Africom Stands Up 2006-2017

[KingJaja]

Stan,

I was trying to bare my mind. Yes, Chinese actually speak English (& pidgin), but probably due to their socio-economic status (which is closer to the "natives"), they tend to be more at "ground level".

We agree that the USG will be challenged in its engagement in Africa. Africa is of relatively little importance to the American people & it is very difficult to sell a sustained, significant engagement there to them.

I don't have a "hard on" for AFRICOM, my views on AFRICOM are typical for an educated African (go to South Africa, you'll hear an earful). Isn't it better for me to say what's on my mind, so we can arrive at a common understanding?

About the last point - the Vietnamese saw their war in nationalist terms, it took the US a bit of time to see it that way. In Iraq, it took the US quite some to understand the rifts between Shia & Sunni or the internal workings of Iraqi society.

I see the same thing at play in Mali. Mali is being framed in terms of the "war on terror" - but it goes deeper. The French know well enough that the Tuaregs have had a long running rebellion against first French colonialists, then with the government in Bamako. Will the US have the patience to untangle this mess & engage productively with all parties in the conflict? I doubt it.

Northern Nigeria is no less complex - the US ambassador here has made statements that are so ill-judged that he had to be summoned to explain what exactly he meant.

[Stan]

Stan,

I was trying to bare my mind. Yes, Chinese actually speak English (& pidgin), but probably due to their socio-economic status (which is closer to the "natives"), they tend to be more at "ground level".

OK, my bad ! I often get where you’re coming from
One’s status at an embassy abroad is bit tricky. Although I had more freedom that others and the trust of the Ambassador, I couldn’t go around acting or looking like a homeless person. At least not as a US Soldier.

We agree that the USG will be challenged in its engagement in Africa. Africa is of relatively little importance to the American people & it is very difficult to sell a sustained, significant engagement there to them.

There are over 260,000 Nigerians living in America and 10% of those have post graduate degrees. That’s not only a big deal, that’s a strong voice. They are either not supporting you back home, or have no immediate intentions of returning “home”. In comparison, there are but 25,000 Estonians living in America. Also very well educated, but, staunch supporters in Washington.

I don't have a "hard on" for AFRICOM, my views on AFRICOM are typical for an educated African (go to South Africa, you'll hear an earful). Isn't it better for me to say what's on my mind, so we can arrive at a common understanding?

No problems with you spilling your guts. At least I get to intervene and explain the nuts and bolts

About the last point - the Vietnamese saw their war in nationalist terms, it took the US a bit of time to see it that way. In Iraq, it took the US quite some to understand the rifts between Shia & Sunni or the internal workings of Iraqi society.

Yes, most are still stymied by the cultural gap. But, entering those countries for purely political reasons is where most see the underlying problems. French colonial rule in Vietnam was certainly not a demonstration of cultural awareness either.

I see the same thing at play in Mali. Mali is being framed in terms of the "war on terror" - but it goes deeper. The French know well enough that the Tuaregs have had a long running rebellion against first French colonialists, then with the government in Bamako. Will the US have the patience to untangle this mess & engage productively with all parties in the conflict? I doubt it.

As of late September there is little more being planned for Mali other than release of aid and continuing cooperation with international players. Even before President Keita was inaugurated, US involvement was limited to logistical support to the French. I doubt Obama wants another disaster, and I doubt the American public will support him if he was to.

Northern Nigeria is no less complex - the US ambassador here has made statements that are so ill-judged that he had to be summoned to explain what exactly he meant.

I was unable to find any recent statements by Ambassador McCulley. Are we talking about the current Chargé d’Affaires Maria Brewer ? She has been in charge since August 2013 (meaning there is no Ambassador in Abuja).

Regards, Stan

[KingJaja]

OK, my bad ! I often get where you’re coming from
One’s status at an embassy abroad is bit tricky. Although I had more freedom that others and the trust of the Ambassador, I couldn’t go around acting or looking like a homeless person. At least not as a US Soldier.

The Chinese (due to their socio-economic status) are more likely to live among natives & move around natives without arousing too much suspicion. Now if any of the many Chinese I see around Nigeria (all nooks & crannies) are involved in intelligence gathering or in-country studies - then Beijing is likely to have a better understanding of Africa within a generation than any Western power.

There are over 260,000 Nigerians living in America and 10% of those have post graduate degrees. That’s not only a big deal, that’s a strong voice. They are either not supporting you back home, or have no immediate intentions of returning “home”. In comparison, there are but 25,000 Estonians living in America. Also very well educated, but, staunch supporters in Washington.

