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.
davidbfpo
The role of non-African powers in Africa: a discussion
Moderators Note - see Post No.11 for why this thread has been started. Thanks.
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.Originally Posted by M-A Lagrange
Last edited by davidbfpo; 04-18-2010 at 10:50 AM. Reason: Add Moderator's Note
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.
Why should the US have an African policy? They can concentrate of the offshore oilfields and leave the rest to China. The mere expectation that the US has or should have an Africa policy is the first mistake.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.
Africa remembers the US (Clinton) failure to act on Rwanda, and the US humiliation in Mogadishu, The CIA cock-up in Angola, the failure to act on Zimbabwe and really no serious African is expecting anything from the US. So the best advice is to do the same. Don't expect any coherent policy or action from the US on Africa.
Well, USA does have an African policy.Why should the US have an African policy? They can concentrate of the offshore oilfields and leave the rest to China. The mere expectation that the US has or should have an Africa policy is the first mistake.
Africa remembers the US (Clinton) failure to act on Rwanda, and the US humiliation in Mogadishu, The CIA cock-up in Angola, the failure to act on Zimbabwe and really no serious African is expecting anything from the US. So the best advice is to do the same. Don't expect any coherent policy or action from the US on Africa.And oil is not the only natural resource of Africa, far from it.
Sorry Sir, but africa does count in a multi polar world. And serious african do expect things from USA. Not because the actual president is a black man but because USA cannot afford Somalia to exist, cannot afford Islamist to have a safe heaven on that continent. Because North Sudan is becoming the wheat plant for Arab countries and are building a power pole through religious cultural proximity. Because soon USA will have to buy Chinese iron to produce steel... (the list is not exhaustive)
There are many reasons for USA to have an African policy. But as everything, politic does not like vaccum. Therefore, there will be someone else who will take its place...
It would be face saving to believe that the US has no Africa policy and does not need one. If the US needs one or actually has one then it is a sad illustration of foreign policy incompetence at a level the world has never yet seen. After Mogadishu it is unlikely US forces will be committed anywhere in Africa again. Zimbabwe for example could have been and could still be sorted out with two non-ballistic cruise missiles. One for Mugabe and one for his Joint Operations Command (JOC) when in session. It would have been as easy as that. But there is no way China would give the nod for such action.Well, USA does have an African policy.
Sorry Sir, but africa does count in a multi polar world. And serious african do expect things from USA. Not because the actual president is a black man but because USA cannot afford Somalia to exist, cannot afford Islamist to have a safe heaven on that continent. Because North Sudan is becoming the wheat plant for Arab countries and are building a power pole through religious cultural proximity. Because soon USA will have to buy Chinese iron to produce steel... (the list is not exhaustive)
There are many reasons for USA to have an African policy. But as everything, politic does not like vaccum. Therefore, there will be someone else who will take its place...
That's a rather assinine statement...
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.
As for no commitment in Africa, I presume you mean large scale combat troop commitment as opposed to the number of US force commitments in Africa today and over the past 17 years. Your logic on the issue was also shared before late 2001 by a number of people who said the US would not commit troops but would merely do what you suggest, lob a missile or two, therefor they could attack the US with impunity -- or close to it...
Every war we've been involved with for over 220 years occurred in large part because someone made the stupid assumption that "the Americans won't fight." The later ones tend to last too long because we foolishly try to be nice -- I think we're finally starting to realize that's really dumb on our part.
JMA,
I think first that the departure or lower interrest for Africa from former colonial powers (Europe) is an African will. Africa wants to have african problems solved by african. And that's a good thing.
Now, if you ask me if I think this is a good thing for Europe, my answer will be no. Not because Africa is not capable to take care of its self alone but because, at least in the case of France, it is done for no good reasons.
Coming back to the US involvement in Africa. What Ken is saying is a very much a common opinion in the US. I think it was in a post from David that I read that Stefen Ellis was asking for the Europeam to be more involved in Liberia. It's funny in the sense that USA are the former colonial power in Africa.
Saying so, I do agree that for long the post 2001 grand strategy of chaos damage control of USA, specially in Africa has been quite difficult to see as productive. But today, let say since 3 years, I would say that there is a US strategy over Central/Horn of Africa.
For Austral Africa... I unfortunately do not see the same. But I think it is very much difficult for any European state to come to rescue South Africa and Zimbabwe. It's a shame because there were great people coming from there.
M-A
PS, Thanks David. I was just trying o bring back JMA and Ken to the central subject: Sudan. But anyway, it is certainly more confortable for eveyone to have this discussion separated.
Thanks.
Really you need an understanding of Africa. African leaders do not want outsiders starting to push for human rights or linking aid to good governance. They have a very nice little thing going.
The best thing for Africa is for the world to walk away and leave it to its own devices. This will never happen because of Africa's natural and mineral resources. China has become the biggest player and the US and the rest will be lucky to get the crumbs.
To accept the reality of the situation is the most sensible course of action.
There's no doubt that the Chinese have become increasingly important economic actors in Africa, and will continue to do so. Also, Chinese investment is more strategic, and more closely linked with political engagement.
However, at the moment, Chinese DFI in Africa continues to be dwarfed by that of the US, UK, France, Germany, and Japan by several orders of magnitude. Indeed, in many years Indian (and even Malaysian) investment in Africa exceeds that of China too.
They mostly come at night. Mostly.
