'Nigeria: the context for violence' (2006-2013)

[KingJaja]

I agree with your analysis. The US is geared up to fight the last war (against Al Qaeda) not the present war.

On September 11, 2001, Nigeria was consumed by a massive spree of Christian vs Muslim violence. The West largely forgot about this in the build up to Afghanistan and Iraq.

Boko Haram is a continuation of a long war that predates the birth of Osam Bin Laden - the struggle between Evangelical Christianity and Fundamentalist Islam interspersed with poverty and inter-ethnic tensions. From where you live in the West, you label it "terrorism". We see it as an identity war.

From Ivory Coast, to Nigeria, to Kenya, Ethiopia and Somalia. This war has been interpreted as a struggle between Islam and Christianity (and its supporters - i.e. the West). These Islamic fundamentalists look forward to fighting a modern day version of the Thirty Years Wars.

And the US might just grant them their wish by not reading the tea leaves correctly. Africa is full of fragile, failing states. The West needs to balance the risk of massive state failure across the Sahel with whatever benefits are to be gained from killing a few so-called "terrorists".

Once again, it's not your fight.

[Chowing]

According to a recent BBC report, the official policy of the Nigerian government toward the Boko Haram terrorist group is one of “carrot and stick.” A major requisite of such a policy is for the government and Boko Haram to set down together and attempt to understand each party’s position and work toward some sort of compromise. Yet, back on February 23 of this year the Chief of Defense Staff, Air Chief Marshal Oluseyi Petinrin, seemed to express quite another position when he said that the defense commanders would never share a negotiation table with Boko Haram leaders.

So what next?

See complete article at Terrorism In Africa.

[Stan]

I don't know that "carrot and the stick approach" translates into peace talks. It seems to me the question is more "How should the Nigerian govt. deal with the Boko Haram Terrorists?"

I recall reading about a Nigerian request/U.S. offer to train on counter terrorism. If I'm not mistaken there are Nigerian military units already being trained or, even back home.

[Dayuhan]

I recall reading about a Nigerian request/U.S. offer to train on counter terrorism. If I'm not mistaken there are Nigerian military units already being trained or, even back home.

I wonder what the actual content of this sort of training would be. Americans tend to push their definitions of "terrorism" into the mold of "AQ/international Islamist terrorism" whether or not it fits, which of course conditions the approaches used to counter it. I wonder how appropriate that would be to a situation where "terrorism" springs from long-running local sectarian conflict deriving primarily or entirely from local issues.

Possibly because I also live in a country where Americans have interpreted long running local sectarian conflict through the distorted lens of their views on international terrorism, I share KingJaJa's concerns about the prospects for US involvement. I hope we stay out of it.

[KingJaja]

I would be an enthusiastic supporter of US intervention / training if the US had a good track record with counter terrorism against Muslim fundamentalists (Afghanistan, Iraq, Yemen, anyone?). American advice usually results in tactics that blow problems out of proportion (Algeria).

You can't do an Algeria in Nigeria without Nigeria disintegrating.

The rank and file of the Nigerian Military is from the North and tends to be Muslim (a legacy of British rule). There is a limit to how far a Christian president could go without seriously compromising his grip on power. On the other hand, if the Christian population comes to the conclusion that Jonathan is being targeted by a host of forces sympathetic to Islam (many Christians share that view) then the bonds between the North and the South will be further broken.

Boko Haram presents a unique problem, because unlike the Niger Delta Militants they have unacceptable and unreasonable demands.

Boko Haram hints of a much more serious problem - tens of millions of poorly educated, unemployed youth across the entire Sahel region. They have no future, no-hope and are easy cannon fodder for the latest Islamic zealot. They are known locally as "almajiris" and they have been with us, forever. At least 1 million of them live in one city - Kano (in Northern Nigeria). At least 15 - 20 million live in Northern Nigeria.

The almajiri system works like this: at an early age boys are sent off with a begging bowl to be taught by a local mullah (who passed through the same almajiri system). They learn the Quran by rote in the morning and beg in the evening. They leave quranic school with no marketable skills and a very narrow view of the World.

It is easy to see how Boko Haram could hijack the almajiri system and create an massive army of willing cannon fodder in a very short time.