Nigerians in the US are divided along ethnic & religious lines. 260,000 isn't very significant in a nation of 300 million - especially a nation that has little interest in Africa. In addition, Nigerians don't exactly have a stellar reputation in the US. So I don't see US attitudes towards Nigeria changing in my lifetime.

Yes, most are still stymied by the cultural gap. But, entering those countries for purely political reasons is where most see the underlying problems. French colonial rule in Vietnam was certainly not a demonstration of cultural awareness either.

I don't know much about the French in Indo-China, but I know a lot about the British in Nigeria (and the French must have done something similar in their colonies). Understanding native cultures was the key to a successful colonial enterprise. The Brits governed Nigeria with a few thousand administrators and soldiers, so they had to lean heavily on local administration structures.

For example, in Northern Nigeria, the British used Islamic emirs to administer the empire, collect taxes & administer justice. They made mistakes along the way - and they adjusted. This was very similar to British rule in India through the "Maharajahs".

In South Western Nigeria, the traditional leadership structure was less absolute, women were better represented in the traditional structure - once again, the British adjusted to the peculiarities of that part of Nigeria.

In the South East, traditional rule was more democratic and an attempt by the British to impose "warrant chiefs" & collect taxes led to a riot by market women in 1929 (in Aba). The British had to adjust, and make more use of "district commissioners".

The British & French had scores of "district commissioners" (or their equivalent) who not only spoke the native languages but had a pretty good understanding the lay of the land. The British Army was structured a lot differently from today's US Army - there was the "Colonial/Indian Army" (in which officers spent entire careers in) and the regular British Army.

My point? British & French have institutional knowledge that the US will never/can never have.

I was unable to find any recent statements by Ambassador McCulley. Are we talking about the current Chargé d’Affaires Maria Brewer ? She has been in charge since August 2013 (meaning there is no Ambassador in Abuja).

I didn't know McCulley was no longer ambassador? He was queried over his call for the Nigerian government to establish a "Ministry of Northern Affairs". He was unaware that the term "Northern Nigeria" was pregnant with political symbolism or that it would be difficult to make a case for diversion of Niger Delta resources to solve a problem in Nigeria's North when the Niger Delta is also grappling with its own insurgency.

Added to that is the impression that US was telling Nigeria how to run its internal affairs.

Simply put, a UK High Commissioner is unlikely to be caught making such a gaffe - they understand context better.

[KingJaja]

Stan,

One more thing - you aren't going to see the Brits playing a significant role in the military of former French colonies. Similarly you won't see the French playing a significant role in the military of former British colonies. Both nations have their "comfort zones" and tend to stick with them.

Unfortunately, the US has no such advantages in Africa (except say, Liberia).

Finally, if you consider that US interests in Africa are mainly oil & gas & counter-terrorism (which I don't think will be sustained for long) - I don't think US will have a significant, sustained role in Africa. The interest isn't there, the economic case is weak (US isn't that interested in Africa's commodities, except oil & gas) and US is also downsizing.

On the other hand, China, India & other BRIC nations have a serious economic case for multi-decade engagement with Africa. So US, as always, will be a marginal player in Africa.

[jmm99]

of Sub-Saharan Africa to the US - based on the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative (USTR) data.

Here are the big three.

Canada:

U.S. goods and services trade with Canada totaled over $680 billion in 2011 (latest data available for goods and services trade). Exports totaled $337 billion; Imports totaled $343 billion. The U.S. goods and services trade deficit with Canada was $6 billion in 2011.

Canada is currently our largest goods trading partner with $616 billion in total (two ways) goods trade during 2012. Goods exports totaled $292 billion; Goods imports totaled $324 billion. The U.S. goods trade deficit with Canada was $32 billion in 2012.

Trade in services with Canada (exports and imports) totaled $84 billion in 2011 (latest data available). Services exports were $56 billion; Services imports were $28 billion. The U.S. services trade surplus with Canada was $28 billion in 2011. ...

China:

U.S. goods and services trade with China totaled $539 billion in 2011. Exports totaled $129 billion; Imports totaled $411 billion. The U.S. goods and services trade deficit with China was $282 billion in 2011.

China is currently our 2nd largest goods trading partner with $503 billion in total (two ways) goods trade during 2011. Goods exports totaled $104 billion; Goods imports totaled $399 billion. The U.S. goods trade deficit with China was $295 billion in 2011.

Trade in services with China (exports and imports) totaled $36 billion in 2011 (preliminary data). Services exports were $25 billion; Services imports were $11 billion. The U.S. services trade surplus with China was $13 billion in 2011. ...

Mexico:

U.S. goods and services trade with Mexico totaled $500 billion in 2011 (latest data available for goods and services trade). Exports totaled $224 billion; Imports totaled $277 billion. The U.S. goods and services trade deficit with Mexico was $53 billion in 2011.

