I'm aware of the rhetoric, but unconvinced that the rhetoric is being translated into meaningful policy. This may be an excess of cynicism; bit of a habit.Originally Posted by Stan
“The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary”
H.L. Mencken
That wasn't a statement about the relationship between Africans and the African Diaspora. It was a commentary on how easily the diaspora can post a blog or write an open letter and absolve themselves of responsibility. It's easy to sit at Syracuse and point out how the US is doing it wrong.
Sure they send some money... but they could accomplish a lot more if they went back and did the nation building. It shows how even they have given up on the politics, governance, development, etc back home and how it's now each man for himself.
You're welcome... I take it a good deal of said diaspora live and work in the states, so a portion of that $10billion is another form of US aid. I find it amazing that one would even expect US aid to match the money coming in from the diaspora. It should just be more reason to love the good ol US of A.
Somebody said earlier that relationships in Africa are complex. That applies to diaspora relationships as well. They do not have 100% credibility... especially the ones engaged in politics from the safety of the west.Put simply, it is important to listen to what they have say about America's policies in Africa because (a) it is unwise to underestimate the impact the diaspora has on shaping public opinion in Africa and (b) their influence on American politics is set to rise in the near future.
First of all, I don't see the need to get them on board. A great majority do not care about Africom and those who do, already have their minds made up one way or the other.Have you got them on board with AFRICOM? If not, why? The second largest group are the Ethiopians and the same applies to the them. May suspicion is that the USG didn't bother (a) to identify the most important stakeholders and (b) tailor messages to cater to them.Consider this example, a former US ambassador to Nigeria, John Campbell estimates the number of Nigerians in the US at 2 million. They are overwhelming from Southern Nigeria and tend to be evangelical Christians. In his words:
Secondly, if Africom were to engage the African diaspora, how do you propose they go about doing it? Invite them to a town hall with some 4-star general? You seem to state that would be counterproductive in your statement below.
I would argue that most reasonable Americans (including the president) appreciate OIF's impact on how others perceive the US.But this points to a much wider problem, the US government is no longer in the business of selling itself or its policies to an increasingly sceptical world. Many of you guys don't fully appreciate the impact of Iraq on US credibility.
That's not just Africans... a lot of Americans believe that as well.The man on the street in Africa is of the opinion that the US cooked up evidence to invade Iraq in the past, and is thus, very likely to do something similar in future.
I can't argue with you here.Then there is the slightly unusual spectacle of senior US military officers explaining US Africa policy. Is it so important to raise the media profile of senior US military officers? What do you think the reaction would be if senior PLA officers were given the task of explaining China's Africa policy? The Chinese have smartly refrained from doing so.
Can you elaborate on this?Africa is neither Afghanistan nor Iraq (the ambassador Ryan Crocker / General Petraeus model will not work here), stop giving the impression it is the model you are adopting here.
The problem with that is, there is no way to keep such things completely under wraps. So once it leaks to the media, then you have a "secret military program" on your hands. That would probably be a bigger PR nightmare than the current one. It's a no-win situation.Work your way back, the best outcome is for Africom to do its job well, while giving the impression that Africom does not exist.
That's one of the problems Africom is trying to fix. They're trying to help host nations develop a professional military which doesn't committee genocide, rape or plan coups. The problem with that is sometimes (ok almost always) those "professional" military forces are turned against their own people. So once again it's a no-win for the US.Anyone who has studied the history of Africa knows that soldiers (both foreign and African) have a very bad reputation. Idi Amin was a soldier and so was Jean-Bedel Bokassa, Mobutu also pretended to be one.
My experience is that Africans are as distrustful of missionaries as they are of mercenaries.We have foreign missionaries as heroes, but not a single foreign soldier is treated as a hero in Africa.
Why? I enjoy the complimentary happy endings from the TSA.Cast your minds back to the world that existed before 9/11.
Africans generally like America. But they're also susceptible to rumors, conspiracy theories and the like. Starving people in East Africa appreciated those sacks of wheat with the red, white and blue stamp... but they were also convinced that the US boiled the wheat before shipping it so they wouldn't be able to sow the seeds. It is believed (even by the educated) that the US dumps millions tons of grain into the ocean each year to prevent prices from falling.
So this is not something that's gonna go away with a new agency name, logo, PR campaign or town hall meetings. That's just how people are. Nothing short of the US giving up any and all economic and political advantage (free trade, free travel zones, debt relief...) will satisfy the "Concerned Africa Scholars".
Americans did not colonize Africa; most of resentment for slavery is confined to the African-American community (not sure about west Africa). Africans in general dislike the Indians and they fear and dislike the Chinese even more. America on the other hand is usually well intentioned, transparent and accountable. Besides, the opposition to US military basing seems to be global... Japan, Korea, Guam (i think), Pakistan, Tajikistan (not sure if the deal fell through). The Africom issue is not unique.
Sorry it's 2am and i have to go to bed.
