French Foreign Policy in Africa
Chatham House, Feb 07: French Foreign Policy in Africa: Between Pre Carre and Multilateralism
Quote:
France’s monopoly of Africa is under threat. The last 50 years have seen the French battling to hold on to the ‘privileged relationship’ with their former colonial empire, and a number of factors have forced the once imperial power into redefining its affiliation with ex-colonies, such as new laws on aid distribution, the integration of the EU and modern economic reforms.
In the post-Cold War era, ‘multilateralism’ has become the latest political buzzword, and in its wake a notable shift in French policy in Africa has emerged. This shift, combined with a new generation of French politicians claiming to herald a fresh approach, might suggest that changes are on the way.
As this paper will discuss, however, France has been reluctant to adapt. Certain members of the French elite have benefited from neo-colonial models and are in no hurry to normalise dealings; it’s instructive, therefore, to examine what adjustments have come out of multilateralism and if a new class of politicians really can bring about change....
Wee wee, Kernel," in Texan French
Thanks Jed !
To quote one of Tom's most famous lines (I nearly fell off my chair when Tom explained what was happening.)
Quote:
I know when I first met with the French, one colonel who was the equivalent of the French civil affairs and PSYOPs officer dismissed me in French as "an ignorant American who cannot possibly understand the real situation." He said it in French, assuming I did not understand. I looked at him, smiled, and kept saying, "Wee wee, Kernel," in Texan French, all the while hoping he might amplify his dismissal.
We already concluded, they had no clue what the real situation was.
The Rwanda-France War Continues
I remain suspicious that anything is changing except the name. France and Rwanda remain at cultural and political logger heads--and the real issue is the "loss" of another francophone country to those English-speaking RPF leaders who failed to see things the way Paris wished.
Best
Tom
Political Warfare in Sub-Saharan Africa
Political Warfare in Sub-Saharan Africa: U.S. Capabilities and Chinese Operations in Ethiopia, Kenya, Nigeria, and South Africa by Dr. Donovan C. Chau. New publication at the US Army's Strategic Studies Insitute.
Quote:
Domestic and international terrorism aside, the United States and the People’s Republic of China (PRC), are vying for influence over African governments and people. Not unlike the Cold War, the primary means of exerting influence in Africa is through the use of nonviolent instruments of grand strategy. The author considers one nonviolent instrument of grand strategy in particular, political warfare. He suggests that the PRC has used political warfare as its leading grand strategic instrument in Africa and offers a concise, detailed overview of U.S. capabilities to conduct political warfare in Africa in four of its nation-states.
India's Engagement with the African Indian Ocean Rim States
Chatham House, 7 Apr 08: India's Engagement with the African Indian Ocean Rim States
Quote:
In recent years India has strengthened its involvement in the African Indian Ocean Rim considerably. This shift in policy comes in part because of India's desire to compete with China's growing influence in the region. The Indian Ocean has immense significance to India's development. India's strategy is deepening not only commercially but due to concerns over its security and hegemony in the region, which are underpinned by India's 2004 maritime doctrine.
During the mid-1990s Indian foreign policy was largely introspective and concerned with consolidating its position as the regional power. Despite being a member of the Indian Ocean Rim Association for Regional Cooperation, there was little enthusiasm for the association and it produced few tangible results. The emergence of trilateral developmental initiative between India, Brazil and South Africa clearly reflected India's priority of positioning itself as a major developmental power.
The growing importance of the African Indian Ocean Rim to India is evidenced by increasing bilateral and trilateral efforts and improved relations, notably with Mauritius, the Seychelles, Madagascar and coastal states such as Mozambique, Kenya and Tanzania. India's most formidable economic and commercial partnership in the African Indian Ocean is with Mauritius.....
Meddling For Money--Diplomatic Mercenary?
I guess some types will never change and this is a case in point. Third-party meddling is always a distractor and often a deliberate ploy to derail or deflect ongoing efforts. The idea that Qatar has any interests in southern Sudan beyond supporting Khartoum is laughable.
This is something of a new twist: a sort of diplomatic mercenary, an "Envoy per Warren Zevon" for hire. Too bad, Zevon is gone. He could pen a "Bud, the Wheeler, Dealer."
Tom
Quote:
A Cold War Man, a Hot War and a Legal Gray Area
By Dan Eggen
Washington Post Staff Writer
Wednesday, September 30, 2009
McFarlane's Mission
The approach by Sudanese officials led to a $1.3 million contract for former national security adviser Robert "Bud" McFarlane, who went on to meet with two of the Obama administration's top policymakers on Sudan and its strife-torn Darfur region, according to documents and interviews
The role of non-African powers in Africa: a discussion
Moderators Note - see Post No.11 for why this thread has been started. Thanks.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
M-A Lagrange
Renewed Conflict in Sudan
http://africacenter.org/2010/04/rene...lict-in-sudan/
An interesting communication from council of Foreign Relations
Otherwise, an interesting development of the election boycott:
http://www.sudantribune.com/spip.php?article34652
And the US to wonder if some delay could be a solution. With Bashir insulting everyone at the end:
http://www.sudantribune.com/spip.php?article34662
Despite the crazy talk from Bashir and the US and SPLM playing at should I go or should I stay… NEC is doing what looks to me as what JMM describes as lawfare. Well, at least to a fuzzy move to actually force SPLM to stay in the course and make those election credible.
