockett,_Jr.) and Dennis Archer (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dennis_W._Archer), I'd bet on genuineness; though each of them is or was admittedly far more knowledgeable and involved with American domestic issues. As to others I don't really know, I can only go on the record they've made - which often is conflicting.

In any event, in my perception, both American and African-American "engagements with Africa" are usually more rhetorical than anything else. If "a call to action" results in action, the resultant proxy action reminds everyone of the Cold War, neo-colonialism or neo-imperialism; and, to my perception, those proxy actions haven't gained much for the US. Most often, the rhetoric "speaks loudly" without a "big stick" (often without any stick). Better to speak not at all, than to speak against genocide and then do nothing about it; or, more frankly, better to directly state that we are going to do nothing about it, and take the heat for that honest statement.

End rant.

Regards

Mike

[KingJaja]

jmm99,

The problem is that rhetoric doesn't work that much anymore. You see, the US isn't facing an ideological foe like the Soviets or Mao's China, they are competing against (or pretending to compete against) the Chinese, Indians, Brazilians etc who get things done without talking much or saying anything at all.

Obama is all rhetoric and people in Africa can see right through him - but at least Obama, Bush and Clinton are better than previous presidents like Reagan who never bothered coming in the first place.

[Stan]

Obama is all rhetoric and people in Africa can see right through him - but at least Obama, Bush and Clinton are better than previous presidents like Reagan who never bothered coming in the first place.

You know that Obama's week-long trip to Africa cost the taxpayers 100 million ?

Why do we have to pay for him and his family to travel to countries that are recipients of donations and aid ? Seriously ?

Please put things into perspective bro !

[KingJaja]

Stan,


You know that Obama's week-long trip to Africa cost the taxpayers 100 million ?

Why do we have to pay for him and his family to travel to countries that are recipients of donations and aid ? Seriously ?

Please put things into perspective bro !

That's actually a double-edged sword. I'll explain why.

We actually read the coverage & criticism of Obama's trip to Africa & two main themes emerged.

1. The American public strongly believes that trips to Africa (by American presidents) aren't worth the bother/a waste of money. You have US diplomats trying to sell US to an increasingly better educated & increasingly skeptical African Middle Class, on the other hand the American public is saying: we already give millions in aid to these people, why is our president wasting money on a trip to visit them?

If I remember, the same thing was said about Clinton's visit to Africa (which cost about $42.8 million).

Cost is only an issue when American presidents visit Africa - is that the message America wants to send to Africa? It isn't a particularly smart message, cost is never an issue when US presidents visit other continents and with the Chinese we don't get any of that at all.

I come from Nigeria, we have issues, but we don't depend on US aid - you can look at the numbers from any reliable source. So you can imagine how out of tune that message sounds to me.

2. Since Americans have told Africans in no uncertain terms that Africa isn't worth visiting and Obama's trip is a waste of time/money, smart Africans will quickly extrapolate that Obama has very little political capital to do anything significant in Africa.

Once again, the Chinese (& other BRIC nations) don't suffer from the same limitations.

The trade figures tell the story, the attitudes of the American people support it - US is losing interest in Africa. Since that is the case, please allow us to do business with China, India or whoever without constant nagging.

[Stan]

Kingjaja,


Stan,

I come from Nigeria, we have issues, but we don't depend on US aid - you can look at the numbers from any reliable source. So you can imagine how out of tune that message sounds to me.

Well, that would explain nearly 93 million dollars in assistance in 2013 ?

You may not as an "educated middle class Nigerian" depend on that assistance, but, seems somebody does.

We are also about to fund EOD assistance to your military and law enforcement to better counter IEDs and the bomb makers. That, I assure you, your country needs.

It's not a slight, you have been receiving assistance for decades and I, as an American taxpayer see no use in spending 100 million on a boondoggle when that same amount of money can otherwise fund worthwhile projects that produce results. We know that, we've done that, and we have evidence that it works.

What exactly does a presidential visit do to increase awareness, decrease death, etc. ? Sorry, said visits are a waste of money and jet fuel.

Regards, Stan

[KingJaja]

Stan,


Well, that would explain nearly 93 million dollars in assistance in 2013 ?

You may not as an "educated middle class Nigerian" depend on that assistance, but, seems somebody does.

We are also about to fund EOD assistance to your military and law enforcement to better counter IEDs and the bomb makers. That, I assure you, your country needs.

It's not a slight, you have been receiving assistance for decades and I, as an American taxpayer see no use in spending 100 million on a boondoggle when that same amount of money can otherwise fund worthwhile projects that produce results. We know that, we've done that, and we have evidence that it works.

What exactly does a presidential visit do to increase awareness, decrease death, etc. ? Sorry, said visits are a waste of money and jet fuel.

Regards, Stan

Nigeria's Federal Budget is about $32 billion, the average state budget (we have 36 states) is about $1 billion. I'm sorry to say this, but $93 million dollars isn't very much money compared to those sums - & if US should stop all (or most of is assistance to Nigeria), Nigeria will not collapse.

This was exactly the same argument the Brits and the Indians had, & British are winding down on their aid commitments to India - & there's very little impact on India.

How many Nigerians depend on US aid? Poor, middle class or wealthy?

In fact, aid can be counter productive as Dambisa Moyo eloquently argued in Dead Aid, it doesn't always build local capacity nor does it promote accountability.

We both agree, Africa is too insignificant to warrant a visit from the US president. Since the Chinese, Russian & Brazilian leaders (and taxpayers) haven't voiced their opposition to funding boondoggles in Africa - let them come to Africa, if they bring business that can help me feed my children, well and good.

[Stan]

Yo Kingjaja !

Not much reason for us to delve into our government's squandering, as we both know, there is no logic and no public support therein.

I'll leave you with these links which are public info to the world including your nation's stats.

US Foreign Aid (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_foreign_aid)
Foreign Assistance (http://foreignassistance.gov/OU.aspx?OUID=175&FY=2013&AgencyID=0&budTab=tab_Bud_Spent)
Nigerian Budget (http://www.tradingeconomics.com/nigeria/government-budget)
How Can Africa Move Away from Aid Dependence (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-22270164)
701,000 Nigerians Live Under Modern Slavery Conditions (http://www.africanexaminer.com/701000-nigerians-live-under-modern-slavery-conditions-report/)

We do not agree however that your country is insignificant. :cool:
A presidential or ministry visit is expensive and not warranted. Nothing that a simple phone call could not resolve. I think the numbers at the links above do in fact help you feed your children, but, my opinion.

Regards, Stan


Stan,



Nigeria's Federal Budget is about $32 billion, the average state budget (we have 36 states) is about $1 billion. I'm sorry to say this, but $93 million dollars isn't very much money compared to those sums - & if US should stop all (or most of is assistance to Nigeria), Nigeria will not collapse.

This was exactly the same argument the Brits and the Indians had, & British are winding down on their aid commitments to India - & there's very little impact on India.

How many Nigerians depend on US aid? Poor, middle class or wealthy?

In fact, aid can be counter productive as Dambisa Moyo eloquently argued in Dead Aid, it doesn't always build local capacity nor does it promote accountability.

We both agree, Africa is too insignificant to warrant a visit from the US president. Since the Chinese, Russian & Brazilian leaders (and taxpayers) haven't voiced their opposition to funding boondoggles in Africa - let them come to Africa, if they bring business that can help me feed my children, well and good.

[KingJaja]

Stan,


Yo Kingjaja !

Not much reason for us to delve into our government's squandering, as we both know, there is no logic and no public support therein.

I'll leave you with these links which are public info to the world including your nation's stats.

US Foreign Aid
Foreign Assistance
Nigerian Budget
How Can Africa Move Away from Aid Dependence
701,000 Nigerians Live Under Modern Slavery Conditions

We do not agree however that your country is insignificant.
A presidential or ministry visit is expensive and not warranted. Nothing that a simple phone call could not resolve. I think the numbers at the links above do in fact help you feed your children, but, my opinion.

Regards, Stan

These aren't the 90's - not everyone cares whether the US president visits Africa or not - Obama found that out the last time he came around & I doubt he'll ever come to Africa again as president.

The problem is that symbolism matters. The domestic situation in the US isn't going to prevent Chinese leaders from visiting Africa & if the best way forward for US-Africa relations is for US presidents not to visit the continent at all - then that's up to the American people.

[jmm99]

Let's take some more figures; this time from the WTO, which tracks exports to and imports from Africa as an entire continent (and other regions) here (https://www.wto.org/english/res_e/statis_e/its2012_e/its12_appendix_e.htm):


Table A18 Merchandise trade by product, region and major trading partner, 2010-2011 — Canada

Table A19 Merchandise trade by product, region and major trading partner, 2010-2011 — United States

Table A20 Merchandise trade by product, region and major trading partner, 2010-2011 — Brazil

Table A21 Merchandise trade by product, region and major trading partner, 2010-2011 — European Union (27)

Table A22 Merchandise trade by product, region and major trading partner, 2010-2011 — China

Table A23 Merchandise trade by product, region and major trading partner, 2010-2011 — Hong Kong , China

Table A25 Merchandise trade by product, region and major trading partner, 2010-2011 — Japan

Table A26 Merchandise trade by product, region and major trading partner, 2010-2011 — Korea, Rep. of

Table A27 Merchandise trade by product, region and major trading partner, 2009-2010 — Malaysia

Table A28 Merchandise trade by product, region and major trading partner, 2010-2011 — Singapore

The relative economic significance of Africa to these countries is (in billions $US):


EU 2010 Exp 162.33; Imp 176.47
EU 2011 Exp 183.49; Imp 203.12

China 2010 Exp 56.06; Imp 67.07
China 2011 Exp 69.14; Imp 93.24

US 2010 Exp 28.28; Imp 87.47
US 2011 Exp 32.61; Imp 94.84

Japan 2010 Exp 10.08; Imp 11.69
Japan 2011 Exp 9.91; Imp 17.11

Brazil 2010 Exp 9.24; Imp 11.30
Brazil 2011 Exp 12.22; Imp 15.44

Korea 2010 Exp 10.21; Imp 6.29
Korea 2011 Exp 10.74; Imp 6.88

Canada 2010 Exp 3.30; Imp 9.62
Canada 2011 Exp 3.52; Imp 14.52

Singapore 2010 Exp 7.09; Imp 1.08
Singapore 2011 Exp 9.15; Imp 1.20

Malaysia 2010 Exp 4.89; Imp 2.87
Malaysia 2011 Exp 5.91; Imp 3.45

Hong Kong 2010 Exp 2.34; Imp 1.62
Hong Kong 2011 Exp 2.53; Imp 4.33

Given the widespread hue and cry of the "yellow peril" ("The Chinese are coming ! The Chinese are coming !"), it surprised me that the US was so close to them in African trade. That the EU was far and away the primary trading partner did not surprise me at all.

Other "hues and cries", intended to call Americans to action, are the "brown peril" ("The Muslims are coming ! The Muslims are coming !") and the "genocide peril" ("The genocide is coming ! The genocide is coming !"). All three of these messages may have varying degrees of truth in them; but that truth content should not necessarily cause Americans to take action.

The thing that struck me about President Obama's African visit was, what seemed to me, his discomfort with the realities of Sub-Saharan Africa, versus his ideological positions on civil and human rights - positions in which the Congressional Black Caucus (left-progressive in beliefs) also join. Perhaps, there also is discomfort with the fact that the Middle Passage had a beginning (Africa) and an end (America). The beginning can be ignored in the interest of tranquility, but that does not eliminate the discomfort.

So, perhaps it is best to sing Kumbayah (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kumbaya) (which is not African, but African-American-Gullah (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gullah_language)), exalt Nelson Mandela and forget about ancient history and present-day realities.

Regards

Mike

[carl]

The thing that struck me about President Obama's African visit was, what seemed to me, his discomfort with the realities of Sub-Saharan Africa, versus his ideological positions on civil and human rights - positions in which the Congressional Black Caucus (left-progressive in beliefs) also join.

In my brief time in the DRC, I seemed to me that the Congolese didn't really care what color an American was, he was a mundele just the same. I wonder if Mr. Obama and Congressional Black Caucus know that.

[KingJaja]

jmm99,


Given the widespread hue and cry of the "yellow peril" ("The Chinese are coming ! The Chinese are coming !"), it surprised me that the US was so close to them in African trade. That the EU was far and away the primary trading partner did not surprise me at all.

The thing about the Chinese isn't their volume of trade with Africa, but the rate at which Chinese trade with Africa is growing.

Please note that twenty years ago, China wasn't even in consideration as a major trading partner, but today it is right up there.

That is what is keeping the US (& the EU which consists of 28 nations) a bit concerned.

[jmm99]

I don't know (though I expect they know the difference between Africans and African-Americans) - you'd have to ask the White House and 43 African-American House members (which no longer include Allen West) about this:


In my brief time in the DRC, I seemed to me that the Congolese didn't really care what color an American was, he was a mundele just the same. I wonder if Mr. Obama and Congressional Black Caucus know that.

If you ask them, you might want to send along the link to this article (from China Talking Points !!), Chinese, it’s the new black in Kinshasa (http://www.chinatalkingpoints.com/chinese-its-the-new-black-in-kinshasa/) (by Eric Olander, February 21, 2010):


The arrival of an estimated one million Chinese across Africa is having an impact far beyond what anyone could have expected. With many of those Chinese immigrants assigned to the mines and construction projects that are rapidly changing the face of African cities, a more complex and radical transformation is happening far off the main roads. Here in Kinshasa, as in many other major African cities, tens of thousands of Chinese immigrants have taken up residence smack in the middle of indigenous local communities.

While an elite minority of Chinese expatriates live in the gated compounds with their western counterparts, the vast majority of Chinese immigrants are far less fortunate. They live side by side in the densely packed shanty towns with the 8-10 million other Kinshasans who struggle each day with water, electricity and security. Never before have so many people from such divergent cultures had to assimilate so rapidly on this continent.

This is a dramatic departure from past waves of foreign migration to Africa say, for example, by the British who imported South Asians to their former colonies. In those cases, Indians and Pakistanis were tightly segregated from both their white patrons and, in many cases, Africans themselves. This sparked the creation of large South Asian ghettos in Kenya, Uganda and South Africa among other places. No, instead, the Chinese are assimilating themselves in truly unbelievable ways.

Just as it is everywhere else, race relations across Africa are extremely complicated. That said, there is one exception. For most Africans the difference between themselves and foreigners is straightforward: you are either black African or you are “white.” No matter if you are South Asian, Middle Eastern or even African-American, you will likely be described as “white.” It’s essentially an “us and them” mentality. That is, until the Chinese arrived. ...