Mexico is currently our 3rd largest goods trading partner with $494 billion in total (two ways) goods trade during 2012. Goods exports totaled $216 billion; Goods imports totaled $278 billion. The U.S. goods trade deficit with Mexico was $61 billion in 2012.

Trade in services with Mexico (exports and imports) totaled $39 billion in 2011 (latest data available). Services exports were $25 billion; Services imports were $14 billion. The U.S. services trade surplus with Mexico was $11 billion in 2011. ...

So, we are dealing in ~ 1.7 trillion $US, in two way trade in goods and services, with these three primary trading partners.

Moving on to our first region, the Western Hemisphere:

U.S. goods and services trade with the Western Hemisphere totaled $1.7 trillion in 2011. Exports totaled $817 billion; Imports totaled $865 billion. The U.S. goods and services trade deficit with the Western Hemisphere was $47 billion in 2011.

The United States has $1.4 trillion in total (two ways) goods trade with Western Hemisphere countries during 2011. Goods exports totaled $646 billion; Goods imports totaled $751 billion. The U.S. goods trade deficit with the Western Hemisphere was $105 billion in 2011.

Trade in services with the Western Hemisphere (exports and imports) totaled $285 billion in 2011. Services exports were $171 billion; Services imports were $113 billion. The U.S. services trade surplus with the Western Hemisphere was $58 billion in 2011. ...

The Pacific Rim countries (including China) amount to somewhat less than the Western Hemisphere:

Korea 125
Japan 267
China 539
HK 54
Taiwan 85
Aus-NZ 71
Misc 2
ASEAN 228

A total of 1.371 trillion $US. Thus, so far regionally, the US "pivots" should be first to the Western Hemisphere and then to the Pacific Rim, which the United States (as a nation) comes very close to physically touching.

Europe amounts to a bit less than the Pacific Rim:

EU 986
Turkey 20
Switz 80
Norw 15
Russia 43
Ukraine 4

A total of 1.148 trillion $US. The Middle East/North Africa (MENA) countries don't amount to all that much in US economic terms:

The United States had $215 billion in total (two ways) goods trade with MENA countries during 2008. Goods exports totaled $67 billion; Imports totaled $139 billion. The U.S. goods trade deficit with the MENA countries was $72 billion in 2008. ...

Sub-Saharan Africa comes in still lower than the MENA countries:

Total US two-way goods today with sub-Saharan Africa was $72.0 billion in 2012. Goods exports totaled $22.5 billion; Goods imports totaled $49.6 billion. ...

Sub-Saharan Africa has far more ancestral significance to Americans; in 2010, 38.9 million African-Americans (12.6% of total pop.) (Wiki).

Looking at it from an economic standpoint, the US has little reason to be involved in the MENA countries, Sub-Saharan Africa and Central/South Asia ($122 billion), as compared to much more important regions and countries.

Regards

Mike

[KingJaja]

jmm99,

Sub-Saharan Africa has far more ancestral significance to Americans; in 2010, 38.9 million African-Americans (12.6% of total pop.) (Wiki).

Looking at it from an economic standpoint, the US has little reason to be involved in the MENA countries, Sub-Saharan Africa and Central/South Asia ($122 billion), as compared to much more important regions and countries.

I don't think the "ancestral significance" has ever amounted to much - or will ever amount to much in future. This isn't the Israeli lobby in the United States - these are people cut off from their roots - i.e. they know their ancestors came from Africa, but they don't know exactly where, so the links aren't that strong.

The figures don't lie - US is destined to be a marginal player in Africa. I expect its share of African trade to decline as the years go by - and also its interest in the continent.

If Al Qaeda & its affiliates weren't roaming around the Sahel, US would have forgotten about Africa - a long time ago (it has its oil & gas concessions, it would do the usual unimaginative NGO/Aid routine - & that's about it).

[Stan]

Kingjaja,

Stan,

One more thing - you aren't going to see the Brits playing a significant role in the military of former French colonies. Similarly you won't see the French playing a significant role in the military of former British colonies. Both nations have their "comfort zones" and tend to stick with them.

Unfortunately, the US has no such advantages in Africa (except say, Liberia).

This British article explains things a little better

As Africa's former rulers, Britain bears some of the responsibility for the way the continent has turned out. Mali became a French territory during the "Scramble for Africa" of the late 19th century: a struggle between European powers to carve the continent up between them, for their own reasons – trade, natural resources – and not Africa's. A little later it was said to be for the Africans' benefit too. Britain was "civilising" them. That was a pretty arrogant claim, especially in view of some of the features of "civilisation" we were bringing them, like exploitative capitalism. In any case no one would argue today that the project was entirely successful: either because it was ill-conceived in the first place, or because we didn't pursue it seriously enough. (Old imperialists would say it was because we "scuttled" too early.) Some of Africa's present-day problems – not by any means all – are due to that. So it's up to us to put things right. "You broke it; you mend it."

