CNN: Can Democracy Thrive in Africa?

[Dayuhan]

LOL... I appreciate this is getting difficult for you. What about half a dozen examples of successes in foreign policy interventions in Africa by the US or the West?

You're not answering the question. What exactly do you mean by "right" and what exactly do you want us to do?

If "success" is accomplishing one's goal, than to have a successful foreign intervention you must first have a clear goal that is achievable with the resources and within the time frame that you are willing to commit to it. In the absence of such a goal, success cannot be achieved and intervention is best avoided. Our interventions in Africa (and many other places) have generally lacked such goals, and thus would have been better avoided.

Are you trying to make a point? If so, please reveal it.

[JMA]

You're not answering the question. What exactly do you mean by "right" and what exactly do you want us to do?

If "success" is accomplishing one's goal, than to have a successful foreign intervention you must first have a clear goal that is achievable with the resources and within the time frame that you are willing to commit to it. In the absence of such a goal, success cannot be achieved and intervention is best avoided. Our interventions in Africa (and many other places) have generally lacked such goals, and thus would have been better avoided.

Are you trying to make a point? If so, please reveal it.

Methinks playing with semantics is the last refuge of a scoundrel.

But I will play along.

I prefer successful as in "having succeeded or being marked by a favorable outcome". So I suggest successful in the long term for Africa rather than to meet a parochial (US, Russian, China etc) goal.

If success in your opinion is based on have a clear goal then why is it that you and others who have a lot to say on matters such as nuclear weapons development articulate no such clear goal?

Here we talk about "can democracy thrive in Africa".

So what is your clear goal on this one? To let Africa evolve at it own pace without US and maybe other intervention regardless of human rights abuses and the odd genocide?

My view would be to keep raising the bar using the "carrot and the stick" method and holding Africa through the AU and the states individually to these rising standards.

There is IMHO a duty to interfere to secure and protect the universal rights of citizens in any country. (The brave western countries are more likely to intervene in Somalia or the Congo than say in Tibet for instance)

OK one more time then, can you name a half dozen or so interventions which have led to improved and increasing democracy in Africa (presuming that is your clear goal of course)?

[Dayuhan]

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

Limiting myself to what's relevant to the issue at hand...

I believe that Indian and Chinese investment in Africa is not a threat to US interests and is not a matter with which the US need be concerned.

I believe that the US does not have the right, responsibility, capacity, or will to "fix Africa", and that any effort to do so is likely to have bad results for both Africans and Americans.

I believe that unilateral intervention in Africa (or anywhere) should only be taken in the presence of a major threat to US interests, and the ambitions of such intervention must be proportional to our capacity and will.

I believe that "humanitarian intervention" may at times be necessary, but that it has to be multilateral and that necessity and duration of our participation have to be assessed according to our interests.

I could probably think of a few others, but that will do. What do you believe?

[I]Methinks playing with semantics is the last refuge of a scoundrel.

If asking you to express yourself clearly makes me a scoundrel, I'll have to be one. I've been called worse. What do youthinks it should be called when someone consistently offers nothing but snide and unspecific criticisms of existing policy without offering any practical alternative?

I prefer successful as in "having succeeded or being marked by a favorable outcome". So I suggest successful in the long term for Africa rather than to meet a parochial (US, Russian, China etc) goal.

Fine. How is the US supposed to define "successful in the long term for Africa"? Doesn't that have to be defined by Africans? Americans botch things up badly enough when we try to pursue our own interests, and we at least (sometimes) know what those are. How are we supposed to effectively pursue someone else's, even if we had the resources to run about the globe trying to create favorable outcomes for other continents (we don't).

If success in your opinion is based on have a clear goal then why is it that you and others who have a lot to say on matters such as nuclear weapons development articulate no such clear goal?

A clear goal is necessary but not sufficient. The goal also has to be achievable with the resources and within the time frame you're willing to commit to it, and the expected benefit (to us) of achieving the goal has to exceed the expected cost (again to us).