Thus, the article's lede sets up its key point, which KJ made a few posts back in this thread:


On a recent drive back to the office, I asked one of my local colleagues where the Chinese communities were in Kinshasa. “There is no Chinese community, they live with us,” he said. “They live right next door to me. They eat with us, they shop with us and they even sell “beignets!” (tasty donut-like fried dough). He said when the Chinese first arrived in his neighborhood a couple of years ago, he thought it was a bit strange and kept his distance from the “mundele” (the Lingala word for “foreigner” or more generally used to describe “white people”). Over time, though, he said attitudes started to change as he and his neighbors began to see the Chinese as different from most of the other “mundele” who live in Kinshasa. “They’re learning Lingala,” he went on, “they eat with us and, most importantly, they are not afraid of us.” Now, more and more, the Chinese peasants who live among the vast neighborhoods of Kinshasa are being seen as less foreign and, incredibly, less “white.” “We joke among ourselves that the Chinese skin is becoming browner and browner to where it’s now black,” he said.

We simply have to get Gen. Buck Turgidson (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ybSzoLCCX-Y) back - we must not allow the Mundele Gap !! :D

Regards

Mike

[jmm99]

China's trade with the World has climbed during 2001-2011 (Table A14 (https://www.wto.org/english/res_e/statis_e/its2012_e/appendix_e/a14.xls) Merchandise trade by region and selected economies, 2001-2011 — China):

2001: Exp 266.1, Imp 243.6
2011: Exp 1898.4, Imp 1743.5

China's trade with Africa has increased at a higher rate:

2001: Exp 5.6, Imp 4.8
2011: Exp 69.1, Imp 93.2

but, Africa (even as to China) is only a 4% factor; we aren't that far behind China in Africa; and the numbers are dwarfed by the US trade imbalance with China.

That is what the US should be concerned about - its own garden:

2001: Exp 71.1 Imp 26.2
2011: Exp 398.6, Imp 123.1

That is why I've nothing good to say about either the Bush or Obama foreign trade policies. No responsible government would allow a trade imbalance of this kind to exist.

The US trade imbalance with the World is ~800 billion $US (Table A11 (https://www.wto.org/english/res_e/statis_e/its2012_e/appendix_e/a11.xls) Merchandise trade by region and selected economies, 2001-2011 — United States). The trade imbalance with Africa ($62 billion) is part of that problem.

Regards

Mike

[Stan]

Kingjaja,
Presidential or State visits have their place. But, not in donor countries. As a taxpayer and having had the unfortunate task of preparing for such visits, I see no justification (1984 to 2013) regardless of the timeframe. I can imagine that in 1990 you were hustling around with the presidential visits, based on your sarcasm you obviously know what it takes and what it does not accomplish in order to get a visit done :D

Back to the Chinese and your LEOs and Military. Seems your country has very little Chinese ordnance. I hope that some smart guy at the Nigerian MOD begins to negotiate for replacements.

Take care, Stan


Stan,

These aren't the 90's - not everyone cares whether the US president visits Africa or not - Obama found that out the last time he came around & I doubt he'll ever come to Africa again as president.

The problem is that symbolism matters. The domestic situation in the US isn't going to prevent Chinese leaders from visiting Africa & if the best way forward for US-Africa relations is for US presidents not to visit the continent at all - then that's up to the American people.

[KingJaja]

Stan,


Presidential or State visits have their place. But, not in donor countries. As a taxpayer and having had the unfortunate task of preparing for such visits, I see no justification (1984 to 2013) regardless of the timeframe.

So why do US presidents visit Israel?

[Stan]

Kingjaja,

Outside of the obvious answer which is very political, they are not exactly a donor nation. Foreign Military Financing make it not a donor nation. One needs a better understanding of how DSCA:http://www.dsca.mil/ works and how it is financed. That is, in a nut shell, non-appropriated funds.

A quick look at Wiki (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_international_trips_made_by_the_President_ of_the_United_States#President_Barack_Obama) gives you a glimpse of the presidential trips and reasons.

Regards, Stan


Stan,

So why do US presidents visit Israel?

[KingJaja]

Stan,


Outside of the obvious answer which is very political, they are not exactly a donor nation. Foreign Military Financing make it not a donor nation. One needs a better understanding of how DSCA:http://www.dsca.mil/ works and how it is financed. That is, in a nut shell, non-appropriated funds.

A quick look at Wiki gives you a glimpse of the presidential trips and reasons.

Regards, Stan

I thought the donor nation was the nation that gives?

Okay, that aside - we've established a few key points.

1. US trade with Africa is only a fraction of its total trade with the World.
2. Africa is full of aid recipient nations.
3. US presidential visits to Africa cost too much & involve very difficult logistics.
4. Consequently, the African continent (especially Sub-Saharan Africa) isn't worth a US presidential visit. It is a waste of tax payers money - as the money is better spent on funding aid initiatives in recipient nations.
5. In other words, Sub-Saharan Africa is a strategic backwater with limited relevance to the United States of America.
6. The US thinks that some form of military engagement is important in this strategic backwater - hence AFRICOM, which helps in counter-terrorism, removing explosive ordnance & doing (exactly what, I'm not clear on) in Congo DRC.
7. If the Chinese or Indians want to waste their taxpayers money on presidential visits to this strategic backwater - it isn't the problem of the US taxpayer - who is yet to communicate to the US State Department that it should stop getting worried about Chinese etc senior leadership interaction with African leaders (especially when compared with the limited face to face interaction with African & US leaders).
8. Since all that is needed is a phone call - President Obama should ensure he phones African leaders regularly.

Now that we've established all this, we'll move over to other topics.

[Stan]

Kingjaja,
Boy have we been busy today :D


Stan,

I thought the donor nation was the nation that gives?

Okay, that aside - we've established a few key points.

Lost in translation… and yet, we are both speaking English !
The donor nation in my former diplo speak is the recipient (nation or country).

On to your questions and statements !


1. US trade with Africa is only a fraction of its total trade with the World.

2. Africa is full of aid recipient nations.

Very true, but the sources of funding are dependent on the host nation (recipient) and the Country Team (Members of the US Embassy). Some harmony actually exists there. If the host country doesn’t request, or, the Country Team does not suggest, then there is no funding despite the fact that the State Department offered a program or avenue to fund eligible countries. Even then, the process is scrutinized in DC and may not make the grade. Human rights violations kill the project dead in its tracks. That said, most African nations will not make the grade unless someone gets real creative at writing.


3. US presidential visits to Africa cost too much & involve very difficult logistics.

Presidential visits are normally offset in most host countries which could be a contributing factor to why such costlier visits are nixed before they happen. For example in the former Zaire, where humanitarian cargo flights were being assessed over flight and landing fees. “I’m sending you free food and clothing, yet you are charging me to land?” WTF ? Now we can discuss logistics as much as 4 weeks prior to and up to 2 weeks following the visit. The worst person you would ever like to meet is a presidential or spouse’s strap hanger (pre-deployed 20 year-old prima donnas charged with making sure they get what they want and you are blamed for everything that goes wrong). Ungrateful, rude and abysmal all come to mind. I wouldn’t wish that experience on my worst enemy. You have no clue ! The host country and her teams generally make life easier, but, not in Sub-Sahara. A team of Presidential Guard and Guard Civil begin beating bystanders and forbid you from entering a Children’s Hospital. I could go on.


4. Consequently, the African continent (especially Sub-Saharan Africa) isn't worth a US presidential visit. It is a waste of tax payers money - as the money is better spent on funding aid initiatives in recipient nations.

Paradoxically ! IMO, it is a waste of money and we also have people with no health insurance and no home to live in. Sorry, but I would prefer our people had a place to live and table to sit at for dinner if we are going to spend my tax dollars. Those presidential trips to France and Israel probably don’t sit well with a lot of Americans, but some sort of politics plays a bigger role and most would understand that. The day that Nigeria joins NATO, things will get totally out of hand and you will be sick of the visits, and not just from the USA. My point much like above in para 3 is we are donating. Make it easier to explain, support and visit. Or, forget it.


5. In other words, Sub-Saharan Africa is a strategic backwater with limited relevance to the United States of America.

I think I sufficiently covered this one.


6. The US thinks that some form of military engagement is important in this strategic backwater - hence AFRICOM, which helps in counter-terrorism, removing explosive ordnance & doing (exactly what, I'm not clear on) in Congo DRC.

We killed this subject way back when. For years there was a command known as EUCOM (European Command) that had not only Europe but Africa as well. AFRICOM is little more than a mini EUCOM tasked with handling Africa. Both EUCOM and AFRICOM answer to the Dept of Defense among others. Assistance funding is handled by the Dept of State. It makes no difference how many stars your General has in EUCOM or AFRICOM if State does not agree. AFRICOM and the host country come up with a plan and State approves and funds. If either party disagrees, it’s dead. We do not, nor can we, simply start training your LEO and Military without you. Is there something strategic at play ? I would hope so, or there would be no reason to spend so much money. The removal and destruction of UXO in DRC and now Mali were at the request of the host nation. No capability, no money, no enthusiasm, etc. Nigeria the same this year. Would it be better to re-watch videos of a Nigerian policeman being blown to bits because of lack of experience and training, not to mention lack of equipment that your government has yet to fund ? You insist that our minescule 93 million is not needed, but your claims are based on your limited knowledge of what is really needed. You posted and asked me why that Nigerian policeman had to die such a gruesome death and I, in grave detail, explained the circumstances. Your government needs to train her personnel and needs to equip your LEO and military with $25,000 bomb suits. That being said, you need about 40 bomb suits per State. Now maybe you understand what I do and I am not politically charged with this task, just paid to do so.


7. If the Chinese or Indians want to waste their taxpayers money on presidential visits to this strategic backwater - it isn't the problem of the US taxpayer - who is yet to communicate to the US State Department that it should stop getting worried about Chinese etc senior leadership interaction with African leaders (especially when compared with the limited face to face interaction with African & US leaders).

I personally don’t care and didn’t see anything that I would pursue as a president. I have communicated my thoughts in an official capacity and I doubt that would be sufficient to change anything. Then during the Rwandan genocide and now in relative calm. Why would I think my public voice would turn heads at the Capital ? Now imagine people like my sister who has yet to travel outside of America. Even if she had an opinion about support to Africa (which she doesn’t) how could she possible support her view and why would she march on DC ? American tax payers want to know where all their money is going and 100 million for a plane trip is a bit much. If the POTUS wants to travel, I recommend he take economy class and go alone.


8. Since all that is needed is a phone call - President Obama should ensure he phones African leaders regularly.

I sadly do not have access to Obama’s phone bill, but I am sure the NSA does :eek:

When I was in Zaire, those phone calls occurred monthly at $6.00 a minute. And when things began to go to Sierra in Zaire, so did the phone calls.


Now that we've established all this, we'll move over to other topics.

Agreed !

Regards, Stan

[davidbfpo]

Sequestration means Africa comes to Washington DC, well nearly:
Ambassadors, diplomats, and military officers representing 45 African nations participated in a 90-minute roundtable discussion October 23, 2013, with three of the top U.S. officials engaged in U.S.-Africa relations.....

Link:http://africacenter.org/2013/10/africa-center-organizes-meeting-with-u-s-africom-chief-top-u-s-diplomats-representatives-of-45-african-nations/

There's a wide selection of programs, courtesy of "Uncle Sam":http://africacenter.org/home/

[KingJaja]

davidbfpo,

Another group session?

On March 28, Presidents Macky Sall, Joyce Banda, Ernest Bai Koroma & Jos Maria Pereira Neves met President Obama in a group at the White House.

http://images.bwbx.io/cms/2013-06-21/0621_Kenny_630x420.jpg

Predictably, Macky Sall, the leader of Senegal (one of Africa's more important nations) got a LOT of flack from Senegalese media for going to the White House as part of a tour group.

There's something that the US doesn't get; that the Chinese seem to get - US might unwittingly be sending out the vibes that it is too busy to visit African officials, so it prefers to seem them in groups.

This is never intentional but, I think diplomats need to be careful about that - Africa is very diverse & it is very difficult to cover the ground in a group.

[ganulv]

Another group session?

[…]

There's something that the US doesn't get; that the Chinese seem to get - US might unwittingly be sending out the vibes that it is too busy to visit African officials, so it prefers to seem them in groups.

This is never intentional but, I think diplomats need to be careful about that - Africa is very diverse & it is very difficult to cover the ground in a group.

That’s fair. But there is also the practicality that the President of the United States is both the nation’s head of state and head of government. There are so many hours in a day and days in a term.

[KingJaja]

ganulv,


That’s fair. But there is also the practicality that the President of the United States is both the nation’s head of state and head of government. There are so many hours in a day and days in a term.

Try bringing the Presidents of Brazil, Argentina, Chile & Mexico in a group to see the US President because there are too few hours in the day and he's too busy to see them all.

Obama will be politely told that he isn't the only busy president in the World.

Some things are either worth doing well or not worth doing at all.

[KingJaja]

ganulv,

These people took their time, flew all the way to the US to see the US president - and he can't see them individually because he's too busy - give me a break!

What message does that send?

[ganulv]

Try bringing the Presidents of Brazil, Argentina, Chile & Mexico in a group to see the US President because there are too few hours in the day and he's too busy to see them all.

On the one hand you have the world’s 6th, 26th, 38th, and 14th largest economies. On the other you have the world’s 115th, 147th, 160th, and 168th largest economies. There is more to life and diplomacy than money, but do the math.

Also, the first are all within a historic sphere of American influence and one of them forms the U.S.’s southern border.


Obama will be politely told that he isn't the only busy president in the World.I suspect he is far busier than the the President of Senegal. And I say that with due respect to President Sall and without intending to insinuate that he lounges all day being fed grapes.


Some things are either worth doing well or not worth doing at all.Lord knows I didn’t attend the Kennedy School of Government (and Lord knows I didn’t want to and that they wouldn’t have let me in if I had) so I don’t know the ins-and-outs of high level diplomacy, but my impression is that my government takes a s*#t in that arena on a fairly regular basis, if you will pardon my vulgarity. So I’m not necessarily disagreeing with you. If the calculation was that Obama couldn’t spend public one-on-one time with each of the four leaders then perhaps the invitations should not have been extended at all. That would run the risk of coming across as dismissive in a different way, of course.