- university webpage: McGill University
- conflict simulations webpage: PaxSims
Don't worry about investment right now. You need to watch how the Chinese are tying up the rights to mineral and natural resources way into the future. And guess where all that stuff will be headed?
Doesn't make any difference at all. These resources are fungible, whatever China gets from Africa means they get less from other suppliers, which is then available for others to buy. China is doing the US a favor by investing in production in high risk environments where Americans don't want to go: they bring more material onto the market, that keeps prices down. They take the risk, we share the benefit. What's not to like? Much better for us to have China investing in new production than to have them using that pile of dollars to bid against us for the right to buy existing production.
"Tying up" anything in unstable political environments is a risky business, especially where long term investments with extended recovery horizons are involved. You make a deal with a government, you put in a few billion, or more than a few, and all of a sudden a new government wants a new deal. What do you do, send the Marines? Not likely. Western companies have learned about this the hard way; the Chinese are likely to run into it as well.
The notion of China as an unstoppable rising economic juggernaut is also misplaced... they have their share of problems and chickens have a way of coming home to roost. Look to some upheavals in the medium term future, potentially with major political implications. Remember when the simplistic among us were declaring that Japan was the rising power of the future?
I suspect the Chinese will be happy that some are reading the situation that way.
http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/...xt-empire/8018
The Next Empire
All across Africa, new tracks are being laid, highways built,ports deepened, commercial contracts signed—all on an unprecedented scale, and led by China, whose appetite for commodities seems insatiable. Do China’s grand designs promise the transformation,at last, of a star-crossed continent? Or merely its exploitation? The author travels deep into the heart of Africa, searching for answers.
Last edited by davidbfpo; 05-10-2010 at 09:20 PM. Reason: Tidy up
A scrimmage in a Border Station
A canter down some dark defile
Two thousand pounds of education
Drops to a ten-rupee jezail
http://i.imgur.com/IPT1uLH.jpg
Hello JMAReally you need an understanding of Africa. African leaders do not want outsiders starting to push for human rights or linking aid to good governance. They have a very nice little thing going.
The best thing for Africa is for the world to walk away and leave it to its own devices. This will never happen because of Africa's natural and mineral resources. China has become the biggest player and the US and the rest will be lucky to get the crumbs.
To accept the reality of the situation is the most sensible course of action.
The aid against good governance dispute is not the one I am looking at. If most African leaders do not want to have to comply with good governance, on the otherhand, donors as European powers are tired to borrow money to them.
But the question of divorce (can we call it that way) between "european powers" and Africa is deeper. Africa leaders are too quick to claim West to abuse them.
And by the way, as far as I can see, Africa Leaders do not want to be in charge of the business. They were not that quick to provide troops and equipment for Darfur or DRC...
If you look at Mozambique, I think there's a realization in the upper echelons of the establishment of what getting involved with China entails:
China’s Relations with Mozambique: A Mixed Blessing
http://csis.org/blog/china%E2%80%99s...mixed-blessing
Former Mozambican ambassador:
As a side note, in 2007 South African President Thabo Mbeki cautioned that China risked replicating in Africa a “colonial relationship” of the kind that existed under white rule.Lets stop blaming the Chinese, they have money and they want to buy. Nobody is forcing us to rape our resources; we are being paid generously for it. In the end, my friend, it’s up to us to decide how we want to do business. This is our country, so it’s our fault.
http://en.ismico.org/content/view/439/15/
I don't believe it's likely these statements will turn into actions, so long as China keeps paying up.
Last edited by davidbfpo; 05-11-2010 at 06:38 PM. Reason: Add quote marks and PM to author
These investments run in a cycle. Early on, the leaders are getting bribes, so they're happy, and the populace sees roads, mines, and factories being built, so they're happy. As things go on, a gradual disillusionment sets in, as it becomes clear that most of the "investment" is going back to China, that the foreigners are bringing their own labor instead of hiring locally, and that local folks are increasingly being treated as second-class citizens in their own country. As the investment reaches the point where it's generating returns (and let's face it, the Chinese wouldn't be going in if they didn't think they'd take out more value than they bring in), it becomes clear that the resources are being stripped and the only ones earning out of it are the leaders. At this point the foreign presence becomes a focus point for political opposition and eventually can generate serious disorder.
We'll see what happens... but if a European country did what the Chinese are doing I suspect most of us would see it as a recipe for disaster. Why should it be any different for the Chinese?
A recipe for disaster or a usual practice?
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?
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/n...-aid-deal.htmlMacmillan 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".
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.
And by September 2008 Mbeki had been forced to resign and now the Chinese are the largest benefactor of the ANC and the 'new' president is cozy with the Chinese.
Ok, so lets watch what happens to the next African leader who dares to warn against Chinese influence in Africa. Just keep your eyes and ears open.
http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/...C6aFwD9FTTBR81BERLIN — A private security firm's plan to deploy more than 100 German ex-soldiers to Somalia to work for a warlord has triggered intense media coverage and was harshly criticized by lawmakers on Tuesday, some of them calling it a possible violation of U.N. sanctions against the war-ridden East African country.
"Hurry up, Tommy, before zee Germans get here". - Turkish, SNATCH
Last edited by AdamG; 05-25-2010 at 04:49 PM.
A scrimmage in a Border Station
A canter down some dark defile
Two thousand pounds of education
Drops to a ten-rupee jezail
http://i.imgur.com/IPT1uLH.jpg
Posting Permissions
Bookmarks