I just do not see the benefit. Let's dream and imagine that SPLM candidate in North is elected while boycotting the elections. I do not see Bashir and SAF nicely and fairly saying: we lost, please take the keys of the office.
But by saying SPLM cannot redraw now, Bashir is buying credibility, at least legally. Rule of law, rule of law...
And here is what Moscow thinks about the situation: (Sorry the link is in french)
http://fr.rian.ru/world/20100405/186393760.html
Basically Moscow is saying let’s go for elections. For them, the elections have to happen because of Darfur peace process.
It’s a dam fair and bright comment. The only out come of those elections, part from an increase of tensions between North and South ARE the Doha agreement.
Don't worry about what Russia is saying, don't worry about what the US is saying... worry only about what China wants for the region.
Not sure China is the problem, in fact
I am not sure that China is the main problem. China playes almost openly its carts. It is rather USA with basically no real African policy which is the problem here.
Partition of Sudan may (or may not in fact) put China in a corner as they have invest in oil infrastructures in North. But US policy to stabilize South Sudan is, at the best, foggy for the momment.
Sitting on a gold mountain is useless when there is no mines to exploit it.;)
By the way, several post have been sent with info on China policy.:D
That's a rather assinine statement...
Quote:
Originally Posted by
JMA
...Zimbabwe for example could have been and could still be sorted out with two non-ballistic cruise missiles. One for Mugabe and one for his Joint Operations Command (JOC) when in session. It would have been as easy as that. But there is no way China would give the nod for such action.
Nor is there much of any way the US Congress would give its approval of such an action -- not to speak of the rest of the world. While you may have an argument with Mugabe, I suspect the majority of your fellow South Africans would go bonkers criticizing the US had we foolishly done what you suggest. :wry:
As for no commitment in Africa, I presume you mean large scale combat troop commitment as opposed to the number of US force commitments in Africa today and over the past 17 years. Your logic on the issue was also shared before late 2001 by a number of people who said the US would not commit troops but would merely do what you suggest, lob a missile or two, therefor they could attack the US with impunity -- or close to it...
Every war we've been involved with for over 220 years occurred in large part because someone made the stupid assumption that "the Americans won't fight." The later ones tend to last too long because we foolishly try to be nice -- I think we're finally starting to realize that's really dumb on our part.
You're kidding, right? No bait in that, simply a lack of knowledge of the US.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
JMA
I would have thought it would be easier (to get congressional and world support) to toss a few missiles into Zimbabwe than to invade Iraq?
Possibly true for many places, less true for any former British colony. You apparently didn't notice that we tend to defer to the British on those. As for other places, you may be correct -- but that only shows how out of touch 'western values' are with reality.
Quote:
Maybe you missed it but most of the world went bonkers when the US went into Iraq? Did the US give damn?
I say western because the ME predictably did object to our invasion of Iraq but only on a pro forma basis to get the 'rest of the world' roused in a futile attempt to stop it. You may have noted that once it went, they basically quited down -- because they fully understood why we had done it even if most westerners did not.
Many have never figured out that Afghanistan was about attacking the US on its own soil and that Iraq was a message to the Middle East that a long series of probes and action emanating from there against US interests worldwide need to stop. WMD, oil and all that foolishness had virtually nothing to do with it.
The folks in the ME understood that and you may have noticed that the Asians made almost no noise about it because they understood that it was all about reversing the damage four previous Presidents had done by accepting probes from the ME since 1979. All the noise was European hearth yammering. They and South America. Who rightfully object from experience to our meddling and interventions. :o
Some people here also yammered; about a third. That's typical here for any military effort, 1/3 objects, 1/3 thinks it's a great idea and those two swap depending on which political party is in power. The remaining third will support as long as progress is being made. Been true for all our wars and incursions.
Quote:
But now you are suggesting that the US should worry about what the people of the world would think about Zimbabwe's criminal leadership being taken out when they don't give daman about using drones to fire missiles into Pakistan (a supposed ally) against the wishes of the government and people of that country?
Nah, I'm suggesting that we do not meddle with former British colonies unless they agree (and that includes Pakistan...) and, far, far more importantly, that Zimbabawe (unlike Pakistan) has little to no effect on US interests therefor the cost isn't worth the effort.
Quote:
Consistency, Ken, consistency.
Oh, we're as consistent as we can be with an electoral system that changes the political complexion of the nation every two years to at least some degree -- that makes for a great lack of continuity and a total inability to have a grand strategy or even a fairly consistent foreign policy. :D
Not a problem, we get by... :cool:
We are remarkably consistent on two things, defense and foreign policy wise, and only two things:
We do not tolerate potential physical threats, we will disrupt them or take them out by fair means or foul and regardless of the opinions of others.