These people took their time, flew all the way to the US to see the US president - and he can't see them individually because he's too busy - give me a break!Poor them! I bet they had to fly Coach, too! :rolleyes: The U.S. President has 50 state governors to rub elbows with, as well, and flight time between Dakar and DC isn’t much longer than between Sacramento and DC. And AFAIK it has been over a half century since a Presidential candidate calculated it worth the time to fly to Hawaii for a campaign stop.

Do we even know that he didn’t meet with those four African leaders individually? Again with the poor diplomacy—maybe he did, and just didn’t arrange a fancy photo op. Like you said, worth doing well or not worth doing at all, perhaps.

[jmm99]

I was doing some reading on a different African topic and I came upon the following map (The Long-Term Effects of Africa’s Slave Trades (http://www.sscnet.ucla.edu/polisci/wgape/papers/12_Nunn.pdf); map is at p.17):

1754

It shows the major ethnicities within (and some split up by) the neo-colonial state borders.

Since the thread has now turned to individual vs group leadership meetings, my thoughts when looking at the map turned to the "what if" questions:

1. What if the neo-colonial borders were scuppered; and new borders aligned on the basis of the ethnicities ?

2. How would these many more, much smaller countries fare in the diplomatic and trade arenas ?

3. Specifically, would the resultant multiplicity of West-Central African coastal countries (the most ethnically divided) then be placed at a competitive disadvantage as their pre-colonial antecedents apparently were - as recently argued in 2009 by two Univ. of Michigan economists, The Impact of the Slave Trade on African Economies (http://skoola.com/Files_books/impacts-of-Slave-trade-in-africa.pdf).

4. What counter-strategies could that multiplicity of relatively tiny countries employ in order to offset the power of their trade "partners" (whether EU, China or US) ?

This is not an argument for keeping the neo-colonial borders; my dog is not in that fight; my presumption favors self-determination; but how many, many tiny countries would fare in a dog eat dog world seems a legitimate issue.

KJ: I expect you have considered this issue; I'd be interested in your thoughts.

Regards

Mike

[davidbfpo]

davidbfpo,

Another group session?

On March 28, Presidents Macky Sall, Joyce Banda, Ernest Bai Koroma & Jos Maria Pereira Neves met President Obama in a group at the White House.

http://images.bwbx.io/cms/2013-06-21/0621_Kenny_630x420.jpg

Predictably, Macky Sall, the leader of Senegal (one of Africa's more important nations) got a LOT of flack from Senegalese media for going to the White House as part of a tour group.

There's something that the US doesn't get; that the Chinese seem to get - US might unwittingly be sending out the vibes that it is too busy to visit African officials, so it prefers to seem them in groups.

This is never intentional but, I think diplomats need to be careful about that - Africa is very diverse & it is very difficult to cover the ground in a group.

I wondered who three of the African leaders were, Ms Banda was easy. So the White House press release was found and has the spin on why they met:
Today President Obama welcomed President Ernest Bai Koroma of Sierra Leone, President Macky Sall of Senegal, President Joyce Banda of Malawi, and Prime Minister Jos Maria Pereira Neves of Cape Verde to the White House. The United States has strong partnerships with these countries based on shared democratic values and shared interests. Each of these leaders has undertaken significant efforts to strengthen democratic institutions, protect and expand human rights and civil liberties, and increase economic opportunities for their people.

[KingJaja]

Some other nations have been busy in Africa.

Israel is actually quite popular in a lot of Sub Sahara Africa (at least the Christian parts), so there's a bid to grant them observer status at the African Union - which Egypt naturally opposes.


CAIRO — Egyptian fears have been rekindled regarding the spread of Israeli influence in the Horn of Africa, and more particularly the Nile Basin, following information obtained by Egyptian security agencies that Ethiopia, Kenya and Nigeria were attempting to promote Israel’s candidacy as an observer member in the African Union (AU). These states were also urging other AU states to include a discussion of this request on the agenda for the African Summit in January 2014 in Addis Ababa.

Read more: http://www.al-monitor.com/pulse/originals/2013/10/egypt-israel-african-union.html#ixzz2jCOANGQ3

[KingJaja]

jmm99,

It's a long read - let me get back to you (after working hours).

[Stan]

Kingjaja,
I think I found your twin at The Sun Times (http://africansuntimes.com/2013/05/letter-to-africa-president-obama-has-so-far-failed-africa/).


“The question really is what should Africans and the African continent realistically expect from the President Barack Obama administration? My answer to that is TOUGH LOVE.

It would appear it is the ‘TOUGH LOVE’ closeted with abhorrent silence that President Obama has chosen to practice. It is beginning to appear that after his eight years in office, his legacy to Africa would amount to zero achievement, compared to his two white predecessors, Presidents Bill Clinton and George W. Bush.

Regards, Stan

[Stan]

Kingjaja,
I'd like to have a link to that because I can't find anything even in the French press. There are gobs of news regarding Obama's gay rights during his trip to Senegal, but nothing about President Sall and his so-called tour to DC.

Would be great if you linked those articles concerning predictable outcomes. Otherwise, it's mere innuendo.
.
Regards, Stan



Predictably, Macky Sall, the leader of Senegal (one of Africa's more important nations) got a LOT of flack from Senegalese media for going to the White House as part of a tour group.

[KingJaja]

Sorry, the link was from a popular blog about Africa, not Senegalese media:

http://africasacountry.com/can-african-heads-of-state-speak/

[Stan]

Kingjaja,
Thanks for the link !

Pardon my interjection, but just as Ganulv suggested, this was not some discourteous act by the USG, rather a logical multi party meeting. These happen all the time when the state actors have a common problem and goal.
A similar multi party meeting took place in July 2011 with the presidents of Benin, Guinea, Nigeria and Ivory Coast.

I think you read too far into this, but that's your call.

I tend not to trust hungry journalism especially in my field of expertise.


Edit: Something slightly worth reading without too much journalism


The Significance of Obama’s Meeting with African Leaders at the White House (http://www.brookings.edu/research/opinions/2013/03/21-african-leaders-visit-white-house-obama-kimenyi)
Regards, Stan


Sorry, the link was from a popular blog about Africa, not Senegalese media:

http://africasacountry.com/can-african-heads-of-state-speak/

[KingJaja]

Jmm99,


It shows the major ethnicities within (and some split up by) the neo-colonial state borders.

Since the thread has now turned to individual vs group leadership meetings, my thoughts when looking at the map turned to the "what if" questions:

1. What if the neo-colonial borders were scuppered; and new borders aligned on the basis of the ethnicities ?

2. How would these many more, much smaller countries fare in the diplomatic and trade arenas ?

3. Specifically, would the resultant multiplicity of West-Central African coastal countries (the most ethnically divided) then be placed at a competitive disadvantage as their pre-colonial antecedents apparently were - as recently argued in 2009 by two Univ. of Michigan economists, The Impact of the Slave Trade on African Economies.

4. What counter-strategies could that multiplicity of relatively tiny countries employ in order to offset the power of their trade "partners" (whether EU, China or US) ?

This is not an argument for keeping the neo-colonial borders; my dog is not in that fight; my presumption favors self-determination; but how many, many tiny countries would fare in a dog eat dog world seems a legitimate issue.

KJ: I expect you have considered this issue; I'd be interested in your thoughts.

Regards

I'm extremely sorry for responding late to your questions. They require a great deal of thought, and might have to be dealt with in detail by much smarter people than me, but I'll try.

I won't answer your questions directly, but I'll give my perspective on these issues.

African states are ex-colonial administrative units, they are not nations in the same way the United States of America or France are nations. Most are incoherent & lack an internal logic.

So the present order is unsustainable, but what will replace it?

Ideology has no place in African politics, but two factors predominate - religion & ethnicity. Religion is not that much of an issue in Southern & Central Africa, but it is a much bigger issue in West Africa.

So the first point of separation is likely to be religion and we can see that in Nigeria. Only a fool will maintain that Fundamentalist Islam and Sharia can coexist peacefully with Evangelical Christianity. So Nigeria's future will be two nations at the minimum - the Sharia compliant North & people in the South who aren't that crazy about Sharia.

After mutually incompatible religions (example Sudan/South Sudan, Nigeria, appearing in Kenya, Tanzania & Central African republic & possibly Chad in the future), the most important fault lines are ethnic.

Let me add here that not all ethnic groups are mutually antagonistic, some ethnic groups have long history of interaction, speak similar languages, have similar cultures & have mechanisms for conflict resolution.

In East Africa, everyone knows the Nilotics are a bit different from the Bantus. Obviously, these geniuses (i.e the French & British - America's closest allies), weren't interested about such distinctions and drew lines wherever they pleased.

In some states (such as Ghana & Tanzania), the national identities are strong enough to weather these storms, but I don't see how states like Nigeria, Congo DRC or Central African Republic will persist as united, cohesive entities for much longer this century.

In Nigeria, the ethno/religious fault-lines are already expressed in the political arrangements. The coastal peoples of the Niger Delta have formed an alliance with the inland Igbos & the many ethnic groups of Nigeria's "Middle Belt" - cultures are somewhat similar and predominantly Christian. This could be the nucleus of one nation.

There are 12 states the implement Sharia law, once again, with some modification, this could be another nation. Then there are the Yoruba people, who could form another nation.

Another trigger for the modification of Sub-Saharan African boundaries are its massive coastal cities. I expect Lagos to expand into Cotonou & swallow it up - colonial boundaries are increasingly meaningless as Lagos will soon expand into Cotonou.

Finally, when the French finally withdraw from Africa, Francophone Africa will fall apart.

All this will result in a redrawing of Africa's maps. I don't think the resulting nations will be as small as a single tribe, but they will be more logical, more cohesive and hopefully more economically viable than what obtains today.

[jmm99]

to what are difficult, futuristic questions. Two of your points stood out to me.

The first deals with co-operating ethnic groups:


Let me add here that not all ethnic groups are mutually antagonistic, some ethnic groups have long history of interaction, speak similar languages, have similar cultures & have mechanisms for conflict resolution.

This is also the point made by some (e.g., John Thornton) in the long ongoing American discussion of the African-American part of the African Diaspora. The "lumpers" (such as Thornton) recognize that, in 1400-1800 (and presumably today), one cannot speak of "Africans" as any sort of unity. The West-Central African coast (Gambia to Angola) in 1400-1800 had a large number of ethnicities. However, some of those ethnicities could (more easily than others) "lump" together for common purposes (such as, providing better survival chances under the adverse conditions of chattel slavery).

I also see your second point:


Another trigger for the modification of Sub-Saharan African boundaries are its massive coastal cities. I expect Lagos to expand into Cotonou & swallow it up - colonial boundaries are increasingly meaningless as Lagos will soon expand into Cotonou.

particularly, after reading this Atlantic article, How Africa's New Urban Centers Are Shifting Its Old Colonial Boundaries (http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2013/07/how-africas-new-urban-centers-are-shifting-its-old-colonial-boundaries/277425/?single_page=true):


The continent's booming new economic zones are outstripping the ability of weak central governments to retain their hold on them.

Twice as populous today as the next biggest African country, Nigeria, which was cobbled together as a colony 100 years ago, has always stood out on its continent as the most ambitious and in many ways fanciful creation of British imperialism.
...
Lagos, which sits in the southwestern corner of Nigeria, sprawled over a collection of islands and swampy coastlands, occupies the leading edge of this phenomenon. Today, its extraordinary growth is driving sweeping changes in a five-country region that stretches 500 miles westward along a band of palm-shaded seaboard all the way to Abidjan, Ivory Coast, a mushrooming city of perhaps six million people that has long been this region's other major economic and cultural pole.

In between them, in one of the busiest staging areas of the historic Atlantic slave trade, West Africa is laying the foundations of one of the world's biggest megalopolises, and in Lagos itself, the start of a potentially powerful new city-state.
...
And this is where Africa's new political geography comes in. A simple tally of the projections for the three principal cities in this corridor, Lagos, Abidjan, and Accra, adds up to a mid-century population of 54 million.

To this, however, one must add places like Ibadan, Nigeria (presently 2 million people), only 80 miles from Lagos, Takoradi, Ghana (500,000 people), and the capitals of what are today sovereign countries, Lome, Togo (1.5 million) and Cotonou, Benin (1.2 million). Throw in the countless other towns and cities along the way that will be swelling or springing to life, and the foreseeable result is a dense and nearly unbroken urban zone from end to end.

One futuristic possibility for this urban zone would be something akin to the Hanseatic League (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hanseatic_League), giving it leverage in trade without outright secession from the countries within which those cities are located today.

Regards

Mike

[KingJaja]

Jmm99,

I think US is focusing on the wrong things in Africa - counter terrorism & piracy - & its understanding of the term "state failure" is extremely problematic.

Terrorism and piracy are symptoms of state failure, but state failure is a product of the shoddy job of state creation done (in a hurry) by the European colonial powers.

For US engagement in Africa to be productive, it needs to think outside the box and consider African history, the mistakes made and what remedial actions might be necessary.

However, from the little I know about America, Americans neither have the patience, the resources nor the interest in getting involved in the "politics of tribes or pre/post-colonial history".

So, AFRICOM will fire its drones, but its drones will not solve underlying issues like a long standing Tuareg rebellion in Mali. The French and British will insist on preserving the established post-colonial order. So things will remain in an unstable equilibrium until:

The French withdraw from Sub-Saharan Africa and instability results.

This instability will cascade down to the rest of West Africa and is likely to have wide ranging implications.

Will Americans want AFRICOM to replace the French as a source of stability in Sub-Saharan Africa? I doubt it, they just don't have that interest.

I expect these events to shape up by mid-century. It might be bloody & messy, but Africa's maps will change.

[jmm99]

KJ,

Let's start on what seems to be a point of agreement - the effects of the "Scramble for Africa" by the European Powers, brought to fruition by the Berlin Conference of 1884-1885. Pursuant to that agreement by that time's EU, the borders of present Sub-Saharan African states were pretty much carved out before WWI - and not changed that much since (British colonial map from 1897 (http://cbertel.files.wordpress.com/2009/09/africa-colonial-map.jpg); French colonial map from 1911 (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/43/Africa1898.png)).