We saw this coming and warned the Nigerian Government to do something about it (the Nigerian Government was dominated by Northern politicians and generals from 1979 - 1999), yet nothing was done. This problem was ignored because the almajiri provided a steady supply of easily manipulated muscle.

The problem with Sub-Saharan Africa and the Muslim World is not "hatred of the US system of Government" or "Terrorism" but fifty years of bad governance, fifty years of unemployment and underinvestment in education and infrastructure. Africom cannot and will not solve these deep underlying problems.

For the first time in Africa, we have a generation that disrespects elders and authority figures (for the right reasons - our elders are liars and embezzlers of public funds). There is also massive disrespect of the instruments of authority (the Nigerian Security forces are even less liked than Boko Haram in MANY parts of Nigeria).

To such people, Osama Bin Laden (this may shock you) is an icon. He is seen as less of a terrorist and more of a Che Guevara type figure. (The ruling elite in the most corrupt and decadent regimes in Africa have strong ties with the West and Osama is the most prominent anti-Western figure in living memory for many of these young Muslim men).

(It is instructive to note that one of the most prominent Niger Delta Militants - Mujahid Dokubo Asari professed admiration for Osama Bin Laden, and the Niger Delta Area is predominantly Christian!).

Nigeria needs to provide employment opportunities and to educate its young men and women. Unfortunately the Nigerian Government neither has the capacity nor the desire to do so (and if the Nigerian Government cannot do it, then neither can USAID).

So a combination of Christian / Muslim violence in Nigeria's Middle Belt, Islamic terrorism and Niger Delta Militancy will eventually dismember the Nigerian State. The resulting states will hopefully, be more ethnically and religiously homogeneous and better adjusted to promote economic growth.

That is Nigeria's future and the US cannot stop it from happening.

[Dayuhan]

To such people, Osama Bin Laden (this may shock you) is an icon.

No shock at all on my part, and I don't suppose many here would be shocked.

Nigeria needs to provide employment opportunities and to educate its young men and women. Unfortunately the Nigerian Government neither has the capacity nor the desire to do so (and if the Nigerian Government cannot do it, then neither can USAID).

Hypothetically, if an enlightened Nigerian Government embarked on a massive, sustained investment of oil income in industry and agriculture in poverty-stricken areas... would that make a difference in your opinion, or is it already too late? I realize that this scenario is both hypothetical and improbable.

So a combination of Christian / Muslim violence in Nigeria's Middle Belt, Islamic terrorism and Niger Delta Militancy will eventually dismember the Nigerian State. The resulting states will hopefully, be more ethnically and religiously homogeneous and better adjusted to promote economic growth.

That is Nigeria's future and the US cannot stop it from happening.

Thank you for an honest opinion, if not one that many would like to hear. It sounds a harsh future for Nigerians: even if the states resulting from such a dismemberment were more viable and had a better future, I'd guess that the process of getting to that future is likely to be difficult and violent.

[Stan]

I wonder what the actual content of this sort of training would be. Americans tend to push their definitions of "terrorism" into the mold of "AQ/international Islamist terrorism" whether or not it fits, which of course conditions the approaches used to counter it. I wonder how appropriate that would be to a situation where "terrorism" springs from long-running local sectarian conflict deriving primarily or entirely from local issues.

Possibly because I also live in a country where Americans have interpreted long running local sectarian conflict through the distorted lens of their views on international terrorism, I share KingJaJa's concerns about the prospects for US involvement. I hope we stay out of it.

Hey Dayuhan,
I certainly didn't want my post to sound as if this training was going to cure Nigeria's problems with Boko Haram, and, fully agree with you and Jaja having spent over a decade in Sub-Sahara. On the other hand, some basic form of training and assistance doesn't have to translate into a bad thing assuming (ahem) those trained don't turn that training onto the population and lead to an even more corrupt govt and system. Our training of late no longer uses the 1980s cookie cutter and shows more hope at understanding what affects cultural differences have. I may be a little too optimistic though

The problem with Sub-Saharan Africa and the Muslim World is not "hatred of the US system of Government" or "Terrorism" but fifty years of bad governance, fifty years of unemployment and underinvestment in education and infrastructure. Africom cannot and will not solve these deep underlying problems.