Look at Afghanistan. The initial goal of removing the Taliban from power was clear and achievable, and was accomplished. The subsequent goal of establishing a centralized, democratic, sustainable government in Afghanistan is probably not achievable with the resources and within the time frame we're willing to commit, and I expect it to fail.

So what is your clear goal on this one? To let Africa evolve at it own pace without US and maybe other intervention regardless of human rights abuses and the odd genocide?

What are our options? I see no convincing evidence that US intervention on any affordable scale is likely to accelerate the pace or alter the course of African development. The costs are very high and the supposed benefits very uncertain. The benefits accruing to those who will bear the cost seem pretty nonexistent.

My view would be to keep raising the bar using the "carrot and the stick" method and holding Africa through the AU and the states individually to these rising standards.

And we should keep doing this because it has worked so well in the past?

I hope you've an abundant supply of carrots and sticks at hand, because we're about out... and how exactly does the US have the responsibility or the right to unilaterally define standards of conduct for other countries?

There is IMHO a duty to interfere to secure and protect the universal rights of citizens in any country. (The brave western countries are more likely to intervene in Somalia or the Congo than say in Tibet for instance)

I don't expect to see western countries intervening in Somalia, the Congo, or Tibet any time soon. Biting off what you haven't the capacity or will to chew is not brave, it's dumb.

OK one more time then, can you name a half dozen or so interventions which have led to improved and increasing democracy in Africa (presuming that is your clear goal of course)?

No. Can you? If intervention doesn't advance the goal, why resort to it in the first place? Unless of course you just like the idea of the white saviour descending on Africa to bring order and bestow the gifts of western civiization... that didn't work out so well last time round either, did it?

[JMA]

Limiting myself to what's relevant to the issue at hand...

Out here in the colonies we hear a lot of talk from a section of the US about what is or isn't in the US interests. You are just another in a long list of US citizens who want to speak on behalf of all of the US (using the 'we') about not getting involved here there and everywhere.

Please go to this site and tell me which of the listed interventions which were really vital to the US best interests.

So an onlooker would be forgiven if believing that you and your ilk do not speak on behalf of the US but rather are pushing a mere minority (albeit vocal) point of view.

For your edification the best US intervention into Africa was George Bush's PEPFAR where US$3 billion per year for five years was provided for AIDS interventions in Africa. Clinton was remembered for failing to act in Rwanda's time of need and cutting and running from Somalia.

So no I can't think of any positive intervention by the US in Africa other than PREPFAR... ever. (I maybe let something slip... then maybe not.)

The odds surely are that the US get it right sometime.

[Dayuhan]

Out here in the colonies we hear a lot of talk from a section of the US about what is or isn't in the US interests. You are just another in a long list of US citizens who want to speak on behalf of all of the US (using the 'we') about not getting involved here there and everywhere.

Do you hear anyone in the US claiming that military intervention in Africa is necessary, desirable, or consistent with US interests? It's actually one of the few things almost everyone seems to agree on.

I suspect the only way you'd get significant US military action in Africa would be a major terrorist attack emanating from an African country. Even then, I'd expect it to be far more limited than what we've seen in Iraq and Afghanistan... Americans will need a few more decades to forget that tossing a regime out is easy and building a new one is very hard.

If the US government or any significant section of the populace thought military intervention in Africa was in the US interest, don't you think you'd see a bit more of it? Don't you think you'd hear more people demanding it? It's fairly obvious that this is not something Americans at any level want to get involved in, for equally obvious reasons.

So no I can't think of any positive intervention by the US in Africa other than PREPFAR... ever. (I maybe let something slip... then maybe not.)

The odds surely are that the US get it right sometime.

If military intervention has generally not had positive consequences, why should we not conclude that "getting it right" would mean less intervention?

If the question is "can democracy thrive in Africa", my opinion would be that it can... eventually, though it might well take a few generations.