What is the on-going effect of these colonial borders - has it been as you say "...state failure is a product of the shoddy job of state creation done (in a hurry) by the European colonial powers" ? This monograph thinks so, The Long-Run Effects of the Scramble for Africa (http://www.american.edu/cas/economics/pdf/upload/Michalopoulos-paper.pdf) (by Stelios Michalopoulos & Elias Papaioannou; January 2011):


Abstract

We examine the economic consequences of the partitioning of Africa among European powers in the late 19th century; a process historically known as the scramble for Africa. First, using information on the spatial distribution of African ethnicities before colonization we establish that border drawing was largely arbitrary. Apart from the land mass and water area of an ethnicity’s historical homeland, no other geographic, ecological, historical, and ethnic-specific trait predicts which ethnic groups have been partitioned by the national borders. Second, employing data on the location of civil conflicts after independence we show that compared to ethnicities that have not been impacted by the border design, partitioned ethnic groups have suffered significantly more, longer, and more devastating civil wars. Third, we find that economic development —as reflected by satellite data on light density at night- is systematically lower in the historical homeland of partitioned ethnicities. These results are robust to a rich set of controls at a fine level and the inclusion of country and ethnic-family fixed-effects. Our regressions thus identify a sizable causal negative effect of the scramble for Africa on comparative regional development.

I'd agree (it's difficult to dispute hard evidence); provided that one includes (as another material factor) the prior five centuries of slave trading (links in prior posts).

---------------------------------------------
Turning now to another point. What is missing in this picture ?

1755

The United States, of course.

That absence was not because the US never engaged in colonialism and imperialism; obviously it used conquest and/or purchase, followed by settlement, to fulfill Manifest Destiny (e.g., west of the original 13 colonies; Alaska and Hawaii). But, with respect to Africa, the US role was limited - naval patrols against pirates and slavers, and the colony of Liberia (http://www.liberiapastandpresent.org/index.html) founded in 1822 by the American Colonization Society. The latter project made some money for the Firestone Rubber & Tire Company, but was (like the naval patrols) of limited American scope and interest - even among African-Americans.

So, we have a rather famous speech by Frederick Douglass, African Civilization Society (http://teachingamericanhistory.org/library/document/african-civilization-society/) (February 1859), saying (in part):


The African Civilization Society says to us, go to Africa, raise cotton, civilize the natives, become planters, merchants, compete with the slave States in the Liverpool cotton market, and thus break down American slavery. To which we simply reply, “we prefer to remain in America;” and we do insist upon it, in very face of our respected friend, that that is both a direct and candid answer. There is no dodging, no equivocation, but so far as we are concerned, the whole matter is ended. You go there, we stay here, is just the difference between us and the African Civilization Society, and the true issue upon [which] co-operation with it or opposition to it must turn.
...
4. One of our chief considerations upon with the African Civilization Society is recommended to our favorable regard, is its tendency to break up the slave trade. We have looked at this recommendation, and find no reason to believe that any one man in Africa can do more for the abolition of that trade, while living in Africa, than while living in America. If we cannot make Virginia, with all her enlightenment and christianity, believe that there are better uses for her energies than employing them in breeding slaves for the market, we see not how we can expect to make Guinea, with its ignorance and savage selfishness, adopt our notions of political economy. Depend upon it, the savage chiefs on the western coast of Africa, who for ages have been accustomed to selling their captives into bondage, and pocketing the ready cash for them, will not more readily see and accept our moral and economical ideas, than the slave-traders of Maryland and Virginia. We are, therefore, less inclined to go to Africa to work against the slave-traders, than to stay here to work against it. Especially as the means for accomplishing our objects are quite as promising here as there, and more especially since we are here already, with constitutions and habits suited to the country and its climate, and to its better institutions.

For America's role in suppressing the 19th century slave trade, see W. E. B. Du Bois, The Suppression of the African Slave-Trade to the United States of America, 1638-1870 (http://www.hn.psu.edu/faculty/jmanis/webdubois/duboissuppressionslavetrade.pdf) (1896).

----------------------------------------------
Subsidiary points about the United States that often cloud analysis of its role in Africa and elsewhere are these:

1. The US is not always in lockstep with Britain and France. In fact, outside of Europe, US policies have often collided with those of either or both allies (e.g., Asia, from the Open Door Policy through Vietnam; Suez and other MENA events).

2. The US has typically been anti-colonialist and pro-nationalist since WWII. In Indochina-Vietnam, the issue among most American was which nationalists to support in the long-run (left, center or right - though Giap managed to kill most of the centrists).

3. The US does have two self-defeating tendencies when it "engages" (in Africa and elsewhere) because of its larger, global "interests" (Cold War, War on Terror, Genocide and Humanitarian Interventions): (1) it gets too much involved in local politics; and (2) talks more than it should. All of that naturally engenders beliefs that the US is going to be there for the long haul; that just ain't so.

4. The US will get very self-protective (and interested) if its Atlantic or Pacific littoral is threatened. For example, if the Lagos-Accra mega-city develops, and if the Chinese presence appears to becoming military (especially, naval installations), the US interest in that particular area will rise.

----------------------------------------
Finally, why do you conclude that France's role in West Africa will implode ? My dog is not in that fight, but I'm interested in your analysis and evidence.

Regards

Mike

[KingJaja]

Jmm99,

Need to respond to a few of your points:


1. The US is not always in lockstep with Britain and France. In fact, outside of Europe, US policies have often collided with those of either or both allies (e.g., Asia, from the Open Door Policy through Vietnam; Suez and other MENA events).

Since the beginning of the Cold War, there has been very little difference between US & French policies (or the policies of other Colonial powers) in Sub-Saharan Africa. South East Asia, the Middle East etc might be different, but in Sub-Saharan Africa, there is absolutely no daylight between the US, France, Britain or Belgium.

I'll prove it - US supported the Apartheid regime just like other European Colonial powers. Generally supported European powers in anti-Colonial wars of liberation in Sub-Saharan Africa and supported exactly the same set of dictators (like Mobutu) as European colonial powers.

When the Cold War ended, US abandoned the same clients as other European powers. Adopted exactly the same position on Zimbabwe as UK (although Zimbabwe is a bit more nuanced than the simple cliches thrown out by Western media).

Now there are occasional points of disagreement with the French (like in Rwanda), but US attitude is that France is too big and too important an ally to be held to account for any wrong doings in Africa.

So as far as Sub-Saharan Africa is concerned, very little distinguishes US policy from the policies of ex-Colonial powers. In fact, US policies build on the policies of these former colonial powers, it is neither original nor revolutionary.

You cannot objectively claim the same applies to China.


2. The US has typically been anti-colonialist and pro-nationalist since WWII. In Indochina-Vietnam, the issue among most American was which nationalists to support in the long-run (left, center or right - though Giap managed to kill most of the centrists).

Once again, there's very little evidence to support that in Sub-Saharan Africa. What side did the US support in Lusophone (Portuguese-speaking) Africa's wars of independence? How come the Soviet Union, Cuba and Gaddafi's Libya supported the anti-Apartheid struggle way before the United States?

How come Ronald Reagan spoke of the Bothas in glowing terms as late as the mid 1980s?

The usual excused is that the global struggle against Communism/Socialism forced the US to take sides. Accepted, but whatever its motivations were, US cannot claim to be anti-colonialist and pro-nationalist in Sub-Saharan Africa. The evidence doesn't support that claim.

The US simply sided with its friends, the European Colonial powers - in Francophone Africa, they did what the French told them to do. In Anglophone Africa, they followed the lead of the British and in Lusophone Africa, they followed the Portuguese - and Lusophone Africa was where the legacy was most damaging.


3. The US does have two self-defeating tendencies when it "engages" (in Africa and elsewhere) because of its larger, global "interests" (Cold War, War on Terror, Genocide and Humanitarian Interventions): (1) it gets too much involved in local politics; and (2) talks more than it should. All of that naturally engenders beliefs that the US is going to be there for the long haul; that just ain't so.

I agree with that.


4. The US will get very self-protective (and interested) if its Atlantic or Pacific littoral is threatened. For example, if the Lagos-Accra mega-city develops, and if the Chinese presence appears to becoming military (especially, naval installations), the US interest in that particular area will rise.

Pray, tell, what will the US do? Okay assuming the Chinese financed "Lekki Free Trade Zone" in Lagos (with a deep seaport and an industrial layout) thrives - and a Chinese request to locate a naval facility is honored, what is the US going to do? Go to war to prevent China from having naval bases on the African continent.

It's not a matter of if, but when the Chinese start locating military facilities on Africa's coast - so what is America's response to Chinese military presence in Africa supposed to be? I can assure you that quite a few of the training missions, drone operations and counter terrorism operations the US feels it has a monopoly on will be handled by the Chinese in future.

And with the Chinese you aren't likely to get a lot of long winded talk about humanitarianism etc.

[jmm99]

As to both points 1 & 2, neither of us can have it both ways - that is, to argue on one hand that the US has been indifferent to Africa; and then on the other hand to argue that it has been actively engaged in Africa - in lockstep with the colonial powers, as I read your arguments.

I've made no claim that the US has played or attempted to play a revolutionary, nationalist role in Africa. I also don't dispute that the US often opposed leftist revolutionaries who were supported by one or more of the Communist countries. So, those who are leftists have no reason to love the US.

My arguments have been that Africa has played a minor role in US policy-making and military affairs since the time of the "Shores of Tripoli". I've also argued that larger, global interests have driven those US actions (usually via proxy actors) that occurred in Africa during the Cold War and GWOT.

Of course, one can set up a dozen African problems, with a dozen perceived solutions (let's assume all of the solutions are correct); and then say to the US (which hasn't done anything to advance any of the solutions), you're not part of the solution - hence, you're part of the problem. That to me is just another way of saying, if you're not for us, you're against us. I'd say that clouds analysis, which was my point in saying this:


Subsidiary points about the United States that often cloud analysis of its role in Africa and elsewhere are these: ...

but to each his own perceptions of the US.

As to the Chinese, my own inclination is generally a hands off policy toward them. However, I don't make US foreign policy; administrations make US foreign policy; and administrations change. We saw that with respect to apartheid. During both the Cold War and GWOT, I've disagreed with many USG actions - less so, with its inactions.

Finally, if a Chinese naval presence becomes an imminent threat to the US, then I expect the US to react as it did in the Cuban Missile Crisis.

Regards

Mike

[ganulv]

Once again, there's very little evidence to support that in Sub-Saharan Africa. What side did the US support in Lusophone (Portuguese-speaking) Africa's wars of independence?
Well, the US did support UNITA. As enemy-of-my-enemy stuff goes, that one isn’t quite as bad as the recognition of the Khmer Rouge at the UN, but still…

[KingJaja]

Jmm99,

US initial attitude to a problem as serious as Apartheid isn't considered by any intelligent African as sitting on the fence, but as active collusion.

Remember we were arguing about whether the US had always moved in lockstep with France and UK - I explained that in Africa (at least since 1945) it had.

Whether US sees Africa as marginal or as a strategic backwater isn't the question. The question is what message do it actions send?

[KingJaja]

ganulv,


Well, the US did support UNITA. As enemy-of-my-enemy stuff goes, that one isn’t quite as bad as the recognition of the Khmer Rouge at the UN, but still…

True, not as bad as the Khmer Rouge, but the US was solidly behind Suharto when he embarked on a massive killing spree.

Once again, Suharto wasn't as bad as the Khmer Rouge, but he was no angel.

In Africa, US supported Mobutu for like 30 years. Now Mobutu wasn't as bloody as either the Khmer Rouge or Suharto, but he was a special kind of useless.

[ganulv]

The UNITA/US/China/DPRK/Israel/RSA nexus is one of the strangest out there. And there was Gulf/Chevron operating in Cabinda in partnership with the MPLA government during the Angolan civil war.


In Africa, US supported Mobutu for like 30 years. Now Mobutu wasn't as bloody as either the Khmer Rouge or Suharto, but he was a special kind of useless.

He had his uses, at least to the Belgian and US intelligence communities.

[KingJaja]

ganulv,

Nothing distinguished US conduct during the Cold War in Africa from Soviet conduct - absolutely nothing.

For every Siad Barre the US supported, the Soviets had a Haile Mengistu Mariam. So intelligent Africans see right through the United States - says the right things, but behind that facade is a history of telling self-serving lies.

ANC is reflexively anti-American and anti-Israeli. You can't blame them, given the negative role the US government (and the CIA) in the anti-Apartheid struggle - until public opinion forced the US government to (very reluctantly) change its mind.

You talked about Chinese support for the Khmer Rouge. But the US knew its closest ally, the United Kingdom was supporting a Nigerian government that systematically and deliberately starved anywhere between 1 to 3 million people during the Nigerian Civil War.

In addition, nobody has asked America's close allies, the French to fully account for what exactly they did during the Rwandan massacres.

US might have saved Western Europe and North East Asia, but the US record on Africa is very mixed - and no intelligent African believes the Chinese record is worse (or will be worse, given the history of slave trade).

[davidbfpo]

KingJaja asked in Post 322:
What side did the US support in Lusophone (Portuguese-speaking) Africa's wars of independence?

I looked at this issue sometime ago, possibly for a SWC post - which I cannot now locate readily.

The USA did not support Portugal's campaigning in Africa. At one point Portugal argued defending their colonies came within NATO's ambit, the USA and IIRC others disagreed. The USA was careful to ensure any military aid under NATO auspices was not diverted to the colonies. For a long part of those wars the USA paid little attention politically and strategically to Africa, the big exception being the Congo in the 1960's.

Yes, the USA did not readily support the anti-colonial cause and it is easy to expect the cause was seen through Cold War lenses.

In Angola UNITA received external support after 1974 and the announcement that Portugal was leaving. In Mozambique and Guinea-Bissau there was only one liberation movement, closely aligned to enemies of the USA, so there was no-one to support (I exclude RENAMO which had local sponsors).

[KingJaja]

davidbfpo,

Okay, I must have gotten Lusophone Africa wrong, but the US government supported the Apartheid Regime in South Africa for a very long time - until public opinion forced it to reluctantly change its mind.

No one can dispute that.

The same applied applied to Apartheid South Africa's defacto colony: Namibia.

So US policy in Africa has never been distinguish by altruism or an anti-colonial stance.

[ganulv]

davidbfpo,

Okay, I must have gotten Lusophone Africa wrong, but the US government supported the Apartheid Regime in South Africa for a very long time - until public opinion forced it to reluctantly change its mind.

There was little or no overt material aid to UNITA (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clark_Amendment), so far as I am aware. Savimbi was fêted in DC (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UNITA#United_States), however.

[jmm99]

KJ:


US initial attitude to a problem as serious as Apartheid isn't considered by any intelligent African as sitting on the fence, but as active collusion.

It's the same as the Bush-Cheney message: If you're not for us, you're against us. It also is the same message which underlies the Beltway Blame Game.