We will react adversely to any thing that appears to be a significant constriction of our trading ability in international commerce and movement.
That's been true for that 220 years. I'd say that was pretty consistent. :D
The role of non-African powers in Africa: a discussion
In one particular current thread 'South Sudan: a laboratory for stabilisation':http://council.smallwarsjournal.com/...ead.php?t=8460 some disturbance has been caused by a series of posts speculating on the role of the external, or great powers in Africa, in places like Zimbabwe and what exactly will China do?
I have created this new thread for the discussion and moved some of the posts to here - leaving an explanation behind.
Neither in one sense, both in another and
most likely a continuing conflict here in the States over which one should receive precedence.
Bottom line is that while all nations have 'special relationships,' for the US as those others, those relationships get trumped by national interest so we'll waffle back and forth.
The Power we don't take about...YOUR SAVINGS
Call me "futurist" but:
With the Electronic Herd, thousands investors use their savings (billions US$ every day), economies and countries have to compete each other to attract investments if they want to keep the pace of the economy or get left dead along the road economically (like North Korea, Iran,...).
These thousands and other hedge funds are attracted by high returns on investment and FAST. African countries whatever their political system will have to plug to Globalization if they want to survive. You can have the best gold mine in the world, if you are constantly in a state of civil war or corruption, investors won't come and your big mine won't produce a lot to feed your civil war or corruption. You are basically feeding on your own blood.
If you provide a safe, corrupt free environment, most African countries have untapped ressources that can attract these investors.
These thousand investors, much more than China or EU or US are for me, the biggest geoplotical game changers in Africa. Kabila, Kagame,...understand it.
These thousands investors require stability, transparency, good governance and if you don't provide, one click of the mouse on any trade website and their money is GONE. It's like an international/every minute referendum on how good/bad your country and its economy is.
The influence of China, US or EU over Africa looks pale in camparaison to the much defuse but HUGE influence of the electronic herd. 8 Billions US$ in 2008 came from the electronic herd as investment (not loans), while CHINA came with about 14 Billions in loans mostly.
As an African President, i would rather go to Wall Street and convince them to invest than beg Beijing for a loan i have to repay later even if it means cleaning corruption, improve education,...
FYI:
http://seekingalpha.com/article/3424...at-opportunity
http://www.africaneconomicoutlook.or...ct-investment/
A recipe for disaster or a usual practice?
Quote:
From Dayuhan
We'll see what happens... but if a European country did what the Chinese are doing I suspect most of us would see it as a recipe for disaster. Why should it be any different for the Chinese?
Quote:
Macmillan admits to bribery over World Bank Sudan aid deal
Macmillan, the British publishing giant, has admitted it made "corrupt payments" in an attempt to win a World Bank aid contract in Africa.
A Macmillan Education representative made the undisclosed bribery payments to a local official in an unsuccessful attempt to secure the multi-million pound contract for an education project in southern Sudan.
The World Bank said it had banned Macmillan from bidding for any of its contracts for six years.
Macmillan, which focuses on educational and scientific books, has been added to the World Bank's "debarred" list, which names and shames organisations found to have acted corruptly.
Leonard McCarthy, vice president of integrity at the World Bank, said: "[The ban] demonstrates the World Bank's unwavering commitment to ensuring all those who participate in World Bank-financed projects, including those who do not actually get contracts, are held to the highest levels of integrity, while also encouraging companies to come forward and join our fight against corruption."
A spokesman for the World Bank said: "Macmillan admitted engaging in bribes in an attempt to get a contract to print textbooks for the education rehabilitation project in south Sudan."
The payments were offered between 2008 and 2009.
International donors have committed to pumping more than $1.5bn (£1bn) into World Bank projects in Sudan to help the war-ravaged country recover from decades of bitter conflict.
A spokesman for Macmillan, which has drafted in an emergency press team to deal with the scandal, said: "We will not tolerate improper behaviour as a company, and the fact that we have worked closely with the World Bank to reach this agreement is evidence of that.
"There is no suggestion that these concerns have affected any of Macmillan's other principal businesses, and it is the case that they are confined to a limited part of our education business."
Macmillan, which is owned by Germany's Verlagsgruppe Georg von Holtzbrinck, declares in its "anti-bribery policy" that it has a "zero tolerance approach to acts of bribery and corruption".
In its mission statement Macmillan states that "businesses should work against all forms of corruption, including bribery and extortion".
The ban was originally set in place for eight years, but was reduced to six after Macmillan admitted to the bribery. It may be reduced by a further three years if the company continues to cooperate with the World Bank's "compliance monitoring program".
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/n...-aid-deal.html
We always blame the Chinese to encourage corruption… But we better have a look at our selves!
What Chinese may be accused of is to have sky rocketted corruption (They can pay ridiculous amouts of money with more 0 than anyone else that’s for sure.) but not to be THE corrupter criminalizing Africa.