CNN: Can Democracy Thrive in Africa?

[JMA]

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

[snip]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Dayuhan]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[M-A Lagrange]

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

Dahuyan,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Here are my 0.2$ incentives.

M-A

[Dayuhan]

M-A,

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

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

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

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

[Rex Brynen]

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

Thoughtful posts--I agree with you completely.

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

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

[JMA]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Rex Brynen]

Do any of these "smart" kids who now make policy in the West ever stop to consider what China and India want from Africa?

Yes, they do.

[JMA]

Yes, they do.

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

[Rex Brynen]

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

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

[Dayuhan]

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

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

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

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

[JMA]

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

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

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

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