Tough Love - The African Sun Times
Kingjaja,
I think I found your twin at The Sun Times.
Quote:
“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
Can African Heads of State Think?
Sorry, the link was from a popular blog about Africa, not Senegalese media:
http://africasacountry.com/can-afric...f-state-speak/
Thank you for responding ...
to what are difficult, futuristic questions. Two of your points stood out to me.
The first deals with co-operating ethnic groups:
Quote:
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:
Quote:
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:
Quote:
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, giving it leverage in trade without outright secession from the countries within which those cities are located today.
Regards
Mike
Indifference does not equal engagement
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:
Quote:
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
The US Position 1963-2013
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
re: George Ball Lisbon Meetings in 1963
Foreign Relations of the United States, 1961–1963
Volume XIII, Western Europe and Canada, Document 356
Quote:
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
Quote:
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:
Quote:
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