For the first time in Africa, we have a generation that disrespects elders and authority figures (for the right reasons - our elders are liars and embezzlers of public funds). There is also massive disrespect of the instruments of authority (the Nigerian Security forces are even less liked than Boko Haram in MANY parts of Nigeria).

Hei Jaja,
Great posts and welcome aboard !
It's a shame that so many of us realize what AFRICOM and USAID can't see staring them in the face. Adding a western military element to Nigeria will be a disaster and I agree with you, it is not our fight. I do however see ways that training and assistance can be beneficial. There are many programs that EUCOM provides that have no law enforcement or military twist. I spend a lot of time at schools, academies and hospitals and feel my contributions over the last 15 years have made a difference. Cultural differences are a hurdle for many here and forcing it down their throats won't work as it won't in Africa.

Regards, Stan

[KingJaja]

Hypothetically, if an enlightened Nigerian Government embarked on a massive, sustained investment of oil income in industry and agriculture in poverty-stricken areas... would that make a difference in your opinion, or is it already too late? I realize that this scenario is both hypothetical and improbable.

Nigeria is a contraption that depends on compromises by each of the six geopolitical zones and the thirty six states to maintain a semblance of stability. So Nigeria is not designed for economic growth but to (a) balance the competing demands of mutually antagonistic ethnic groups and (b) share the proceeds from Oil Wealth.

For the ruling elite, this is the most important thing, job creation and economic growth are secondary.

Consequently, unqualified people occupy key positions in the Civil Service simply because they come from a particular zone / state and they need to fill in the numbers. The federal cabinet is bloated, there are thirty six states in Nigeria and the constitution mandates that a cabinet-level minister most come from each state. So the federal cabinet normally consists of at least forty ministers.

These people are very expensive to maintain.

Nigerian parliamentarians are among the best paid in the World (about $1 million per annum in a country where the vast majority live on less than $2 a day). In addition, Nigeria loses about $3 billion per year to corruption.

This is why the federal budget barely covers recurrent expenditure and Government lacks the capacity to deliver public goods. (Electricity generation is a paltry 4,000MW on a good day, Healthcare expenditure per capita is a mere $10).

The management of the amnesty program for Niger Delta militants shows that the Nigerian government lacks the basic competence to distribute a fixed sum (about $400 per month) to a relatively small number of people in a timely manner. So job creation is certainly out of the question.

PS: Most of the targets of the last Boko Haram episode were Christians. This is a picture of one of the victims, so you'll (a) attach a face to the news story and (b) appreciate the level of tension between the Christian and Muslim community.



The was the younger sister of a Nollywood actress.

[KingJaja]

Great posts and welcome aboard !
It's a shame that so many of us realize what AFRICOM and USAID can't see staring them in the face. Adding a western military element to Nigeria will be a disaster and I agree with you, it is not our fight. I do however see ways that training and assistance can be beneficial. There are many programs that EUCOM provides that have no law enforcement or military twist. I spend a lot of time at schools, academies and hospitals and feel my contributions over the last 15 years have made a difference. Cultural differences are a hurdle for many here and forcing it down their throats won't work as it won't in Africa.

Thanks.

The most important things Africa needs are (a) renegotiation of the basis for nationhood - i.e. is a confederation of semi autonomous regions preferable to a winner takes all democracy and (b) an infusion of investment and job creation.

If (a) and (b) don't happen peacefully, they'll happen violently and Al Qaeda has a lot of raw materials to work with where I live. Africans are much better informed than they were ten years ago (there are already 300 million cell phones in Africa). So the dynamics have changed.

We'll appreciate Western diplomats who interact as much with the African people as they do with the power brokers. We'll also appreciate some bold new thinking on Africa - since almost everything that was tried in the past has failed, isn't it time to try something bold and new?

[Dayuhan]

On the other hand, some basic form of training and assistance doesn't have to translate into a bad thing assuming (ahem) those trained don't turn that training onto the population and lead to an even more corrupt govt and system. Our training of late no longer uses the 1980s cookie cutter and shows more hope at understanding what affects cultural differences have. I may be a little too optimistic though

I didn't mean to suggest that it would be a bad thing. I was wondering - literally wondering, in the sense of I don't know and I wonder what others think - about the extent to which counterterrorism training specifically is affected by prevailing American assumptions about AQ, and the extent to which it would apply to a situation rooted in local sectarian conflict.

