Africom Stands Up 2006-2017

[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]

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

[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.

[jmm99]

Sub-Saharan Africa has very little economic significance or influence in the US; its two way trade in goods and services is ~1.5% of the US totals. So, where Africa stands is, as you say, established by the figures.

My point about the larger importance of Africa as an ancestral homeland is also established by the numbers: African-Americans (self-declared) at 12.6% of total population, and the Congressional Black Caucus (43 of 435 house members) at 10% of the House. If it weren't for those people, the significance of Africa in the US would be even smaller than it is.

No doubt that these are African-AMERICANS (had to do a shout-out on that one); that they are not the "Israel Lobby" (their issues are very much American, with some African-American issues); and that the Africans who came here via the Middle Passage developed their unique (and very African-American) sociology based on mixed African traditions (because of different places of African origin), as modified to meet American conditions and the "peculiar institution" of chattel slavery that had been imposed upon them.

Regards

Mike

[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.

You are very correct, RMA Sandhurst has a very small number of African cadets, but the ex-generals that are a significant proportion of Nigeria's ruling elite went to either RMA Sandhurst or Mons, Aldershot.

The Nigerian Army comes from a British tradition, not a US tradition and the Nigerian Defence Academy was initially modeled on RMA Sandhurst before it became a fully fledged university.

Add that to the fact that the first generation of Nigeria's ruling elite were British trained & a lot more Nigerian students study in Britain than the United States, our education system and professional bodies are based on equivalent British bodies, not American bodies.

About Boko Haram, even if British officialdom was correctly briefed about its rise, what could they possibly do? They don't govern Nigeria & the Nigerian government has its own peculiar methods of dealing with these sorts of problems, given its unique challenges like an incompetent police force & inadequate intelligence capabilities.

[KingJaja]

jmm99,

Sub-Saharan Africa has very little economic significance or influence in the US; its two way trade in goods and services is ~1.5% of the US totals. So, where Africa stands is, as you say, established by the figures.

My point about the larger importance of Africa as an ancestral homeland is also established by the numbers: African-Americans (self-declared) at 12.6% of total population, and the Congressional Black Caucus (43 of 435 house members) at 10% of the House. If it weren't for those people, the significance of Africa in the US would be even smaller than it is.

No doubt that these are African-AMERICANS (had to do a shout-out on that one); that they are not the "Israel Lobby" (their issues are very much American, with some African-American issues); and that the Africans who came here via the Middle Passage developed their unique (and very African-American) sociology based on mixed African traditions (because of different places of African origin), as modified to meet American conditions and the "peculiar institution" of chattel slavery that had been imposed upon them.

I think we both agree.

President Obama is an African American, but has his presidency led to increased economic engagement with the African continent or even a serious re-examination of US-Africa policy? No.

Obama released his Africa policy white paper a few months before the last presidential elections. I read it, it read like a badly written college term paper.

About African American engagement with the African continent, what does it mean in practice? Not very much. It means that Jendayi Fraser seen as manipulating the Ethiopians to invade Somalia on behalf of the US government. It means Susan Rice first ignores the Rwandan Genocide then gives a free pass to Kagame to run wild in Congo DRC (in addition to the carte blanche she gave Museveni & Meles Zenawi).

African American engagement with the African continent means that Louis Farrakhan jets off to visit his favorite dictator (Gaddafi or Abacha, pick your choice) or that Jesse Jackson delivers "after dinner speeches" for random dictators or that Oprah builds as school in South Africa (which she thinks is representative of the entire African continent).

In a nutshell, it doesn't mean much.

[KingJaja]

Interesting read, I'd love to read your comments.

A retired lieutenant colonel, who was said to have led the Boko Haram attacks on Damaturu, Yobe State, on Thursday was arrested by security forces during the encounter.

The retired army officer is being detained at a military facility.

It could not be ascertained as of the time of filing this report if he has been moved to Abuja for interrogation or not.

The Director of Army Public Relations, Brig. Gen. Ibrahim, had put the casualty figure on the part of the insurgents at 70 in a statement that was silent on the number of soldiers killed in the attack.

It was however, learnt that nine soldiers including a lieutenant and four policemen lost their lives in the attack.

“The retired lieutenant colonel was properly discharged from the Army and it was a big surprise when he was arrested and identified by those who knew him as a former officer,” an Army source said.