All of these have a number of things in common. The "hands off" neutral player can't win because anything the "bad guy" does has been "supported" by the neutral - as you say, sitting on the fence = active collusion. Of course, both "good guys" (or, are they both "bad guys" or simply mixed) can do the same to the neutral. If the "hands off" neutral player does take action, it can be readily criticized as too little and/or too late.

The end result is to drive the "hands off" neutral player out of the market. We've seen that in the US Congress, where the Blame Game has effectively eliminated most of the middle of the road members.

The premise that sitting on the fence = active collusion is quite common. Thus, anything done by the active participants can be attributed to the passive onlooker; and, with financial responsibility to the passive onlooker, if one adds to it:

1. The "sins" (where omissions are the same as commissions) of prior generations should be visited upon the present generation.

2. The present generation should apologize and make financial reparations for the "sins" of its prior generations.

I don't buy the foregoing argument, but many (besides you) do.

If the gal says she doesn't like you, but says she likes the other guy, you go your separate ways. Only a fool would keep butting his head against the wall in that situation.

Regards

Mike

[jmm99]

The three-paragraph quote below is from materials re: Portugal and its colonies.

Foreign Relations of the United States, 1961–1963, Volume XIII, Western Europe and Canada - Portugal (http://history.state.gov/historicaldocuments/frus1961-63v13/ch5)

re: George Ball Lisbon Meetings in 1963

Foreign Relations of the United States, 1961–1963
Volume XIII, Western Europe and Canada, Document 356 (http://history.state.gov/historicaldocuments/frus1961-63v13/d356)


356. Telegram From the Embassy in Portugal to the Department of State Source: Department of State, Central Files, Pol 19 Port. Confidential; Priority.
Lisbon, August 29, 1963, 10 p.m.

Foreign Relations of the United States, 1961–1963
Volume XIII, Western Europe and Canada, Document 357 (http://history.state.gov/historicaldocuments/frus1961-63v13/d357)


357. Telegram From the Embassy in France to the Department of State Source: Department of State, Conference Files: Lot 66 D110, CF 2301. Secret; Priority. Repeated to Lisbon. For another account of this meeting, see George W. Ball, The Past Has Another Pattern, pp. 276–279.
Paris, August 31, 1963, 3 p.m.

This quote is from the second cable:


If it was agreeable to the Prime Minister, he would endeavor to sketch for him the basis for the position adopted by the US regarding African problems. Ball realized that the two governments have different views and he wished to make it clear that the policy of the US must be considered within the framework of our overall responsibilities and the East/West conflict. After the Second World War, the US felt obliged to move into certain power vacuums created by the retirement of certain European countries from areas in which they had previously been vitally interested, e.g., Viet Nam, Laos, etc. In addition, the US had given billions of dollars to India and Pakistan to protect the sub-continent from communism and to meet what had previously been a British responsibility. We had considered it essential to move into these situations to prevent the communists from doing so.

The Under Secretary emphasized that the continent of Africa was only of marginal interest to the US as far as American national interests are concerned. We feel that commercial possibilities in Africa are limited and we have no large economic ambitions there. We have, however, taken an active interest in African affairs for fear that the continent might be subjected to communist penetration. He said he would like to emphasize again that of all the areas in the world Africa was the least important from the point of view of American national interests, but our role there must be viewed in the light of the East/West struggle. The Under Secretary recognized that the Portuguese Government adopts a different approach and has a long-standing vital interest in Africa after 500 years of occupation and a sense of mission in the area. We felt it is very useful to define clearly our separate points of departure, emphasizing that everything we do in Africa is in the fundamental interest of the protection of the free world.

The Under Secretary said that world political evolution since the Second World War has been greater than that of the previous three centuries. With the dismantling of colonial arrangements that existed for many years, a marked change occurred in the relations between the metropolitan powers and those colonial areas. He cited developments in north and central Africa affecting France, and developments in various areas which affect Great Britain. This movement of political evolution has achieved considerable momentum and must be regarded as a political fact of life. The speed of the movement has been fantastic and the change of relationships between the metropolitan powers and the indigenous peoples has been profound. Admittedly there has been considerable “breakage” in connection with these developments, but the amount of bloodshed involved has been very limited. In the development of our own foreign policy this nationalism has had to be recognized and an attempt made to exercise a certain control in order to channel the movement into useful directions. For this reason, the US could not permit itself to take rigid positions. There is no doubt that the communist powers are eager to exploit the situation for their own purposes. We do not say that we have been wise in everything we have done and we have probably made mistakes, but we have made a serious effort to employ such resources and influence as we possess in an effort to give direction to this evolution.

In 1963, the exception to the US "hands off" ("sitting on the fence") policy was engagement in Africa by the "communist powers". In 2013, the exception is engagement in Africa by AQ and associated groups.

Regards

Mike

[KingJaja]

Jmm99,

Okay, US sat on the fence during most of Apartheid. I retract my initial statement about collusion.

But Africans feel that Apartheid was far too important a struggle for the US to sit on the fence for as long as it did.

Imagine how the Poles would feel if the US sat on the fence during "Solidarity" - now that's how Africans feel about US conduct during most of Apartheid.

Whether Africa is a marginal player to US national interests or not, is an entirely different matter. I just wanted to give you the African intellectual's perspective on these matters. Once again, my perspective isn't that important, but maybe it helps you understand my worldview.

[ganulv]

Imagine how the Poles would feel if the US sat on the fence during "Solidarity" - now that's how Africans feel about US conduct during most of Apartheid.

Plenty of US institutions weren’t fence-sitters (http://blogs.umass.edu/radicalumass/histories-of-radical-actions-at-umass/south-africa-divestment/). There’s a real question as to whether divestment had any practical effect on the eventual end of Apartheid (https://db.tt/UlhZ41L9), but that’s a different story. Campuses, corporations, and city governments were doing diplomacy that it took the Federal Government years to catch up with.

[KingJaja]

ganulv,


Plenty of US institutions weren’t fence-sitters. There’s a real question as to whether divestment had any practical effect on the eventual end of Apartheid, but that’s a different story. Campuses, corporations, and city governments were doing diplomacy that it took the Federal Government years to catch up with.

I wasn't talking about the American people, I was talking about the US Federal Government. The US Federal Government, not the American people implements foreign policy.

We could argue whether divestment had any practical effect on the eventual end of Apartheid, but for far too long, the US Government showed little visible commitment, either real or rhetorical towards ending Apartheid.

The next line of argument is that Apartheid South Africa was too important an ally to throw under the bus, but the corollary is that this implies that the rest of Sub-Saharan Africa was simply, unimportant.

That is okay, but it still damaged the perception of the US in Sub-Saharan Africa - but that again, doesn't really matter because Africa is of marginal interest to the United States.

[Bill Moore]

ganulv,



I wasn't talking about the American people, I was talking about the US Federal Government. The US Federal Government, not the American people implements foreign policy.

We could argue whether divestment had any practical effect on the eventual end of Apartheid, but for far too long, the US Government showed little visible commitment, either real or rhetorical towards ending Apartheid.

The next line of argument is that Apartheid South Africa was too important an ally to throw under the bus, but the corollary is that this implies that the rest of Sub-Saharan Africa was simply, unimportant.

That is okay, but it still damaged the perception of the US in Sub-Saharan Africa - but that again, doesn't really matter because Africa is of marginal interest to the United States.

Maybe most politicians think most of Africa is beyond help because there are few African leaders worth backing because for the both part they seeking personal gain, not taking care of their people. Of course there is a lot of ugly legacy stuff from the Cold War where both the USSR and the USA backed corrupt leaders to keep them in their camp, and that is part of influenced our slow response to the situation in S. Africa. Interestingly enough South Africa now appears to be more violent than ever, so once again America finds it desire for democracy and equality has backfired when imposed on a country that is not ready for it. I don't know the answer to helping Africa, I thought we were doing O.K. in the late 90s and early 2000s until 9/11 pulled us off that track, but ultimately change in Africa must come from within. What leaders in your opinion should we back?

[jmm99]

from KJ
Whether Africa is a marginal player to US national interests or not, is an entirely different matter. I just wanted to give you the African intellectual's perspective on these matters. Once again, my perspective isn't that important, but maybe it helps you understand my worldview.

but, in the last few days I've read or watched a half-dozen or so African intellectuals whose dislike of the USG was far deeper and stronger than anything you have posted here. The two issues were (1) decolonialization and neocolonialization, and (2) apartheid. Judging from what I've read and watched, their dislike of the USG is not going to be put aside. Admittedly, I'm reasoning from a limited database and null hands-on African experience.

Both of these issues were controlled, so far as USG inaction on apartheid was concerned, by two things: (1) that "the continent of Africa was only of marginal interest to the US as far as American national interests are concerned," as well-expressed by George Ball (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Ball_(diplomat)) (who was no rightist, though an elitist) in what I quoted; and (2) that the "communists were coming" - especially in South Africa, where the Communist Party was well represented by the writings of Joe Slovo (http://www.marxists.org/subject/africa/slovo/index.htm); and the ANC was perceived as "Marxist" - it didn't express it as a matter of tactics only (1979 Green Book (http://www.marxists.org/subject/africa/anc/1979/green-book.htm)):


2. We debated the more long-term aims of our national democratic revolution, and the extent to which the ANC, as a national movement, should tie itself to the ideology of Marxism-Leninism and publicly commit itself to the socialist option. The issue was posed as follows:


In the light of the need to attract the broadest range of social forces amongst the oppressed to the national democratic liberation, a direct or indirect commitment at this stage to a continuing revolution which would lead to a socialist order may unduly narrow this line-up of social forces. It was also argued that the ANC is not a party, and its direct or open commitment to socialist ideology may undermine its basic character as a broad national movement.

It should be emphasised that no member of the Commission had any doubts about the ultimate need to continue our revolution towards a socialist order; the issue was posed only in relation to the tactical considerations of the present stage of our struggle.

Beyond its fear of SA communists and socialists, the USG (via the DoD) believed South Africa was a necessary location for US military installations. That we see in the Kennedy administration's continuation of a space tracking center in South Africa (all doc links here (http://history.state.gov/historicaldocuments/frus1961-63v21/ch13)).

Foreign Relations of the United States, 1961–1963
Volume XXI, Africa, Document 376 (http://history.state.gov/historicaldocuments/frus1961-63v21/d376)


376. Letter From the Deputy Secretary of Defense (Gilpatric) to the Under Secretary of State (Bowles)11. Source: Washington National Records Center, RG 330, OSD Files: FRC 65 A 3464, Africa, 000.92-Africa 452, 1961. Confidential. A copy was sent to Harold Brown, Director of Defense Research and Engineering.
Washington, March 16, 1961.

Dear Chet: As you requested, I have looked into the necessity for concluding an agreement with the Union of South Africa for the establishment in the Johannesburg/Pretoria area of a missile and space vehicle tracking station extending the Atlantic Missile Range.
...
We in Defense do not see any effective alternative to a station in the Union of South Africa if we are to handle the development of Transit, Midas, Advent, Ranger, and other programs which will follow from the availability of the Centaur/Atlas and Saturn boosters. A draft agreement satisfactory to both State and Defense has been prepared. We believe that this draft will be generally acceptable to the South Africans, since it follows as closely as circumstances permit the recent U.S.-South African agreement concerning the NASA station at Pretoria. The latter agreement, which in our view presented comparable questions of U.S. policy, was signed on September 13, 1960.

Chet Bowles (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chester_Bowles) was another liberal at State, with an interest in Africa. He wrote in 1955, as a private citizen, Africa (http://64.62.200.70/PERIODICAL/PDF/Colliers-1955jun10/40-48/) (by Chester Bowles; In Collier's Weekly, June 10, 1955, pp. 40-47):


What exactly is our African policy? It is fair to say that at present we do not have one. We do not have one because for years we have told ourselves that Africa was simply a projection of Britain, France, Portugal and Belgium, and that a European policy would suffice. This same kind of disastrous reasoning in Asia led us to look upon Indochina as a French problem and not as an Asian problem. It can cost us equally heavily over the years in Africa.

However, any responsible person will agree that the development of a rational African policy is net an easy matter. It is a subject on which European opinions are sensitive and easily aroused. It is highly complex, and wide open for reckless, racial demagoguery.

with 11 policy recommendations - the first three being general:


1. Let us start with the fact that we do not control Africa, that we have no desire to control it and that there is a strict limit to what we can do there.

2. Without pompously lecturing our European friends on their colonial matters, or making a demagogic play to the applause of the African gallery, let us privately and publicly place our influence behind every orderly and responsible proposal that moves toward freedom.

3. For better or for worse, Africans themselves will eventually decide the pace of freedom. However, if America convinces the Africans that we honestly favor their independence as rapidly as they can manage it, we shall be in a position to help moderate the demands of those Africans who now want more authority than they are yet qualified to use. Premature self-government would only lead to failures which would play into the hands of the bitter enders.

Chet Bowles replied negatively to the tracking station.

Foreign Relations of the United States, 1961–1963
Volume XXI, Africa, Document 378 (http://history.state.gov/historicaldocuments/frus1961-63v21/d378)


378. Letter From the Deputy Secretary of Defense (Gilpatric) to the Under Secretary of State (Bowles)11. Source: Washington National Records Center, RG 330, OSD Files: FRC 65 A 3464, Africa 000.92-Africa 452, 1961. Secret. A copy was sent to George Newman in G.
Washington, May 17, 1961.

Dear Chet: As a result of your letter of April 3, 1961,[2] I asked the Deputy Director of Defense Research and Engineering and the Under Secretary of the Air Force personally to re-examine the need for a tracking station in the Union of South Africa and possible alternatives to such a station. ...

2. Bowles' letter to Gilpatric pointed out that the use of South African territory for the U.S. missile tracking program posed serious difficulties for the U.S. Government because of the racial policies of the Union Government and the recurring controversies between that government and the United Nations over South West Africa and apartheid. Therefore, he argued, it was unwise for the United States to enter into any long-term military agreement with South Africa for a permanent tracking station, and asked the Department of Defense to investigate other means of satisfying its requirements, such as the use of instrumentation vessels. He also suggested waiting for the views of the new U.S. Ambassador to South Africa before taking any action on the proposed agreement.

Adlai Stevenson (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adlai_Stevenson_II) was also negative.

Foreign Relations of the United States, 1961–1963
Volume XXI, Africa, Document 380 (http://history.state.gov/historicaldocuments/frus1961-63v21/d380)


380. Letter From the Representative to the United Nations (Stevenson) to Secretary of State Rusk11. Source: Department of State, Central Files, 770X.56311/6-261. Personal and Confidential.
New York, June 2, 1961.