If the question is "is American intervention likely to advance the progress of democracy in Africa" - a completely different question - I'd answer "probably not, though there might be a rare and unlikely exception somewhere along the line".

Out here in the colonies...

I was under the impression that South Africa was no longer a colony... did I have that wrong?

If we're talking ex-colonies, I'm in one myself... and indeed one hears a great deal of silly talk, from the US and from many other places.

[JMA]

I was under the impression that South Africa was no longer a colony... did I have that wrong?

Long time ago. Interesting history you should read up on it at some time.

Then from a military point of view both the Zulu Wars and the Boer Wars are too worthy of study leading to battle field visits.

There you will see the best (Rorke's Drift) and the worst (Isandlwana) of the Brits during the Zulu Wars and not to miss the Horse Memorial to the 300,000 horses that died in the service of the British during the Second Boer War.


(I have no personal or financial interest in battlefield tourism in South Africa)

[JMA]

Do you hear anyone in the US claiming that military intervention in Africa is necessary, desirable, or consistent with US interests? It's actually one of the few things almost everyone seems to agree on.

Yes since the end of the Cold War US interference in Africa has reduced. This has left a void for China to fill and now we see an increase of Al-Qaeda activity. Maybe not such a clever move after all?

I suspect the only way you'd get significant US military action in Africa would be a major terrorist attack emanating from an African country. Even then, I'd expect it to be far more limited than what we've seen in Iraq and Afghanistan... Americans will need a few more decades to forget that tossing a regime out is easy and building a new one is very hard.

Watch what's happening in Yemen and Somalia. Won't be long now.

If you toss out a regime who says you have to build a new one?

If the US government or any significant section of the populace thought military intervention in Africa was in the US interest, don't you think you'd see a bit more of it? Don't you think you'd hear more people demanding it? It's fairly obvious that this is not something Americans at any level want to get involved in, for equally obvious reasons.

Nobody is asking for US military intervention is Africa. It is the interference by proxy that has been the problem. Now if it was not in the US interest why do you think they interfered?

If military intervention has generally not had positive consequences, why should we not conclude that "getting it right" would mean less intervention?

Read that list again. Direct US military intervention in Africa has been minimal.

There is of course AFRICOM (United States Africa Command) which is appropriately based in Stuttgart, Germany. The reason for their existence? It appears that by 2015 25% of US oil imports will be from Africa. I suspect we shall see more of the US around in the future.

If the question is "can democracy thrive in Africa", my opinion would be that it can... eventually, though it might well take a few generations.

You need to read more widely to understand that there is growing pressure from within Africa itself to democratise. That the US is seen to be in league with that club of thugs that make up the AU (African Union) means that Africans are happy to receive stuff out of Hollywood but are correctly cautious about comes gift wrapped from the State Department.

If the question is "is American intervention likely to advance the progress of democracy in Africa" - a completely different question - I'd answer "probably not, though there might be a rare and unlikely exception somewhere along the line".

That's your opinion and you are entitled to it.

Support of democracy and democratic institutions in Africa is a low cost option for the US.

Humanitarian intervention with good intentions is always welcome like in Somalia before some hot-dogging cowboys went and screwed it up. So much so that when the real big crisis occurred Clinton sat on his hands and let a million people get butchered in Rwanda. It is just that the US displays such bad judgement so often. What the hell goes on in the State Department?

[Dayuhan]

Long time ago. Interesting history you should read up on it at some time.

I also live in the midst of interesting (if generally forgotten) colonial history, but I can’t imagine prefacing a comment with “out here in the colonies…” It’s the past, long gone and unlamented.

Yes since the end of the Cold War US interference in Africa has reduced. This has left a void for China to fill and now we see an increase of Al-Qaeda activity. Maybe not such a clever move after all?

A void? How so? Aren’t there a billion or so Africans there? Or is it engraved on stone somewhere that there must always be an outsider to intervene?