Much more at the link !

Finally, if you consider that US interests in Africa are mainly oil & gas & counter-terrorism (which I don't think will be sustained for long) - I don't think US will have a significant, sustained role in Africa. The interest isn't there, the economic case is weak (US isn't that interested in Africa's commodities, except oil & gas) and US is also downsizing.

On the other hand, China, India & other BRIC nations have a serious economic case for multi-decade engagement with Africa. So US, as always, will be a marginal player in Africa.

Even oil and gas may not be sufficient to maintain interests. For the first time since 2000, the US in 2012 did not import LNG from Africa. That same year, Asia overtook Europe in oil and gas from Africa. A good reason to hang around in Africa and let the USA pump oil and gas from her own backyard.

Regards, Stan

[KingJaja]

Stan,

Years ago I would have agreed with you. But that so-called institutional knowledge and those that possessed such talents from a colonial era are all but dead and gone. To say that English and French governments continue to rely on 75 year-old experiences is doubtful. Just as much as today’s Africa is stuck in the 60s. Business and diplomatic practices have to evolve with every new administration both home and abroad.

The French never really left Africa. Some of my colleagues did a consulting job in Cote D'Ivoire - they still run that place. Same applies to Gabon, Djibouti and most of Francophone Africa.

Question: who controls and regulates the CFA? (currency used in most of Francophone Africa). Answer: the French

For the British it is a bit different, they don't control their ex-colonies like the French, but they work extra hard on ensuring that bonds formed during the colonial era are kept intact.

Bonds formed in Sandhurst are carefully nurtured. The British have a special relationship with Nigeria's most important traditional rulers & those relationships are carefully nurtured (e.g. the Emir of Kano regularly visits Britain).

The US government's only presence in Nigeria is in Lagos and Abuja. In contrast, British council offices are found in all of Nigeria's regions, so they are better positioned to understand Nigeria than the US is.

There are two things: firstly, the US is already at a disadvantage in Africa (with respect to the French & the British). Secondly, the US simply hasn't made or isn't willing to make the same investment in nurturing ties with African nations as the British or the French (at least since the Cold War ended).

Every smart person in Africa knows:

1. The US is losing interest in Africa - if not for oil & counter-terrorism, they would have left immediately after the Cold War ended.

2. Economic interest is key and since the likes of India & China have the most serious future economic interests, then we have to deal with them, whether we like them or not. (For e.g. China is VERY interested in Africa's consumer markets, but the US is too rich to be bothered with African consumers).

[davidbfpo]

Kingjaja,

A couple of points.

I am aware that British officialdom in Nigeria were advised about the rise of Boko Haram, with its attendant dangers, but rejected such inputs from NGOs etc who were actually on the ground in the north-east. Apparently preferring to rely on information from Nigerian liaison.

Yes, RMA Sandhurst does have a number of African cadets and from viewing a couple of Passing Out brochures I'd be surprised if more than two Nigerians attend each year. Generally there are more Arab nationals than Africans; then add in the Caribbean nations, especially Jamaica.

[Stan]

My point? British & French have institutional knowledge that the US will never/can never have.

Years ago I would have agreed with you. But that so-called institutional knowledge and those that possessed such talents from a colonial era are all but dead and gone. To say that English and French governments continue to rely on 75 year-old experiences is doubtful. Just as much as today’s Africa is stuck in the 60s. Business and diplomatic practices have to evolve with every new administration both home and abroad.

I didn't know McCulley was no longer ambassador? He was queried over his call for the Nigerian government to establish a "Ministry of Northern Affairs". He was unaware that the term "Northern Nigeria" was pregnant with political symbolism or that it would be difficult to make a case for diversion of Niger Delta resources to solve a problem in Nigeria's North when the Niger Delta is also grappling with its own insurgency.

There is nothing other than what is in the Nigerian press I can read on the former Ambassador’s press release or statement. Not even at State dot GOV. I’d love to read the real transcript should you run across it.

Added to that is the impression that US was telling Nigeria how to run its internal affairs.

Well, that unfortunately is what the Embassy gets to do abroad. Tell the host government what the current US Administration thinks and how to solve problems from 7,000 miles away. Glad I survived those days !

Simply put, a UK High Commissioner is unlikely to be caught making such a gaffe - they understand context better.

Nope, the UK Parliament would never allow such a mistake and the US Congress and Senate could care less if Obama dorks it up !

Regards, Stan