Dear Dean: I have recently heard about the proposed agreement with the Union of South Africa for (a) a missile tracking station, and (b) a sale of arms including fighter aircraft.

While I am not fully informed about the necessity for this transaction, I am sufficiently concerned to presume to send you this note of caution. At a time when the feeling about apartheid and the policy of the Union of South Africa is rising everywhere, including pressure for sanctions in the U.N., I would think that the necessity must be very compelling to risk the repercussions from a transaction of this kind if and when it becomes known, as it must inevitably. I hardly need add that relations with the rest of Africa, and especially the new states, are important to our security too.

- to be cont. -

[KingJaja]

Interestingly enough South Africa now appears to be more violent than ever, so once again America finds it desire for democracy and equality has backfired when imposed on a country that is not ready for it.

I've been to South Africa twice, that is exaggerated.

I met a South African colleague who worked in the same company (KPMG), she was black. Her elder sister was a domestic servant - why? Because the Apartheid government restricted university education to "Blacks", "Coloreds" and "Asians".

A good number of "Asian" and "Colored" colleagues are the first generation from their families to go to university.

A lot of white racists prefer the South Africa that existed before - where institutions and a social safety net only existed to serve the white population - but much as they wish, it ain't coming back.

Consider that as recently as 1982 the Apartheid government of South Africa spent an average of R1,211 on education for each White child, and only R146 for each Black child.

Is Black Economic Empowerment badly implemented? Yes. Has ANC made a mess of South Africa? Yes. Is crime a serious problem that has to be dealt with? Yes, but given the rabid racism of South Africa's past, South Africa got off relatively easily.

You don't have to go to far to grasp this - consider what is happening between Sunni & Shia in Iraq or the mess in former Yugoslavia.

[jmm99]

to December 1961; and a meeting with Brits, in which the US position (different from the UK's) was presented by Soapy Williams (G. Mennen Williams (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G._Mennen_Williams), Assistant Secretary for African Affairs 1961-1966). While at State, he coined the slogan "Africa for the Africans" - I've never figured out what that exactly meant - obviously, anti-colonialist.

Foreign Relations of the United States, 1961–1963
Volume XXI, Africa, Document 393 (http://history.state.gov/historicaldocuments/frus1961-63v21/d393)


393. Memorandum of Conversation11. Source: Department of State, Central Files, 611.41/11-2061. Confidential. Drafted by Cook on December 13.
Washington, November 20, 1961.

SUBJECT
US/UK Talks—Summary Minutes—South Africa
PARTICIPANTS
United Kingdom
Sir Roger Stevens, Deputy Under Secretary, Foreign Office
Sir Algernon Rumbold, Deputy Under Secretary, Commonwealth Relations
M. K. M. Wilford, Foreign Office
J. D. Hennings, Colonial Attache, British Embassy
D. A. Greenhill, Counselor, British Embassy
J. D. B. Shaw, First Secretary, British Embassy
R. W. H. DuBoulay, First Secretary, British Embassy
United States
G. Mennen Williams, Assistant Secretary for African Affairs
J. Wayne Fredericks, Deputy Assistant Secretary for African Affairs
Henry J. Tasca, Deputy Assistant Secretary for African Affairs
Olcott H. Deming, Director, AFE
Martin F. Herz, Special Assistant for Planning, AF
Philip R. Cook, AFE

Sir Algernon Rumbold opened the discussion and stated that his remarks would be grouped under three main headings: (1) Speculation about the future of the Republic, (2) Negotiations to bring UK-South African relations up-to-date following the latter's withdrawal from the Commonwealth and (3) Pressures for sanctions against the Republic.
...
Assistant Secretary Williams responded stating that the U.S. did not have such important interests in South Africa as the British. He noted U.S. investment, the tracking station and the U.S. Navy's anti-submarine interests but said that the U.S. was unwilling to compromise its principles to maintain those interests. Therefore, the U.S. was relatively free in South Africa as compared, for example, with Angola.

The Assistant Secretary said that U.S. policy towards the Republic was based on three factors:—(1) South Africa's economy could make great contributions to Africans and to the rest of the African continent. Accordingly, the U.S. hated to see it destroyed. (2) The U.S. and the Republic shared a common western heritage, had been comrades in arms in two world wars and in Korea and were both unquestionably anti-communist. (3) Apartheid, however, was obnoxious. It created a breeding ground for communism and made U.S. relations with the rest of the African continent very difficult. Therefore, U.S. policy was to “rifle in” on the aspects of South Africa we did not like but support those aspects we did like. We had conveyed this policy in an Aide-Memoire to the Republic but it had been viewed as a serious impediment to the maintenance of friendly relations.

Examples of our policy in action were:—(1) The Aircraft Sale—They wanted fighters and transports but we approved only transports. (2) The IMF Loan—We had scrutinized this closely but had approved the first tranche since first tranche approvals were traditionally granted by the Fund. (3) The Tracking Station—We were going ahead with this but we would not sacrifice our policies or our freedom of action to get it.

Assistant Secretary Williams said the U.S. might have to pick and choose sanctions which bilaterally would help the U.S. position with the rest of Africa. He commented that the U.S. had opposed sanctions in the UN and might continue to do so. The U.S. wanted to “zero in” on the real targets but, at the same time, it did not want to force the Republic into “laager.” The U.S. recognized that South Africans were tough and wanted to show them it was just as tough.
...
Governor Williams reiterated that the U.S. believed it was necessary to do something about apartheid and expressed the belief that the time of the Europeans in South Africa was limited. Sir Roger and Sir Algernon replied that if this were true there were only two possible results. Either a “bloody revolution,” which would be a “terrible mess,” or a gradual “leavening of the lump” on the race question. The UK believed that the latter was the best hope. Sir Roger added that the U.S. would bear a very grave responsibility if it gave any encouragement to Africans to attempt to overthrow the South African Government.

Governor Williams asked whether sabotage of the Republic's gold mines would not cripple the economy. The British delegation replied that the situation in the mines was quite good and there was no history of disorders in this sector. However, there were undoubted economic weaknesses in apartheid and the Bantustan border development plan was described as “just talk.”

At the close of the meeting Governor Williams stated that the U.S. wanted to be sure that U.S. inter-racial policies were reflected in its operations overseas. Accordingly, Ambassador Satterthwaite had been instructed to hold inter-racial dinners and improve contacts with non-Europeans. Sir Roger commented, “I presume the U.S. does not want to provoke a break in diplomatic relations with South Africa.” Governor Williams replied that the U.S. wanted to maintain diplomatic relations as long as relations were meaningful but it would run the risk of a break if its operations were restricted.

Admittedly, Soapy Williams was a bit unorthodox - "whether sabotage of the Republic's gold mines would not cripple the economy" - but then he (like me) was and always will be a Yooper (buried on Mackinac Island).

The SA new missile tracking station was scrapped in favor of a ship-borne station in April 1963.

Foreign Relations of the United States, 1961–1963
Volume XXI, Africa, Document 402 (http://history.state.gov/historicaldocuments/frus1961-63v21/d402)


402. Letter From the Deputy Secretary of Defense (Gilpatric) to the Under Secretary of State (Ball)11. Source: Washington National Records Center, RG 330, OASD/ISA Files: FRC 67 A 4564, South Africa Rep. 1963, 383.8-676. No classification marking.
Washington, April 9, 1963.

Soapy Williams continued to rock the Kennedy administration's boat; one has to remember that the major players were always the President, his brother Bobby (Attorney General) and Robert McNamara (Secretary of Defense). Dean Rusk (Secretary of State) was a lesser figure - and somewhat wishy-washy.

Foreign Relations of the United States, 1961–1963
Volume XXI, Africa, Document 406 (http://history.state.gov/historicaldocuments/frus1961-63v21/d406)


406. Memorandum From Secretary of State Rusk to the Under Secretary of State for Political Affairs (Harriman)11. Source: Kennedy Library, National Security Files, Countries Series, Africa. Secret. Also sent to Deputy Under Secretary for Political Affairs Johnson, Williams, Tyler, and Rostow.
Washington, June 15, 1963.

Mennen Williams' memorandum to me of June 12 on U.S. policy toward South Africa raises again some far-reaching issues which ought to be considered within a broader framework of policy than that relating to the attitudes of the independent states of Africa.
...
2. Williams' memorandum stated that it was time to review U.S. arms supply policy toward South Africa and argued that the United States should be thinking in terms of a total arms embargo. He noted that the current partial arms embargo policy was equivocal, was not an effective pressure on the South Africans, and was considered inadequate by the African countries and by many in the United States who were concerned about racial discrimination. Williams pointed out that a total arms embargo would fall far short of the complete sanctions already recommended by the General Assembly, and argued that this was the only way the United States could convince both world and domestic opinion that it meant business in its disapproval of apartheid.

3 On July 12, Williams sent a follow-up memorandum to Rusk arguing that a complete arms ban was the least that the United States could do to maintain its influence with the Africans and its ability to prevent more radical and violent action on their part. He admitted that an arms ban might jeopardize the use of certain tracking and naval facilities in South Africa, but argued that this would be a calculated risk and relatively small in comparison to what else might be lost. (National Archives and Records Administration, RG 59, Williams Records, GMW Chron File)

- to be cont. -

[jmm99]

After that, the matter ended up in the White House, where the President declined to support any other sanctions against SA.

Foreign Relations of the United States, 1961–1963
Volume XXI, Africa, Document 417 (http://history.state.gov/historicaldocuments/frus1961-63v21/d417)


417. Memorandum of Conversation11. Source: Department of State, Central Files, POL-1 S AFR. Confidential. Drafted by Judd and approved by the White House on October 15. The conversation took place at the White House. The source text is labeled “4 of 6 parts.”
Washington, October 4, 1963, 10:30 a.m.

SUBJECT
South Africa
participants
United States
The President
William R. Tyler, Assistant Secretary European Affairs
Thomas M. Judd, EUR/BNA
UK
Lord Home, Foreign Secretary
Sir David Ormsby Gore, Ambassador to the U.S.
Oliver Wright, Foreign Office

Lord Home said that an idea was being put forward at the UN for “strategic sanctions” against South Africa. The UK was opposed to the application of sanctions except when there was a threat to peace. The trouble with Security Council resolutions was that they were mandatory. The UK would accordingly have to veto any “strategic sanctions” resolution as it was unlikely that enough abstentions could be obtained. Ambassador Stevenson had indicated, Lord Home said, that the U.S. might go along with some selective sanctions.

The President replied that we had gone along on the arms embargo. We would not go beyond that and would not support sanctions. The question was how best to stop them. He thought that the British should not be too disturbed at the idea of casting a veto.

My lengthy treatment of what was a minor event in the long story of apartheid is not meant to convince you or anyone else of the inherent worth of the US position on SA in 1963. I do present it as an example of how the USG works at various levels; and that outcomes are very much dependent on the personnel at those various levels. Outcomes are also sometimes determined by relatively insignificant matters.

The Comprehensive Anti-Apartheid Act (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comprehensive_Anti-Apartheid_Act) was not introduced until 1972; languished until action was taken in the House, but stopped by the Senate in 1985; passed by both House and Senate in 1986; and vetoed by President Reagan, which was overridden by both House and Senate also in 1986.

All of this is simply fact, which can't be changed; nor do I expect that to cause anyone to develop any more love for the USG. The problem, as I see it, is that the USG has to choose between matching its rhetoric with its actions or inactions, or matching its actions or inactions to its rhetoric. I'd pick the first because it could be done. The second has a long history of not working.

The bottom line, I suppose, is that if you say "Africa for the Africans", you have to be willing to sabotage South African gold mines.

Both of us have spent too much time on this topic; though it has been instructive. :)

Regards

Mike

[KingJaja]

1. The economic conditions that facilitate the rise of terrorist groups like Boko Haram in the Sahel are likely to worsen over time. Unfortunately, nobody has the political will or resources to tackle them, so what should be done?

2. The rise of Islamist militant groups in the Sahel is likely to widen the already deep rifts between the Islamised ethnic groups in West Africa's hinterland and the Christianised ethnic groups in the coastal regions. Is separation inevitable and if so, does the international community recognise this inevitability.

3. Fundamentalist Islam will not exist in Africa's Sahel regions forever. When the Islamist wave subsides, what strategic interests will the US have in that region? None?

4. What is the overarching framework guiding US policy in Africa - assuming US shale oil booms and the Islamist issue sorts itself out, what other strategic role will the US play in Africa apart from acting as a spoiler to the Chinese?

5. France cannot continue its deep engagement with Sub-Saharan Africa ad infinitum. Just like the French left Indochina and Algeria, they will have to leave Sub-Saharan Africa. What is America's game plan? Leave with the French or replace them?

6. There's no such thing as friendship in international relations. What is important is alignment of strategic interests - increasingly savvy African leaders might recognize the obvious - there will be increasingly little alignment between the US and Africa on economics. However, that will not be the case with India, China or other BRIC nations - so how does the US present a convincing case for containing China to the African people if China becomes Africa's largest trading partner?

[KingJaja]

A little background:

There's a proposed national dialogue between all Nigeria's ethnic nationalities, the purpose is to negotiate the terms under which all these strange bedfellows will continue to exist under an artificially imposed, British created construct - i.e. the Nigerian state.

Everyone knows that nothing holds Nigeria together, except the desire to share oil by Nigeria's elite, but even at that, in the wake of Boko Haram, elite consensus might be breaking down.

I expect the trends in Nigeria to be mirrored in several other artificial states in Africa.

Anyway, interesting set of comments from a retired bishop (religious leaders are held in high esteem in Nigeria):


He said there are several indications that the nationalities in the country are living together under duress. He said this was evident in the high level of religious intolerance being experienced, which was reflected in politics.

Adebiyi, who spoke on the state of the nation in Lagos on Saturday, said it would be suicidal for him to walk in some places in the North in his robe without being attacked for being a Christian.

He noted that such would not occur, if he goes to the North as a foreigner. He said if he was killed as a foreigner from Yorubaland, there would be diplomatic row but if he was killed as a Nigerian, only his family would bear the loss.

He identified the born-to-rule mentality of some northerners as one of the causes of the crises in the country. “An average northerner believes that he was born to rule Nigeria and that is the essence of the conference we are talking about,” he said.

............

Adebiyi said, “Sometime, when I see people speak about one Nigeria, I remain silent because I know that Nigeria is not one. We have an agglomeration of nations in Nigeria. I will only go to where I’ll be tolerated.