In any event, as I said above, Chinese and Indian investment in Africa is not a threat to US interests and does not require a US response. It’s also worth noting that neither China nor India has moved toward military intervention, and it’s hard to see how US intervention would have affected their investments.

It’s also hard to see AQ activity as a consequence of reduced US intervention… in most cases US intervention provides AQ with a propaganda bonus and tends to help them more than it hurts them. Why do you think AQ was so eager to provoke the US into making a military move in Afghanistan?

Watch what's happening in Yemen and Somalia. Won't be long now.

That’s anything but certain. Another 9/11 scale attack is of course possible, but it’s as likely to be planned in Europe or the US as in Yemen or Somalia.
Even if such an attack were to take place, though, I doubt that we’d see the sort of action that we’ve seen in Iraq and Afganistan. We haven’t forgotten those lessons yet… give it a few more years. We wouldn’t be doing regime change in Yemen in any event, as the regime is already nominally friendly to us and hostile to AQ, and we can’t do regime change in Somalia because there’s no regime to change, and (I hope) nobody in the US is foolish enough to try and create one.

If you toss out a regime who says you have to build a new one?

You don’t, though Americans always seem compelled to try. It serves as a justification for having intervened in the first place, and appeals to the missionary instincts that have gotten us into trouble so often in the past. Of course if one intervenes and does nothing after there is always the risk that the conditions that led to the intervention in the first place will be recreated, or that something worse will emerge… but that needs to be assessed on a case to case basis.

Nobody is asking for US military intervention is Africa. It is the interference by proxy that has been the problem. Now if it was not in the US interest why do you think they interfered?

Perception of interest was very different during the Cold War, leading to a great deal of intervention - by proxy and otherwise - that was in retrospect neither necessary nor productive. One hopes some lessons were learned.

There is of course AFRICOM (United States Africa Command) which is appropriately based in Stuttgart, Germany. The reason for their existence? It appears that by 2015 25% of US oil imports will be from Africa. I suspect we shall see more of the US around in the future.

The US imports large amounts of oil from Canada, Mexico, Nigeria and Venezuela… do you see them swarming with US troops? The notion that success in commerce depends on the projection of military force is a vestige of centuries past, and needs to be discarded.

You need to read more widely to understand that there is growing pressure from within Africa itself to democratise. That the US is seen to be in league with that club of thugs that make up the AU (African Union) means that Africans are happy to receive stuff out of Hollywood but are correctly cautious about comes gift wrapped from the State Department.

I’m well aware that the pressure exists, but moving from pressure to democracy takes a while, and moving from democracy to functioning, sustainable democracy can take even longer. In the meantime, the US has to deal with what exists, as do other countries. We can neither reorder the governments of other countries to suit or preference nor pretend that countries not suiting that preference do not exist.

Support of democracy and democratic institutions in Africa is a low cost option for the US.

It’s an excellent option in cases where democracy and democratic institutions exist. Where they do not exist, it’s a bit more difficult. The line between promoting democracy and meddling in other people’s internal politics is vague.

Humanitarian intervention with good intentions is always welcome like in Somalia before some hot-dogging cowboys went and screwed it up. So much so that when the real big crisis occurred Clinton sat on his hands and let a million people get butchered in Rwanda. It is just that the US displays such bad judgement so often. What the hell goes on in the State Department?

The State Dept doesn’t make those calls; comes from higher up and politics are always a factor, as they tend to be in a democracy. Whether or not any given judgment is bad or good depends largely on what is presumed to be the goal… and for better or worse, American politicians tend to place American interests and their own political calculations above the greater good of Africa.

People who complain about American inaction need to understand that – again for better or worse – the days of “that’s horrible, why don’t the Americans do something about it” are gone, and both the impetus and the resources for humanitarian intervention have to be multilateral. We are neither global cop nor global social worker. We can’t afford to be.