Mali mainly, 2012 coup, drugs & more

[KingJaja]

Davidbfpo,

I think the West should stop seeing Africa through the prism of "Global War on Terror" - and see what is happening for what it is - the normal process of state formation and a sneak preview of what Africa will look like when the French finally withdraw.

Any intervention in Mali is likely to be a waste of manpower and money.

[Commando Spirit]

So it appears that the various nations that are sending liaison officers is to include the UK? This may not be a huge surprise but the seniority of those selected to go, and the pace at which they have been deployed is quite something. I have read about individual officers being deployed over 2 months earlier than they had expected. This suggests that the recent escalation in activity really is quite significant.

Any more French speakers willing to miss Christmas at home?!?

[KingJaja]

Interesting article on US policy (or lack of it) in Africa.

As Ambassador Carrington concluded at his UMass address: “Mali is a cautionary tale for any country seeking U.S. assistance.” Because the United States lacked real intelligence about what was going in Mali’s political circles, American actions helped to topple one of Africa’s oldest democracies. Unintended consequences, to be sure; but an undertaking deeply unworthy of – and damaging to – the kinds of outcomes the U.S. would like to see in Africa, and the principles it claims to stand for.

http://africanarguments.org/2012/12/...chael-keating/

[Dayuhan]

Interesting article on US policy (or lack of it) in Africa.

http://africanarguments.org/2012/12/...chael-keating/

Interesting article. A couple of comments...

First, I'm not sure I see any sense in talking about an "Africa policy" in generic terms. Given the size of the continent and the wide variety of interests and issues involved any such thing would be too general to have much meaning. Might be better to look at multiple policy sets based on loose (and inevitably overlapping) regional lines.

Observing that the Malian officers that staged a coup had US backed training and jumping from there to "American actions helped to topple one of Africa’s oldest democracies" seems a bit of a stretch. Is it clear that the training they received actually enabled or encouraged the coup, or that they would not have staged the coup without such training? What was the actual extent and content of the training, and how exactly did it cause the coup, if we are going to claim a causative relationship?

One argument against training officers is that the US is inevitably held responsible for all subsequent actions of those trained, even though it may have no control over those actions. Never a good idea to put yourself in a situation where you're going to be held responsible for things you can't control.

When Americans say that promoting democracy is one of the key pillars of their Africa policy, they should mean it. That means no more uncritically supporting ersatz democrats like Paul Kagame and Yoweri Museveni. It means following up in South Sudan – an American instigated project if there ever was one- to make sure that the country does not descend into chaos. It means being very careful who gets weapons and training and making it very clear that serious consequences will follow if forces trained by Americans turn on legitimate governments, as was the case in Mali.

This assumes capacities that the US may not have: for example, the capacity to assure that South Sudan does not descend into chaos. If the US is going to be obligated to take permanent control of every situation it's involved with, the only rational response would be to cease all involvement, because the potential commitments emerging from any involvement would be unmanageably large. If engagement means you're responsible for everything that happens thereafter, better not engage. There have to be limits.

Investment – Americans talk a good game when it comes to investing in Africa, but the evidence of their enthusiasm is slim outside of South Africa and the various oil and ore patches. Right now there are tremendous opportunities throughout the continent in banking, telecoms, agriculture, construction, and retail. Nonetheless, when you drive around West Africa, you see mostly NGO logos rather than corporate ones. The consequences of this neglect include massive unemployment and a general feeling that the continent is being left behind.

Perhaps the best place for U.S. foreign policy to start would be to offer serious help in upgrading African universities, many of which are in shambles. Extension of favorable trade status, particularly in the agriculture section would also help along with massive increases in direct aid for infrastructure projects.

Without doubt, the risk factor is a major obstacle to increased U.S. investment. However, Americans need to put down their prejudices and go see what’s happening for themselves. The World Bank has a unit called the Multilateral Investment Guarantee Agency that provides business risk insurance to businesses investing in developing countries. American entrepreneurs ought to be lined up outside its door.

This whole section reflects a quite stunning ignorance of the relationship between the US Government and US Corporations. You can't accuse corporations of "neglect" for not taking actions that are in no way their responsibility to take, and there's no realistic way the US government can compel (or effectively encourage) US corporations to engage in places where their assessment of risk and reward is unfavorable. The US is not China, and investment is not a controllable instrument of policy. Then of course there's the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act, seen in many circles as an effective prohibition against US companies doing business in Africa.

Why send 100 Special Forces to hunt down Joseph Kony and none to save lives in the Congo? Some analysts believe it was a thank-you gesture to Uganda for its support of the military effort in Somalia.

I see no reason to assume a quid pro quo. More likely the question contains its own answer. The US is willing to send 100 Special Forces troops to hunt down Joseph Kony because it's a limited effort that can be reasonably managed by 100 Special Forces soldiers. An attempt to "save lives in the Congo" would represent a much larger commitment that American politicians don't believe they could sell to the electorate. "Get Kony" is a specific limited objective. "Fix the Congo" is a one-way road to a quagmire.

