What should Washington's relationship with the developing World be?

[KingJaja]

I think a very serious problem US analysts have is the assumption that French, British, Belgian and Portuguese intentions were/and still are pure. I've not seen much evidence of the US seriously probing say, British or French assumptions in the Middle East and Africa - instead, US takes them as gospel truth.

When the French and British ruled most of the globe, they picked favorites - and they still have favorites today; they haven't abandoned them. US policy has simply been to support the French and British - and their favorites - without fully understanding the societies they are dealing with. This we see in Mali, Niger, Chad and most of Sub-Saharan Africa.

The British governed most of Nigeria through Muslim Fulani aristocrats - their favorites. So British foreign policy in Nigeria will always be pro-Muslim Fulani aristocrat - and since US policy in Nigeria follows the lead of British policy, it will also have the same biases.

The policy of simply supporting ex-colonial powers and their favorites or seeing the Developing World through the eyes of ex-colonial powers might have worked during the Cold War; but it isn't going to work for very much longer.

The Chinese, for example are quite pragmatic about the way they see the World; they deal with present realities.

Why does the US insist on carrying the baggage of defunct British, French, Portuguese and Belgian colonial empires in the 21st Century? Are there no new thinkers or no new ways of thinking?

[Bill Moore]

U.S. has biases? Of course we do. Most Africans seem to have perceptions of the U.S. that are tainted with considerable bias also. Unfortunately bias is part of the human condition and it takes considerable conscious effort to mitigate its impact on our decision making.

As for the U.S. continuing to support legacy British and French policy in their colonies, that was true in the past so some extent, but I don't see it now. The U.S. supporting Muslims in Nigeria I suspect is a perception issue on your part because U.S. diplomats are probably pushing for the government of Nigeria to ensure the government takes care of all its citizens and not discriminate against a particular group, because it will undermine their security in the long run.

Our support for British and French colonial efforts after WWII due to our alliance relationships still haunts us today in a lot of way. We even allowed France to drag us into Vietnam with threats from French political leadership not being able to support the U.S. agenda in Europe if the U.S. doesn't support the French in Vietnam. France was very unstable politically after the war, and we weren't sure what camp they would ultimately fall in.

The Chinese, for example are quite pragmatic about the way they see the World; they deal with present realities.

If I correctly understand the Chinese approach in Africa it is one of non-interference, which I would think equates to supporting, even reinforcing, the status quo. Do most Africans enjoy the status quo. I realize their are many countries and cultures in Africa, but the problems of corruption and lack of opportunity seem to run through most of the countries. China is pragmatic about its self-interests, I think the U.S. actually has a longer term vision tied to the human condition throughout Africa.

Are there no new thinkers or no new ways of thinking?

We have plenty of people offering new idea, concepts, etc. To get those funded you have to get them through a stagnant Congress and in some cases an overly idealistic White House (Clinton/Bush).