It's a shame that so many of us realize what AFRICOM and USAID can't see staring them in the face.

Do they really not see it, or are they stuck with faraway masters who don't listen to them and insist that they Do Something, or at least provide some option for doing something?

The most important things Africa needs are (a) renegotiation of the basis for nationhood - i.e. is a confederation of semi autonomous regions preferable to a winner takes all democracy and (b) an infusion of investment and job creation.

That seems reasonable, but do you see a way that these can be provided or advanced effectively by any outside power? The idea of Americans or Europeans or Chinese trying to renegotiate the basis for African nationhood (or even to facilitate that renegotiation) seems very dangerous to me, especially given the numerous vested interests involved. Investment also is a two-edged sword, as outside investors find themselves with an incentive to support a status quo that is often insupportable. My gut feeling is that these initiatives need to be local to the greatest possible extent... but that may not be practical in many cases either. Not easy.

I realize that the Boko Haram attacks have been largely aimed at Christians, but is that representative of a pattern or does the history of sectarian conflict involve attacks and violence in both directions? I ask because sectarian conflict in the Philippines and Indonesia, the areas I've been closest to, is often presented to Americans purely as Muslim aggression against Christians, while the historical reality is a good deal more complicated. I'm wondering if this is an analogous situation.

[M-A Lagrange]

The most important things Africa needs are (a) renegotiation of the basis for nationhood - i.e. is a confederation of semi autonomous regions preferable to a winner takes all democracy and (b) an infusion of investment and job creation.

This is reasonnable but not working. In most of cases, my experience unfortunately tels me that the "semi autonomous" will act as autonomous and will never accept any central power. But that can be discussed and argued.

About employment and jobs... If you manage to take nepotism out of Africa than you are good, reall good!
It's kind of the ciment of politics in that continent.

[KingJaja]

That seems reasonable, but do you see a way that these can be provided or advanced effectively by any outside power? The idea of Americans or Europeans or Chinese trying to renegotiate the basis for African nationhood (or even to facilitate that renegotiation) seems very dangerous to me, especially given the numerous vested interests involved. Investment also is a two-edged sword, as outside investors find themselves with an incentive to support a status quo that is often insupportable. My gut feeling is that these initiatives need to be local to the greatest possible extent... but that may not be practical in many cases either. Not easy.

This has been done before - South Sudan.

Congo DRC, Ivory Coast and Nigeria have been in a state of heightened tension for at least a decade. These nations pass from election-cycle to election-cycle without a clear resolution to the agitations between rival ethnic / religious groupings. It will be clear to all in the next few decades that the costs of retaining the status quo far exceed the costs of (a) re-negotiating the basis of statehood or (b) re-drawing borders and creating new states.

This will require a new type of Western/Chinese diplomat, but necessity is the mother of invention.

I realize that the Boko Haram attacks have been largely aimed at Christians, but is that representative of a pattern or does the history of sectarian conflict involve attacks and violence in both directions? I ask because sectarian conflict in the Philippines and Indonesia, the areas I've been closest to, is often presented to Americans purely as Muslim aggression against Christians, while the historical reality is a good deal more complicated. I'm wondering if this is an analogous situation.

Muslim / Christian attacks are common, with both sides sharing blame. However, Muslims take most of the blame because they are usually the initiators of violence and Christian violence is normally in retaliation to attacks by Muslims.

Christians are seen as representatives of the West. When the West invaded Afghanistan, Christians were attacked and during the Danish cartoon crisis, Christians were are attacked and killed. In retaliation Christians killed Muslims.

Boko Haram is slightly different. They are not your usual run of the mill anti-Christian organisation. They are terrorists who see Government institutions, fellow Muslims and Security agents as fair game (a bit like Al Qaeda in Iraq). They also attack Christians (like Al Qaeda in Iraq). Unfortunately a not so insignificant population of Muslims in Northern Nigeria sympathize with their aims and their methods.

[KingJaja]

This is reasonnable but not working. In most of cases, my experience unfortunately tels me that the "semi autonomous" will act as autonomous and will never accept any central power. But that can be discussed and argued.