“It is only those who are after money; those who are selfish that say we are a country. How do I call where I’m not wanted my own? Everything is a deceit; Nigeria is a country of great deceit.

“It is time for every one of us, if this conference is real, to say that ‘this is what we want.’ If we cannot live together, why can’t I go home? What is wrong, if I say I’m going home?”



http://www.punchng.com/news/conference-wont-stop-nigerias-break-up-bishop/

[KingJaja]

Very prescient analysis of Northern Nigeria's condition. He touched on the concerns of the Northern ruling class - being seen as being under the control of a Christian government was problematic then (1917, under the British). It is also problematic today.

This is an apt description of the potential sources of instability Northern Nigeria (Boko Haram falls under the second category):


It will, therefore, be apparent that the potential sources of danger in Nigeria are rather among:

1. People of the ruling caste who are not actually in power.
2. The rather limited class of pious fanatics, or clever charlatans, and
3. The ignorant peasantry

Than among the actual rulers of the country.

http://www.waado.org/colonial_rule/british_nigeria/muslim_wwi.pdf

[KingJaja]

Another prescient observation from Palmer


Unfortunately, however, it is impossible to consider Nigerian politics without reference to the countries to the east and north and west of it - the Eastern Chad basin, the Sahara, and the Western Sudan - because really the whole Sudan belt is one country with not real geographical obstacles, with homogeneous peoples having a common religion, and with few or no real racial antipathies.

African nations are ex-colonial administrative units. The term "African state" doesn't mean much in practice.

Boko Haram is Kanuri, Kanuris can be found all the way from North East Nigeria to Sudan. When Boko Haram "flees the Nigerian border", they aren't really leaving one country & going to another, they are moving within the same de facto nation.

Problems like Boko Haram will continue to persist in Africa's poor Sahel regions and African states aren't structured to deal with problems like this, that's why they keep re-occurring.

[JMA]

African nations are ex-colonial administrative units. The term "African state" doesn't mean much in practice.

Having been independent for between 30-50 years African nations have lost the ability to blame all their current woes on the legacy of colonialism and the Cold War (principally the USA) - except in their own minds it appears.

It is not conducive to informed debate when old hackneyed cliches and soundbites are dropped into a thread without substantiation and often out of context.

It continues to interest me how the USA continues to be criticised its role during the Cold War period as if there was no threat from the competing interests of the Soviet Union and Communist China.

Yes in retrospect with the 20:20 vision of a monday morning quarterback it is obvious that the US fumbled a number of situations... but this incessant whining about the USA and the almost complete lack of comment (thereby probably indicating a lack of understanding) of the role of other Cold War players is irritating to say the least. The USA were not operating in a vacuum.

[KingJaja]

JMA,

When I call African state ex-colonial administrative units, my focus is not on blaming the white man but explaining the arbitrary nature of most African states.

This is an example you'll understand - Kurdistan was split between Syria, Turkey and Iraq, but simply because lines in the map drawn by long dead colonialists insisted that Kurdistan didn't exist - that didn't mean Kurdistan was dead.

The same thing occurs in Africa - African states are ex-colonial administrative units, they don't represent the desires of people on the ground, they have no real basis for existence or cohesion.

This has been discussed at length on this thread - and it a real source of instability.

I'm Nigerian, I live in Nigeria - and even if you casually dismiss history with a wave of a hand, I wont. I've seen 15,000 dead since 1999, a clash of civilizations with Sharia in the North and Evangelical Christianity rising in the South.

Who could have dreamed up such a time bomb - the British, who had no interest in understanding the situation on the ground, just grabbing resources for the home counties.

These things will be settled, with much blood & zero input from the West - we saw it Yugoslavia. That is Nigeria's trajectory. We could have a discussion on that.

But not this "blame the white man" - that has never been my motivation for joining this discussion group. Check my entries.

[davidbfpo]

Kingjaja,

The break-up of Yugoslavia pre-dates SWJ, it does sometimes appear in posts and there is at least one SWJ article:http://smallwarsjournal.com/jrnl/art/%E2%80%9Cin-the-service-of-humanity-and-civilization%E2%80%9D-the-austro-hungarian-occupation-of-bosnia-and

Europe, particularly Western Europe, would prefer not to remember what happened and much political plus effort has been expended to make amends. As last week proved in Kosovo local tensions can lead to skirmishing:http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-24798397

The Balkans have a long history, largely out of sight when part of the Ottoman / Turkish Empire; where religion, tribe, community and more intersect in close proximity. Partnership did happen - in peace and war - and Sarajevo (Bosnia-Herzegovina's main city and provincial capital) was noted for the extent of inter-marriage.

It took several days of violence and barbarity - my reading blames the Serbian extremists - to force everyone to "take a side" and so fracture communal partnership.

Today there is a sort of peace in Bosnia and the former Yugoslavia, with each nation-state joining or aspiring to EU status (Slovenia, the smallest, most homogeneous and with the most peaceful escape joined the EU sometime ago).

Is Nigeria on the same trajectory? I don't know, but the Bosnian experience provides some clear warnings.

Moderator's Note

There is now a new thread Nigeria's future: where to start? (Ends).

[SWJ Blog]

Welcome to the New Age of Military Intervention in Africa (http://smallwarsjournal.com/blog/welcome-to-the-new-age-of-military-intervention-in-africa)

Entry Excerpt:



--------
Read the full post (http://smallwarsjournal.com/blog/welcome-to-the-new-age-of-military-intervention-in-africa) and make any comments at the SWJ Blog (http://smallwarsjournal.com/blog).
This forum is a feed only and is closed to user comments.

[SWJ Blog]

Defense Expert Calls for Thousands of US Troops in Africa (http://smallwarsjournal.com/blog/defense-expert-calls-for-thousands-of-us-troops-in-africa)

Entry Excerpt:



--------
Read the full post (http://smallwarsjournal.com/blog/defense-expert-calls-for-thousands-of-us-troops-in-africa) and make any comments at the SWJ Blog (http://smallwarsjournal.com/blog).
This forum is a feed only and is closed to user comments.

[SWJ Blog]

US Takes Training Role in Africa as Threats Grow and Budgets Shrink (http://smallwarsjournal.com/blog/us-takes-training-role-in-africa-as-threats-grow-and-budgets-shrink)

Entry Excerpt:



--------
Read the full post (http://smallwarsjournal.com/blog/us-takes-training-role-in-africa-as-threats-grow-and-budgets-shrink) and make any comments at the SWJ Blog (http://smallwarsjournal.com/blog).
This forum is a feed only and is closed to user comments.

[SWJ Blog]

Africom Commander: Terror Threat Remains Across Africa (http://smallwarsjournal.com/blog/africom-commander-terror-threat-remains-across-africa)

Entry Excerpt:



--------
Read the full post (http://smallwarsjournal.com/blog/africom-commander-terror-threat-remains-across-africa) and make any comments at the SWJ Blog (http://smallwarsjournal.com/blog).
This forum is a feed only and is closed to user comments.

[SWJ Blog]

U.S. Military Presence in Africa Growing in Small Ways (http://smallwarsjournal.com/blog/us-military-presence-in-africa-growing-in-small-ways)

Entry Excerpt:



--------
Read the full post (http://smallwarsjournal.com/blog/us-military-presence-in-africa-growing-in-small-ways) and make any comments at the SWJ Blog (http://smallwarsjournal.com/blog).
This forum is a feed only and is closed to user comments.

[davidbfpo]

SWJ Blog has had a couple of links to articles etc this month on the slow expansion of AFRICOM's on the ground commitments in Africa:

1) Starting with a training team in Tunisia:http://www.latimes.com/world/africa/la-fg-usmil-africa-20140308,0,4469091.story#axzz2vMIAB8IH

Within I noted the USMC ground & air mission to protect diplomats in South Sudan had a problem, which leads me to speculate whether a similar future mission would have CAS:
..the operation also highlighted the risks the Pentagon faces when it seeks to intervene with light forces in remote places. Three Ospreys were hit by gunfire and had to abort their mission.

2) AFRICOM's commander giving a threat briefing:http://smallwarsjournal.com/blog/africom-commander-terror-threat-remains-across-africa

Open Democracy today has a long article by a new name to me, Nick Turse the managing editor of TomDispatch.com. It covers the French too and refers to the various other European commitments - to training. It is critical, asking whether the missions are desirable, I'll leave it at that.:D

Link:http://www.opendemocracy.net/opensecurity/nick-turse/back-to-future-americas-new-model-for-expeditionary-warfare

[ganulv]

SWJ Open Democracy today has a long article by a new name to me, Nick Turse the managing editor of TomDispatch.com. It covers the French too and refers to the various other European commitments - to training. It is critical, asking whether the missions are desirable, I'll leave it at that.:D

My impression of Turse is that he is quite good at running down big sets of raw data, but that his analysis of it can be less than nuanced. http://www.npr.org/2013/01/28/169076259/anything-that-moves-civilians-and-the-vietnam-war

[KingJaja]

What does AFRICOM hope to achieve in Africa?

Unlike France that "gets their hands dirty", what is the US end game? Sit on the sidelines until it gradually gets sucked into some African crisis?

What is the strategy behind US engagement in Africa?

[jmm99]

I've briefly mentioned Turse - without going into his veracity. Here's Nick -

http://media.npr.org/assets/img/2013/01/10/nickturse_credit_tamturse_crop-c2c9fe33a6be9ef79f22c0b310cca46bf59f6b02-s3-c85.jpg

Nick Turse (born in 1975, 7 years after My Lai (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/My_Lai_Massacre); Wiki (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nick_Turse)), who has made himself a career in "war crimes" from the time of his 2005 Columbia University Ph.D dissertation, "Kill Anything That Moves: United States War Crimes and Atrocities in Vietnam, 1965-1973", to the present - his 2013 Kill Anything That Moves: The Real American War in Vietnam (http://www.amazon.com/Kill-Anything-That-Moves-American/dp/0805086919).

The Amazon readers' reviews of KATM are interesting; especially this one and the comments to it (the review tried to be middle of the road and gave the book 3 stars):


This book is polarizing and graphic; read at your own risk
...
This book seems to bring out the worst in a lot of reviewers. Either they give it 5 stars because it finally "reveals the truth" about the evil U.S. involvement in Vietnam, or they give it 1-star because it ignores the evil North Vietnamese involvement in Vietnam and slams U.S. soldiers. At the risk of sounding wishy-washy, I give it 3 stars.

Mr. Turse documents the abuses of SOME units and the emphasis on body counts that encouraged such abuses. It appears to me that his documentation is MOSTLY limited to areas near the DMZ and parts of the Delta, where a lot of the population did in fact support the North. (Please note the limitations mostly and some; I don't want a lot of comment posts telling me I said something more or less than I actually said). Other units in other places and times faced different challenges, and when soldiers say Mr. Turse doesn't reflect their experience, I accept their statements. ...

Whether Turse's agitprop about Vietnam is black, white or gray is not going to be an issue for me here.

Of some infamy is Turse's 2000 article, New Morning, Changing Weather: Radical Youth of the Millennial Age (http://www.49thparallel.bham.ac.uk/back/issue4/forumturse.htm):


On April 20, 1999, Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold engaged in a shooting and bombing spree in Columbine High School that left fifteen students, including the alleged gunmen, dead. ...
...
When a youngster decides to make war on his school and classmates, the media leaps to vilify him, his alleged influences, his weaponry, and his parents. Politicians are keen to do the same, and capitalize on the shootings by pushing for new firearm regulations and stiff penalties. And why not? Don’t we punish psychotics bent on threatening life and property, set upon destroying the "American" way of life? Shouldn’t we condemn those who take the lives of others through "senseless" violence? Or should we try to make sense of it? Preferring the latter option, I propose that kids killing kids may be the radical protest of our age, and that Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold may be the Mark Rudd and Abbie Hoffman figures of today.
...
While these young boys may have no Port Huron statement, no manifesto, and no coordinated actions (that we know of), they are a legitimate radical faction that may have one-upped the violent Weather Underground and the revolutionary Abbie Hoffman. These boys have truly embraced "revolution for the hell of it," maybe better than Abbie ever did. The randomness of their "non-campaign" may be the ultimate expression of "rage against the machine," ripping into the system, as it were, at its most vulnerable and fundamental level, perhaps more so than Weatherman’s bombing of the U.S. Capitol.
...
The violence unleashed by these juveniles also acts as a call to action for like-minded individuals. Their ability to gain recognition and exert power grows with each like incident, forcing us to look for connections and search for scapegoats. Maybe they have no pithy slogans, no unifying symbol, maybe Marilyn Manson is no Bob Dylan, and maybe their Woodstock ’99 is a poor rip-off of the original (which "ripped off" Monterey), but no one can deny the radicalism of their murderous behavior. Who would not concede that terrorizing the American machine, at the very site where it exerts its most powerful influence, is a truly revolutionary task? To be inarticulate about your goals, even to not understand them, does not negate their existence. Approve or disapprove of their methods, vilify them as miscreants, but don’t dare disregard these modern radicals as anything less than the latest incarnation of disaffected insurgents waging the ongoing American revolution.

His March 2014 article Back to the future: America's new model for expeditionary warfare (http://www.opendemocracy.net/opensecurity/nick-turse/back-to-future-americas-new-model-for-expeditionary-warfare) seems relatively restrained stylistically. The reader's basic problem is how much of it to believe without checking each and every source - not a bad idea with any article, but especially where the author typically has an agenda. That includes my work - gentle reader.

Regards

Mike

[jmm99]

Here you go - from the horse's mouth (http://www.africom.mil/about-the-command/Cornerstones):


Cornerstones

Deter and Defeat Transnational Threats
... by engaging with partners to deter the threat posed by al-Qa'ida and other extremist organizations, deny them safe haven, and disrupt their destabilizing activities.

Protect U.S. Security Interests
...by ensuring the safety of Americans and American interests from transnational threats, and by strengthening the defense capabilities of African states and regional organizations.

Prevent Future Conflicts
...by working with African militaries and regional partners to address security concerns and increase stability on the continent.