It was further learnt that the attack on security formations in Damaturu was to avenge the seizure of a truck containing military uniforms and arms by security forces.

http://www.punchng.com/news/army-arr...haram-attacks/

[jmm99]

though, of course, you come with a Nigerian slant; I come with an American slant; and our rhetoric may sometimes clash (or at least grate) for that reason.

IMO (to the end of post): African-American "engagement" with the African continent is very much the same as American "engagement" with the African continent. Whether a politician's desire for engagement is or was genuine requires knowing the politician. In the case of, say, John Conyers, George Crockett and Dennis Archer, I'd bet on genuineness; though each of them is or was admittedly far more knowledgeable and involved with American domestic issues. As to others I don't really know, I can only go on the record they've made - which often is conflicting.

In any event, in my perception, both American and African-American "engagements with Africa" are usually more rhetorical than anything else. If "a call to action" results in action, the resultant proxy action reminds everyone of the Cold War, neo-colonialism or neo-imperialism; and, to my perception, those proxy actions haven't gained much for the US. Most often, the rhetoric "speaks loudly" without a "big stick" (often without any stick). Better to speak not at all, than to speak against genocide and then do nothing about it; or, more frankly, better to directly state that we are going to do nothing about it, and take the heat for that honest statement.

End rant.

Regards

Mike

[KingJaja]

jmm99,

The problem is that rhetoric doesn't work that much anymore. You see, the US isn't facing an ideological foe like the Soviets or Mao's China, they are competing against (or pretending to compete against) the Chinese, Indians, Brazilians etc who get things done without talking much or saying anything at all.

Obama is all rhetoric and people in Africa can see right through him - but at least Obama, Bush and Clinton are better than previous presidents like Reagan who never bothered coming in the first place.

[Stan]

Obama is all rhetoric and people in Africa can see right through him - but at least Obama, Bush and Clinton are better than previous presidents like Reagan who never bothered coming in the first place.

You know that Obama's week-long trip to Africa cost the taxpayers 100 million ?

Why do we have to pay for him and his family to travel to countries that are recipients of donations and aid ? Seriously ?

Please put things into perspective bro !

[KingJaja]

Stan,

You know that Obama's week-long trip to Africa cost the taxpayers 100 million ?

Why do we have to pay for him and his family to travel to countries that are recipients of donations and aid ? Seriously ?

Please put things into perspective bro !

That's actually a double-edged sword. I'll explain why.

We actually read the coverage & criticism of Obama's trip to Africa & two main themes emerged.

1. The American public strongly believes that trips to Africa (by American presidents) aren't worth the bother/a waste of money. You have US diplomats trying to sell US to an increasingly better educated & increasingly skeptical African Middle Class, on the other hand the American public is saying: we already give millions in aid to these people, why is our president wasting money on a trip to visit them?

If I remember, the same thing was said about Clinton's visit to Africa (which cost about $42.8 million).

Cost is only an issue when American presidents visit Africa - is that the message America wants to send to Africa? It isn't a particularly smart message, cost is never an issue when US presidents visit other continents and with the Chinese we don't get any of that at all.

I come from Nigeria, we have issues, but we don't depend on US aid - you can look at the numbers from any reliable source. So you can imagine how out of tune that message sounds to me.

2. Since Americans have told Africans in no uncertain terms that Africa isn't worth visiting and Obama's trip is a waste of time/money, smart Africans will quickly extrapolate that Obama has very little political capital to do anything significant in Africa.

Once again, the Chinese (& other BRIC nations) don't suffer from the same limitations.

The trade figures tell the story, the attitudes of the American people support it - US is losing interest in Africa. Since that is the case, please allow us to do business with China, India or whoever without constant nagging.

[Stan]

Kingjaja,

Stan,

I come from Nigeria, we have issues, but we don't depend on US aid - you can look at the numbers from any reliable source. So you can imagine how out of tune that message sounds to me.

Well, that would explain nearly 93 million dollars in assistance in 2013 ?

You may not as an "educated middle class Nigerian" depend on that assistance, but, seems somebody does.

We are also about to fund EOD assistance to your military and law enforcement to better counter IEDs and the bomb makers. That, I assure you, your country needs.