The experience so far is not good. See DRC training here
It is the religious/ethnic/tribal dynamics of most African countries that are not understood.
Heard on my grapevine recently that serving US officers have been traveling Africa (and Europe) and researching war in Africa and the use of indigenous troops (and possibly more). Accepting one has something to learn is certainly a step in the right direction (and makes for a nice change).
Hey JMA,
Some very good points and a rather sore one when trying to gather momentum.
Seven months ago our team also decided to make their African counterparts feel as much a part of the team as possible, and made sure that salaries and meals were part of the deal. It worked for the 6 months they were there, but leaving had some obvious ill effects. SIGH
At this point we decided to keep them all on the payroll and working independently. We're do for a quality control visit and let's see how well the equipment is maintained and how many hectares have been returned for agricultural use.
So, AFRICOM comes in theoretically speaking, discovers what everybody and his brother already know - that basic needs are not being met - and rape, pillage and plunder are the norm, and while being trained, the indigenous
personnel are fed and paid like normal people expect.
Exfil... See you later. What a strange concept with very good intentions !
I remain optimistic
If you want to blend in, take the bus
Stan, it's the 'C' word. Continuity.Hey JMA,
Some very good points and a rather sore one when trying to gather momentum.
Seven months ago our team also decided to make their African counterparts feel as much a part of the team as possible, and made sure that salaries and meals were part of the deal. It worked for the 6 months they were there, but leaving had some obvious ill effects. SIGH
At this point we decided to keep them all on the payroll and working independently. We're do for a quality control visit and let's see how well the equipment is maintained and how many hectares have been returned for agricultural use.
So, AFRICOM comes in theoretically speaking, discovers what everybody and his brother already know - that basic needs are not being met - and rape, pillage and plunder are the norm, and while being trained, the indigenous
personnel are fed and paid like normal people expect.
Exfil... See you later. What a strange concept with very good intentions !
I remain optimistic
It all fell apart in the old Brit colonies with the indigenous regiments when the (expat) officers packed up and went home (to mother Britain). It worked for the RAR (Rhodesian African Rifles) as for their officers Rhodesia was their home.
How long would it take to take 700 odd people and knock a battalion into shape (with some degree of sustainability)? Minimum ten years.
Oh yes, and you want to send out maximum number of African Americans - to take the racial edge off it all. Might not be PC, but that's the way to do it.
The last thing you want to be doing is training up future well trained genocidal militias which will happen if you are not careful.
Strange that, the African Americans in Zaire felt that it was harder for them to get along. We don't actually employ any Americans and our support and training is governed by Geneva (UN) and what we call IMAS - International Mine Action Standards. AFRICOM should be looking at our program so we can expand (hope we don't have to wear those funky patches with our baby blue helmets)
That's a tough one. The vetting process is straight forward but is dependent on the current host country government to provide information to initiate vetting.
If you want to blend in, take the bus
Once again, someone doesn't get strategic communication - at the highest levels in the US Government. It's not limited only to the bungling of the Africom announcement.I don't think much effort was made to get anyone "on board with AFRICOM" per se simply because AFRICOM does not represent any significant policy shift or effort: it's little more than an administrative shuffling of existing programs involving a quite minimal commitment of resources. Much of the reaction has been not to what AFRICOM actually is, which is not much, but to what AFRICOM has been portrayed as being.
You guys feel that once you've processed a concept within your system and you are okay with it, then all will be well. Because the innate goodness of America is apparent to all and that the whole World sees the Shining City on a Hill and America is an exceptional nation and Americans are exceptional people.
That mindset is great if you want to communicate with the American public, but the American public is not the only audience worth considering.
My major worry is not what Africom is or is not, but that the creators of Africom either don't get Africa or don't take Africa seriously enough. Neither is good. After Iraq and Afghanistan, you cannot afford to make that kind of blunder.
Africa is huge. The map below shows how massive it is.
You don't create a professional military in a vacuum!That's one of the problems Africom is trying to fix. They're trying to help host nations develop a professional military which doesn't committee genocide, rape or plan coups. The problem with that is sometimes (ok almost always) those "professional" military forces are turned against their own people. So once again it's a no-win for the US.
They don't get it at all. It's not limited to the AFRICOM announcement and it's not limited to Africa... here in Asia it's been a running theme for decades in my experience and much longer from the accounts of others. I've given up hoping for improvement.
Part of the problem is that those themes are almost mandatory in domestic political communication, but in today's world what's said for domestic consumption often goes out to a much wider audience... and often spills into non-domestic communication as well.
They don't get it, and probably never will. The blunders go back way farther than Iraq and Afghanistan, and they probably will continue. Fortunately that's not the end of the world. They never got Asia or Latin America and proceeded with epic blunders in both, but despite that there's been real progress in both domestic conditions and relations with the US.
“The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary”
H.L. Mencken
Posting Permissions
Bookmarks