Speaking of the Cold War, a new version of that competition, between China and the West, is emerging on African soil.

A "new Cold War" seems a highly exaggerated view of the US and China in Africa. Nice sound bite, yes, but not a supportable view IMO, unless we adopt a very loose definition of what a "Cold War" is.

[KingJaja]

Dayuhan,

Thank you for your observations.

African governments and the African public are not as interested in the relationship between US corporations and the US govt as they are in who is most likely to bring in the investment that will provide them jobs.

This may be selfish, myopic and uninformed, but it is just the way things are. And if the US was in a similar situation, Americans would feel the same way.

Just like corporations compete, nations compete. At this point in time, China Inc has certain advantages over US Inc in Africa. If the US government thinks that the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act hinders the competitiveness of US businesses in Africa - well, that's the State Department's call.

I accept that AFRICOM training may not have been responsible for Mali's coup, but it isn't that difficult for enemies of the US (and they are quite a few) to suggest that there is a link between the two. Secondly, the Congolese Army also claims to be AFRICOM trained - and it also fell like a pack of cards in the face of M23 rebels.

A good foreign policy should limit the number of unforced errors. Presently there are just too many unforced errors for anyone to conclude that US policy is wise.

Finally, I don't really care - I've seen the writing on the wall. Whatever the US does or doesn't do will have very little impact on the future of my generation of Africans.

[Dayuhan]

African governments and the African public are not as interested in the relationship between US corporations and the US govt as they are in who is most likely to bring in the investment that will provide them jobs.

I'm sure they are, but neither American corporations nor the US Government have any obligation to provide jobs and investment to anyone. Nations who wish to attract investment have to seek it out and adjust their own policies and practices to make themselves attractive investment destinations. Investors don't compete for the opportunity to invest, nations compete to attract investors. Nations that delude themselves into thinking they're the belle of the ball and all the investor boys are going to come begging them to dance with no effort on their part will end up spending a lot of time an the edge of the dance floor, and at the end of the night the only guy who comes round is likely to be the sleazy date rapist with a roofie in his pocket.

Of course it's easy to blame investors for not investing and creating jobs, and that makes everyone feel good and diverts responsibility from where it belongs... but anyone who really wants investment and jobs needs to take action locally, not whine about what someone else is or isn't doing.

This may be selfish, myopic and uninformed, but it is just the way things are. And if the US was in a similar situation, Americans would feel the same way.

Very true, but how is that any of our business? How Africans feel is not our problem.

Just like corporations compete, nations compete. At this point in time, China Inc has certain advantages over US Inc in Africa.

Why would we want to compete with the Chinese for the dubious privilege of getting involved with that mess? There will be exceptions, but for the most part we're better off letting them deal with it. It's not as if African investment is somehow analogous to oceanfront real estate, something everybody desperately wants to be involved with.

If the US government thinks that the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act hinders the competitiveness of US businesses in Africa - well, that's the State Department's call.

State has nothing to say about it. It's a law, passed by Congress and signed by the President. Congress could repeal it, but there's close to zero chance of that happening in the current political environment.

I accept that AFRICOM training may not have been responsible for Mali's coup, but it isn't that difficult for enemies of the US (and they are quite a few) to suggest that there is a link between the two. Secondly, the Congolese Army also claims to be AFRICOM trained - and it also fell like a pack of cards in the face of M23 rebels.

No matter what the US does or doesn't do, enemies of the US will find ways to suggest that everything bad that happens anywhere is somehow a consequence of US action or inaction. Many people will believe it. That is given and irreversible. It's been that way for so long that most of us have become impervious. If we blamed ourselves for everything we're blamed for we'd either commit physical suicide or the intellectual suicide of joining the Chomsky faction of the left.

A good foreign policy should limit the number of unforced errors. Presently there are just too many unforced errors for anyone to conclude that US policy is wise.

If anything that goes wrong after engagement with the US is going to be seen as a US error, we have to either stop engaging or ignore those perceptions. Anyone who thinks a few months of US training will make an army function or that US engagement is going to transform dysfunctional nations is barking at the moon. Again, if engagement is going to create irrational expectations, the choices are to stop engaging or ignore the expectations and live with the blame from those who hold them. Living up to the expectations is not possible in the real world.

Finally, I don't really care - I've seen the writing on the wall. Whatever the US does or doesn't do will have very little impact on the future of my generation of Africans.

I wish more people realized that.

[Ken White]

I wish more people realized that.

It's important that a lot of folks understand that your choice "realized" as opposed to 'thought,' 'believed' or some other nebulous word or phrase is appropriate and quite accurate.

All we can do there is make things worse.