Before the Civil War, Nigeria consisted of semi-autonomous regions. It worked pretty well then, and could work well in future. That is the only way to accommodate both Sharia and Evangelical Christianity within the same borders. The current system - an ostensibly "secular federal state" in which both Sharia and Evangelical Christians coexist, is bound to collapse under the weight of its contradictions.

If the "semi-autonomous" regions turn "autonomous", is that a bad thing? Why do we continue to maintain the fiction that Congo DRC is a single state, governed (or governable) from Kinshasa? Isn't Katanga province drifting towards autonomy (it even has more in common with Zambia than the rest of Congo DRC)? Why pretend that the Ivory Coast is still one country? Why insist that Cabinda is still part of Angola?

If these problems are not solved by pain-staking diplomacy, they will be solved through the deaths of millions. 2.5 million died in the Sudan before South Sudan was let go. 5 million or so have died in the Congo, yet the World doesn't get the message. How many millions dead in Nigeria and Ivory Coast will the World tolerate before it gets the message?

About employment and jobs... If you manage to take nepotism out of Africa than you are good, reall good!
It's kind of the ciment of politics in that continent.

Nepotism is an issue only when Government is the sole employer. For many Western firms like Coca-Cola, KFC etc, the major barrier to doing business is not nepotism, but the lack of infrastructure. The Chinese are tackling the lack of infrastructure head on in progressive nations like Kenya and Rwanda.

[Stan]

I didn't mean to suggest that it would be a bad thing. I was wondering - literally wondering, in the sense of I don't know and I wonder what others think - about the extent to which counterterrorism training specifically is affected by prevailing American assumptions about AQ, and the extent to which it would apply to a situation rooted in local sectarian conflict.

I think we are ever so slowly getting away from the GWOT and everything AQ where it applies. According to AFRICOM

Emphasis is on preserving the traditional tolerance and moderation displayed in most African Muslim communities and countering the development of extremism, particularly in youth and rural populations;

Do they really not see it, or are they stuck with faraway masters who don't listen to them and insist that they Do Something, or at least provide some option for doing something?

Hmmm, there are instances where the people on the ground have a good grasp on things but yet, no one listens. Yes, sometimes events just don't fit the country team mold (or as JMA would put it - no balls). Real easy to say, much more difficult to cut against the grain when the leadership are paying your salary. What we found useful in DRC (then Zaire) were site surveys and command visits. Get the folks into the woods and show them the real scenario and not some souvenir shopping trip followed by canapés at the Ambassador's. All those niceties loose their luster when being held at gunpoint crossing the borders

The most important things Africa needs are (a) renegotiation of the basis for nationhood - i.e. is a confederation of semi autonomous regions preferable to a winner takes all democracy and (b) an infusion of investment and job creation.

I like the concept but Zaire proved to us that the hierarchy was having nothing to do with democracy and dealing with over 400 tribes often meant we would never win, yet alone hold free and fair elections.

This is reasonable but not working. In most of cases, my experience unfortunately tells me that the "semi autonomous" will act as autonomous and will never accept any central power. But that can be discussed and argued.

About employment and jobs... If you manage to take nepotism out of Africa than you are good, reall good!
It's kind of the cement of politics in that continent.

Hey MA,
cela fait longtemps que nous ne nous sommes vus !
This is your favorite subject and wondered what had become of you
We discussed this before on the DRC thread. We are fooled into believing that even meritocracy would have a chance. But nepotism alone is not the hurdle... Kleptocracy at every government level however is. How then to finance and create jobs not dependent on the host nation's capital. Would they even allow such a maneuver ?

We'll appreciate Western diplomats who interact as much with the African people as they do with the power brokers. We'll also appreciate some bold new thinking on Africa - since almost everything that was tried in the past has failed, isn't it time to try something bold and new?

Jaja,
Agreed. Transition may only take place at the top, but the vast majority of the problem is with the people.

[KingJaja]

Stan,

Unlike Europe and East Asia, Africa does not see itself as being indebted to the American military (for e.g. we were not liberated from the Germans by the US Army). So we have a natural revulsion towards the presence of the US Army (in any shape or form on African soil).