It's not a slight, you have been receiving assistance for decades and I, as an American taxpayer see no use in spending 100 million on a boondoggle when that same amount of money can otherwise fund worthwhile projects that produce results. We know that, we've done that, and we have evidence that it works.

What exactly does a presidential visit do to increase awareness, decrease death, etc. ? Sorry, said visits are a waste of money and jet fuel.

Regards, Stan

[KingJaja]

Stan,

Well, that would explain nearly 93 million dollars in assistance in 2013 ?

You may not as an "educated middle class Nigerian" depend on that assistance, but, seems somebody does.

We are also about to fund EOD assistance to your military and law enforcement to better counter IEDs and the bomb makers. That, I assure you, your country needs.

It's not a slight, you have been receiving assistance for decades and I, as an American taxpayer see no use in spending 100 million on a boondoggle when that same amount of money can otherwise fund worthwhile projects that produce results. We know that, we've done that, and we have evidence that it works.

What exactly does a presidential visit do to increase awareness, decrease death, etc. ? Sorry, said visits are a waste of money and jet fuel.

Regards, Stan

Nigeria's Federal Budget is about $32 billion, the average state budget (we have 36 states) is about $1 billion. I'm sorry to say this, but $93 million dollars isn't very much money compared to those sums - & if US should stop all (or most of is assistance to Nigeria), Nigeria will not collapse.

This was exactly the same argument the Brits and the Indians had, & British are winding down on their aid commitments to India - & there's very little impact on India.

How many Nigerians depend on US aid? Poor, middle class or wealthy?

In fact, aid can be counter productive as Dambisa Moyo eloquently argued in Dead Aid, it doesn't always build local capacity nor does it promote accountability.

We both agree, Africa is too insignificant to warrant a visit from the US president. Since the Chinese, Russian & Brazilian leaders (and taxpayers) haven't voiced their opposition to funding boondoggles in Africa - let them come to Africa, if they bring business that can help me feed my children, well and good.

[Stan]

Yo Kingjaja !

Not much reason for us to delve into our government's squandering, as we both know, there is no logic and no public support therein.

I'll leave you with these links which are public info to the world including your nation's stats.

US Foreign Aid
Foreign Assistance
Nigerian Budget
How Can Africa Move Away from Aid Dependence
701,000 Nigerians Live Under Modern Slavery Conditions

We do not agree however that your country is insignificant.
A presidential or ministry visit is expensive and not warranted. Nothing that a simple phone call could not resolve. I think the numbers at the links above do in fact help you feed your children, but, my opinion.

Regards, Stan

Stan,



Nigeria's Federal Budget is about $32 billion, the average state budget (we have 36 states) is about $1 billion. I'm sorry to say this, but $93 million dollars isn't very much money compared to those sums - & if US should stop all (or most of is assistance to Nigeria), Nigeria will not collapse.

This was exactly the same argument the Brits and the Indians had, & British are winding down on their aid commitments to India - & there's very little impact on India.

How many Nigerians depend on US aid? Poor, middle class or wealthy?

In fact, aid can be counter productive as Dambisa Moyo eloquently argued in Dead Aid, it doesn't always build local capacity nor does it promote accountability.

We both agree, Africa is too insignificant to warrant a visit from the US president. Since the Chinese, Russian & Brazilian leaders (and taxpayers) haven't voiced their opposition to funding boondoggles in Africa - let them come to Africa, if they bring business that can help me feed my children, well and good.

[KingJaja]

Stan,

Yo Kingjaja !

Not much reason for us to delve into our government's squandering, as we both know, there is no logic and no public support therein.

I'll leave you with these links which are public info to the world including your nation's stats.

US Foreign Aid
Foreign Assistance
Nigerian Budget
How Can Africa Move Away from Aid Dependence
701,000 Nigerians Live Under Modern Slavery Conditions

We do not agree however that your country is insignificant.
A presidential or ministry visit is expensive and not warranted. Nothing that a simple phone call could not resolve. I think the numbers at the links above do in fact help you feed your children, but, my opinion.

Regards, Stan

These aren't the 90's - not everyone cares whether the US president visits Africa or not - Obama found that out the last time he came around & I doubt he'll ever come to Africa again as president.

The problem is that symbolism matters. The domestic situation in the US isn't going to prevent Chinese leaders from visiting Africa & if the best way forward for US-Africa relations is for US presidents not to visit the continent at all - then that's up to the American people.