Support Humanitarian and Disaster Relief
... by providing military assistance, when directed, in response to human and natural crises.

and its political bosses (http://www.politico.com//story/2013/06/susan-rice-and-samantha-power-up-close-92279.html) are:

http://images.politico.com/global/2013/06/05/130605_susan_rice_samantha_power_comp_ap_328.jpg

That should cheer you up. :)

Regards

Mike

[davidbfpo]

Well it will not be in Africa, instead a quiet corner of an English county; RAF Croughton is the official name for a USAF support facility, in south-west Northamptonshire close to Oxfordshire:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RAF_Croughton

The Independent reports the DIA's hub for AFRICOM will be built there:http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/washington-spends-200m-creating-intelligence-hub-in-britain-9391406.html

[SWJ Blog]

Africa Military Moves by US Reflect Iraq, Afghan Wars (http://smallwarsjournal.com/blog/africa-military-moves-by-us-reflect-iraq-afghan-wars)

Entry Excerpt:



--------
Read the full post (http://smallwarsjournal.com/blog/africa-military-moves-by-us-reflect-iraq-afghan-wars) and make any comments at the SWJ Blog (http://smallwarsjournal.com/blog).
This forum is a feed only and is closed to user comments.

[davidbfpo]

A 35 page report from the Oxford Research Group and the New Remote Control Report: 'The new frontier of counter-terrorism in the Sahel':http://oxfordresearchgroup.org.uk/sites/default/files/From%20New%20Frontier%20to%20New%20Normal%20-%20Counter-terrorism%20operations%20in%20the%20Sahel-Sahara.pdf

It is based on open sources, so much is familiar, except for the logistic aspects e.g. deliveries of jet fuel to selected African airports. Non-US contributions are covered, notably France.

[KingJaja]

David,

What is happening in the Sahel (and across Africa) is the failure of post-colonial states. America needs to focus on that, not the "terrorist boogeyman".

There's a lot happening in my native Nigeria (not Boko Haram) that doesn't result in international media attention but has the same roots - state failure.

Just like the Middle East, the problem is not "terrorism" per se, but state failure.

[davidbfpo]

David,

What is happening in the Sahel (and across Africa) is the failure of post-colonial states. America needs to focus on that, not the "terrorist boogeyman".

There's a lot happening in my native Nigeria (not Boko Haram) that doesn't result in international media attention but has the same roots - state failure.

Just like the Middle East, the problem is not "terrorism" per se, but state failure.

I agree. Alas for a variety of reasons, including bureaucratic politics, few UK politicians want to stand up and say "Africa has problems, some are a colonial legacy, which we admit. There are problems since independence. We can help Africa - the people, not the rulers. Can we talk. We have more to offer than drones, SOF, expats, NGOs and aid".

Wiser African "hands" will chuckle and say WAWA - they want the money and power, sod the people.

[carl]

David,

What is happening in the Sahel (and across Africa) is the failure of post-colonial states. America needs to focus on that, not the "terrorist boogeyman".

There's a lot happening in my native Nigeria (not Boko Haram) that doesn't result in international media attention but has the same roots - state failure.

Just like the Middle East, the problem is not "terrorism" per se, but state failure.

Even if we did focus on it what on earth could we actually do? Not much. Places like Nigerian and Congo are great big and filled with lots and lots of people of whom we know not much.

State failure in Africa is just going to have to play itself out on its own. The best we can do is try to keep the Boko Harams suppressed as best we can. The rest is up to you guys.

[KingJaja]

Even if we did focus on it what on earth could we actually do? Not much. Places like Nigerian and Congo are great big and filled with lots and lots of people of whom we know not much.

State failure in Africa is just going to have to play itself out on its own. The best we can do is try to keep the Boko Harams suppressed as best we can. The rest is up to you guys.

You either deal with the root causes or you do nothing at all. You're experience in Iraq should have taught you that.

Anyway, the future is very predictable. If US couldn't figure out Sunni & Shia in Iraq until it was a bit too late, one assumes they know next to nothing about what's really going on in Nigeria.

Don't touch this tar baby unless you've fully figured out what's going on.

[JMA]

Wiser African "hands" will chuckle and say WAWA - they want the money and power, sod the people.

I often wonder why people other than African "hands" haven't got the message yet?

[Bill Moore]

You either deal with the root causes or you do nothing at all. You're experience in Iraq should have taught you that.

Anyway, the future is very predictable. If US couldn't figure out Sunni & Shia in Iraq until it was a bit too late, one assumes they know next to nothing about what's really going on in Nigeria.

Don't touch this tar baby unless you've fully figured out what's going on.

I disagree that "we" have to deal with root causes. We have thousands of political, social and economic theorists who all think they understand root causes, but their models for resolving them are either unfeasible or fail when tried. For military intervention, we should focus on achieving limited military objectives, which may be reducing the BH threat. Some problems can be solved, but they can be managed. I'm not advocating for the U.S. to get involved unless we believe important interests are threatened, and then we reduce the threat to those interests.

Underlying issues must be addressed by the locals. If we desire, we can provide capacity building, though we haven't been very successful with that effort. The bottom line is not every problem needs to be solved, it just needs to be managed. Most Americans, myself included, suffer from the savior syndrome. The first step in mitigating the ill advised behavior that this syndrome encourages is self-awareness of it. We can't save the various African nations from themselves, but we can protect our key interests and we might be able to help Africans solve their own problems by providing limited technical assistance (along with the UN and a lot of other nations).

[davidbfpo]

This graphic illustrates one problem Africans have. Sorry you will have to work out who owns the flags, I only id'd Mugabe in Zimbabwe. Eight of the ten are in Washington DC today.
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/BuXUpTlCQAAvnCx.png
OK I relented awhile:

1) Equatorial Guinea
2) Swaziland
3) Angola
4) Uganda
5) Zimbabwe
6) Burkina Faso
7) Cameroon
8) Sudan
9) Congo (Brazzaville)
10) Gambia

[KingJaja]

Totally unrelated to anything on this thread.

Christians in Africa generally view the US positively, but with America's seeming abandonment of Iraqi Christians, Christians in countries like Nigeria (where Muslim/Christian tensions are high) are beginning to have doubts about the utility or relevance of US/West to their situation.

Does this have any political implications now? Not sure, but it might have in future. Quite a few prominent Christian voices in Nigeria are saying (not openly yet), that US is more pro-Muslim than pro-Christian.

[KingJaja]

This graphic illustrates one problem Africans have. Sorry you will have to work out who owns the flags, I only id'd Mugabe in Zimbabwe. Eight of the ten are in Washington DC today.
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/BuXUpTlCQAAvnCx.png
OK I relented awhile:

1) Equatorial Guinea
2) Swaziland
3) Angola
4) Uganda
5) Zimbabwe
6) Burkina Faso
7) Cameroon
8) Sudan
9) Congo (Brazzaville)
10) Gambia

That is 10 nations out of 54/55, hardly any kind of majority - what about the other 44/45 nations?

[ganulv]

That is 10 nations out of 54/55, hardly any kind of majority - what about the other 44/45 nations?

Well, one might argue that it’s better for the citizenry’s day-to-day life to have a static grifter in power than to be forced to choose a new one every X number of years. “At least he’s already fat,” as I have heard Burkinabé say, implying that any successor to Blaise would go through a fresh round of sating himself on the public dime.

[carl]

Totally unrelated to anything on this thread.

Christians in Africa generally view the US positively, but with America's seeming abandonment of Iraqi Christians, Christians in countries like Nigeria (where Muslim/Christian tensions are high) are beginning to have doubts about the utility or relevance of US/West to their situation.

Does this have any political implications now? Not sure, but it might have in future. Quite a few prominent Christian voices in Nigeria are saying (not openly yet), that US is more pro-Muslim than pro-Christian.

Brilliant point. Even better because it is so absolutely politically uncorrect to bring it up.

[davidbfpo]

A diplomatic spat, which includes AFRICOM's efforts, as Nigeria disputes whether the USA is a helper in the struggle with Boko Haram:http://www.nytimes.com/2015/01/01/world/with-schoolgirls-still-missing-fragile-us-nigeria-ties-falter.html?

How about such snippets as these; citing an anonymous AFRICOM official / officer:
Ounce for ounce, Boko Haram is equal to if not better than the Nigerian military

Then a classic "get stuffed" ploy:
When Maj. Gen. James B. Linder, the head of American Special Operations forces in Africa, visited Nigeria in late October, he was barred from visiting the base where American trainers were instructing the new Nigerian Army battalion created to help fight Boko Haram. General Linder was left waiting at the gate....

[SWJ Blog]

Security Assistance in Africa Twofer (http://smallwarsjournal.com/blog/security-assistance-in-africa-twofer)

Entry Excerpt:



--------
Read the full post (http://smallwarsjournal.com/blog/security-assistance-in-africa-twofer) and make any comments at the SWJ Blog (http://smallwarsjournal.com/blog).
This forum is a feed only and is closed to user comments.

[davidbfpo]

A long article by two authors known to oppose this activity, but as part of the jigsaw on what is happening useful IMHO:http://www.tomdispatch.com/post/176070/

To be fair 'bases' is widely interpreted, a good number are access to refuelling facilities. I am surprised there is a sign for one place in South Africa and none in Morocco.

http://www.tomdispatch.com/images/managed/areasofaccess_small.jpg

[SWJ Blog]

AFRICOM Campaign Plan Targets Terror Groups (http://smallwarsjournal.com/blog/africom-campaign-plan-targets-terror-groups)

Entry Excerpt:



--------
Read the full post (http://smallwarsjournal.com/blog/africom-campaign-plan-targets-terror-groups) and make any comments at the SWJ Blog (http://smallwarsjournal.com/blog).
This forum is a feed only and is closed to user comments.

[SWJ Blog]

U.S. to Forge 2nd Coalition to Stop IS Growth in Africa (http://smallwarsjournal.com/blog/us-to-forge-2nd-coalition-to-stop-is-growth-in-africa)

Entry Excerpt:



--------
Read the full post (http://smallwarsjournal.com/blog/us-to-forge-2nd-coalition-to-stop-is-growth-in-africa) and make any comments at the SWJ Blog (http://smallwarsjournal.com/blog).
This forum is a feed only and is closed to user comments.

[SWJ Blog]

U.S. Has Secretly Expanded its Global Network of Drone Bases to North Africa (http://smallwarsjournal.com/blog/us-has-secretly-expanded-its-global-network-of-drone-bases-to-north-africa)

Entry Excerpt:



--------
Read the full post (http://smallwarsjournal.com/blog/us-has-secretly-expanded-its-global-network-of-drone-bases-to-north-africa) and make any comments at the SWJ Blog (http://smallwarsjournal.com/blog).
This forum is a feed only and is closed to user comments.

[SWJ Blog]

General Thomas Waldhauser (USAFRICOM): Terrorist Threat in Africa Goes Beyond Ideology (http://smallwarsjournal.com/blog/general-thomas-waldhauser-usafricom-terrorist-threat-in-africa-goes-beyond-ideology)

Entry Excerpt:



--------
Read the full post (http://smallwarsjournal.com/blog/general-thomas-waldhauser-usafricom-terrorist-threat-in-africa-goes-beyond-ideology) and make any comments at the SWJ Blog (http://smallwarsjournal.com/blog).
This forum is a feed only and is closed to user comments.

[SWJ Blog]

Africom to Sponsor First Conference for Defense Chiefs From African Continent (http://smallwarsjournal.com/blog/africom-to-sponsor-first-conference-for-defense-chiefs-from-african-continent)

Entry Excerpt:



--------
Read the full post (http://smallwarsjournal.com/blog/africom-to-sponsor-first-conference-for-defense-chiefs-from-african-continent) and make any comments at the SWJ Blog (http://smallwarsjournal.com/blog).
This forum is a feed only and is closed to user comments.

[SWJ Blog]

By, With, and Through: Securing US National Interests in Africa (http://smallwarsjournal.com/blog/by-with-and-through-securing-us-national-interests-in-africa)

Entry Excerpt:



--------
Read the full post (http://smallwarsjournal.com/blog/by-with-and-through-securing-us-national-interests-in-africa) and make any comments at the SWJ Blog (http://smallwarsjournal.com/blog).
This forum is a feed only and is closed to user comments.

[SWJ Blog]

Defense Secretary Mattis Arrives at Only U.S. Base in Africa (http://smallwarsjournal.com/blog/defense-secretary-mattis-arrives-at-only-us-base-in-africa)

Entry Excerpt:



--------
Read the full post (http://smallwarsjournal.com/blog/defense-secretary-mattis-arrives-at-only-us-base-in-africa) and make any comments at the SWJ Blog (http://smallwarsjournal.com/blog).
This forum is a feed only and is closed to user comments.

[SWJ Blog]

The U.S. Military Should Not Be the Only Foreign Policy Tool in Africa (http://smallwarsjournal.com/blog/the-us-military-should-not-be-the-only-foreign-policy-tool-in-africa)

Entry Excerpt:



--------
Read the full post (http://smallwarsjournal.com/blog/the-us-military-should-not-be-the-only-foreign-policy-tool-in-africa) and make any comments at the SWJ Blog (http://smallwarsjournal.com/blog).
This forum is a feed only and is closed to user comments.

[SWJ Blog]

U.S. Will Expand Counterterrorism Focus in Africa, Mattis Tells Senators (http://smallwarsjournal.com/blog/us-will-expand-counterterrorism-focus-in-africa-mattis-tells-senators)

Entry Excerpt:



--------
Read the full post (http://smallwarsjournal.com/blog/us-will-expand-counterterrorism-focus-in-africa-mattis-tells-senators) and make any comments at the SWJ Blog (http://smallwarsjournal.com/blog).
This forum is a feed only and is closed to user comments.

[SWJ Blog]

U.S. Troops Are on the Ground in Africa, But Diplomacy is Missing in Action (http://smallwarsjournal.com/blog/us-troops-are-on-the-ground-in-africa-but-diplomacy-is-missing-in-action)

Entry Excerpt:



--------
Read the full post (http://smallwarsjournal.com/blog/us-troops-are-on-the-ground-in-africa-but-diplomacy-is-missing-in-action) and make any comments at the SWJ Blog (http://smallwarsjournal.com/blog).
This forum is a feed only and is closed to user comments.

[SWJ Blog]

U.S. Troops Lack Support Despite Expanding Mission in Africa (http://smallwarsjournal.com/blog/us-troops-lack-support-despite-expanding-mission-in-africa)

Entry Excerpt:



--------
Read the full post (http://smallwarsjournal.com/blog/us-troops-lack-support-despite-expanding-mission-in-africa) and make any comments at the SWJ Blog (http://smallwarsjournal.com/blog).
This forum is a feed only and is closed to user comments.

[davidbfpo]

A small number of SWJ Blog threads have been merged into this thread today. A search for Africa in the title shows fifty threads, which do not directly refer to AFRICOM or US involvement in Africa.

A new thread has been created for this theme in 2018: AFRICOM plus US involvement in Africa (http://council.smallwarsjournal.com/AFRICOM plus US involvement in Africa)