In other words, Africom has already been compromised by a perception deficit. (And Rwanda and Somalia doesn't help matters).

True, there might be 400 hundred tribes in Zaire, but some tribes are more ethnically and linguistically related to others. Many of these "tribes" are more like sub-groups speaking different dialects than separate entities.

I don't think you guys took the time to understand that. If you had a native Lingala (or Swahili) speak among you, you might have grasped that fact.

For example, in Nigeria, the Bini, the Yoruba, the Itsekiri, the Igbirra and the Ishan have close ethnic and linguistic ties.

[Stan]

Stan,

Unlike Europe and East Asia, Africa does not see itself as being indebted to the American military (for e.g. we were not liberated from the Germans by the US Army). So we have a natural revulsion towards the presence of the US Army (in any shape or form on African soil).

Hey Jaja,
Actually, I am not in favor of most of the AFRICOM programs and have a long history with the number 2 from my time in both Zaire and Rwanda during the refugee crisis and genocide. I don't directly advocate US Military presence unless there is no one else with the expertise needed. I am of the opinion we are using our military for non-traditional roles such as peace keeping, and, we expect too much out of them without the benefit of cross cultural and PKO training. In my 12 years in seven African countries I never felt any revulsion whatsoever.

In other words, Africom has already been compromised by a perception deficit. (And Rwanda and Somalia doesn't help matters).

I have to disagree with you on that. AFRICOM encountered international resistance from the perception of militarized U.S. assistance with Africa. This is very typical of Africans when dealing with US Military and I have a decade of dealing with it at the local level. In fact, EUCOM had been doing that same job for decades without that perception, but suffered from a huge plate to fill.

True, there might be 400 hundred tribes in Zaire, but some tribes are more ethnically and linguistically related to others. Many of these "tribes" are more like sub-groups speaking different dialects than separate entities.

I don't think you guys took the time to understand that. If you had a native Lingala (or Swahili) speak among you, you might have grasped that fact.

I am both a French and Lingala speaker and think I could tell you a lot about Zaire and her tribes. If all 400 tribes were so ethnically connected, then why did Uncle Mo only hire from his tribe ? Why did he bother killing off just one tribe when he felt threatened ? I worked with locals in the jungle and not some govt arm in a cool building on the avenue du 30 juin.

Regards, Stan

[ganulv]

Unlike Europe and East Asia, Africa does not see itself as being indebted to the American military (for e.g. we were not liberated from the Germans by the US Army). So we have a natural revulsion towards the presence of the US Army (in any shape or form on African soil).

In other words, Africom has already been compromised by a perception deficit.

Before accompanying my better half on a five week long stay in Burkina Faso last summer I was doing some poking around online for news and current events and came upon a piece about a recently concluded training operation centered in Ouagadougou. I encountered absolutely no mention of it during my stay there much less a revulsion. The usual caveats apply: I was a stranger in a strange land, there is good reason for folks not to talk about certain things, my French is poor and I know no Dioula nor Mòoré whatsoever. But a number of individuals did openly complain about things political and otherwise in my presence, and one of my girlfriend’s longtime friends with whom I had a number of (interpreter-aided) conversations had been inspired to join the LAT after Sankara came to power, viz., was of a nationalist bent and had some knowledge of things military.

The fellow in blue in the photo below is the head of the Burkinabé gendarmerie. On the one hand you can look at the fact that CT training involves the gendarmerie as heartening because it would seem to indicate a knowledge of the duties of that institution. On the other hand you can look at the paunch on Colonel Traoré and wonder how seriously those duties are taken at the highest levels.


AFRICOM: Activities part of Flintlock 2010 by USAFRICOM, on Flickr.

[KingJaja]

I have to disagree with you on that. AFRICOM encountered international resistance from the perception of militarized U.S. assistance with Africa. This is very typical of Africans when dealing with US Military and I have a decade of dealing with it at the local level. In fact, EUCOM had been doing that same job for decades without that perception, but suffered from a huge plate to fill.

These are early days. When the US military assumes a wider role in Africa (as it will - the dynamics of the Military Industrial Complex will push it there), it will suffer the same fate as the French. You are getting there pretty fast. Cooperation with the local strong man on "counter-terrorism" increases the likelihood that he will be in a position to make a demand you cannot refuse to whack whoever he labels as "subversives", "militants" or "internal security threats". The US military will VERY EASILY be drawn into the numerous inter-ethnic and inter-religious crises that characterise Sub-Saharan Africa.

We are opposed to Africom, not because we don't like pictures of US soldiers cuddling cute African babies, because we can see a little bit further down the line. I give it ten years, max.

Secondly, as trivial as it sounds, names matters. Africom is only marginally better than "Afrika Korps".

Thirdly, we are treated to the spectacle of Africom organising everything from veterinary clinics to pandemic workshops. It points to a deeply confused foreign policy establishment in Washington. We know the Peace Corps and USAID and we can smell a fish a mile away when the US military attempts to do the job of both these organisations. Africa is neither Afghanistan nor Iraq and the Peace Corps and USAID can do their jobs pretty well in most of Africa.

Fourthly, why are you needlessly militarising your Africa policy? Sometimes it is difficult to understand who speaks for the US in Africa - is it the local ambassador or Carter Ham? This is because Carter Ham addresses the same topics as the local ambassador (counter-terrorism, investment, trade, energy, education, polio eradication, aids prevention etc). He is also better funded, treated with more respect by congress and reports to a different boss (Secretary of Defense).

You had/have great tools at your disposal (USAID, Peace Corps, the defunct USIS), but you seem to be deliberately de-funding them or emasculating them in favour of the military. This is not the America I used to know.

Fifthly, this thing neatly coincides with the rise of Chinese influence in Africa. A more activist China could very easily set up a Chinese Africom. You won't be able to oppose it then because you'd have set up a bad precedent (the same thing applies to how you use drones - consider your drone usage policy very carefully). Quite quickly, all the best intentions of Africom could degenerate into hot wars of influence between the Chinese and Americans in Africa.

It might not happen today, but I can see it happening in ten years time.

Finally, if the advent of Africom was balanced with a push for diplomacy, cultural understanding, trade and investment, it would be more palatable. No US Commerce secretary has attended the AGOA summit in ten years and there is something slightly disturbing (to those of us that admire the US) to see the US expend diplomatic energy trying to site bases on African soil while the Chinese are practically being begged to site free trade zones on Africa (they are building a 16,500 hectare free trade zone in Lagos).

I am both a French and Lingala speaker and think I could tell you a lot about Zaire and her tribes. If all 400 tribes were so ethnically connected, then why did Uncle Mo only hire from his tribe ? Why did he bother killing off just one tribe when he felt threatened ? I worked with locals in the jungle and not some govt arm in a cool building on the avenue du 30 juin.

Uncle Mo was a megalomaniac and a kleptocrat who destroyed Zaire. He is a bad example. In more "moderate collegiate" regimes like Nigeria under military rule, the power base is more diffuse (similar tribes - Northern and Muslim tend to dominate).

Consider Southern Sudan - Southern Sudan is incredibly diverse, yet is different in many respects (culture, religion) from the North. Southern Sudan will not be a Switzerland in the near term, but the relationship between the rulers and the governed is bound to be better than what obtained under Omar Bashir. When tribes follow different religious traditions (Islam/Christianity) these differences tend to be brought to sharp relief, but when outsiders have trouble identifying the distinguishing characteristics of one tribe over another (all bloody Africans), the differences and similarities are less appreciated.

Congo DRC is a lot more similar to Sudan than you imagine. Tribes may speak different languages, but have similar cultures. If you share a similar culture and religious tradition, it is much easier to reach an accommodation than if you don't. If you look at Nigeria, the major crises have been between the Islamised tribes of the North and the Christian tribes of the Middle Belt. Inter-tribal violence in Southern Nigeria is minimal, because cultures are similar and conflict resolution mechanisms tend to be similar.

[Misifus]

Having spent quite a bit of time in Africa, I am for leaving her alone. No AFRICOM.

[Stan]

Hey Misifus !
Would you expand please ?

Where and when did you spend your time ? Occupational hazards ?

What's your opinion of EUCOM from 1982 to 1994 (doing nearly the exact same thing as AFRICOM, but without the fancy title and civilian number 2.).

Thanks, Stan