CNN: Can Democracy Thrive in Africa?

[Dayuhan]

I would say that it is the very unwillingness to criticise or demand/expect better out of Africa for fear of being charged with superior behaviour or racism that contributes to the current state of affairs.

I'm not sure how my expectations or demands contribute to Africa's current state of affairs: I rather doubt that anyone in Africa gives a damn what I expect or demand. And while I would certainly hope that Africans will sort out their affairs faster and with less misery than Europeans, I'm not sure it would be reasonable to expect or demand it.

I suppose Africans might have had a hypothetical right to demand or expect better than they got from the gang of European thugs that ran the place during the age of colonies, but their expectations and demands meant as little in that time as ours do in this time.

And if the gang of thugs (the leadership) sitting in that AU (club) can prevent interference in the internal of sovereign states in respect to human rights abuses and the like then they can continue with impunity. They have reached that point where they have outsiders making excuses for their actions. Well done to them.

"fix" Africa? Africa cannot fix itself so what you want to do? Ring-fence it and them get on with it? Same for medieval Afghanistan?

The question of whether or not we should fix Africa seems somewhat moot until we consider the question of whether or not we can fix Africa. I don't think we can, though I suspect that we could mess it up even more. If you look at the number of dollars and troops we've applied to fixing Afghanistan, and then extrapolate based on relative size and population, it's fairly clear that we haven't a fraction of the dollars or troops that would be required to fix Africa. Then of course we have to consider that the dollars and troops so far applied to Afghanistan have yet to fix anything... I suppose we'll have to leave it to the Chinese, who have a lot more dollars and a lot more troops than we have. They'll choke on it of course, but so would we; better them than us.

Certainly the Africans can't fix Africa right away. Neither can we, or anyone else. I suspect that over the course of a century or two they can probably pull it off. For much of the 19th and 20th centuries East Asia and Latin America seemed beyond salvation; I'm not sure I'd call either "fixed", but they've managed considerable forward progress since we got it through our thick skulls that they needed to sort out their own affairs without our "help".

[tequila]

"fix" Africa? Africa cannot fix itself so what you want to do? Ring-fence it and them get on with it? Same for medieval Afghanistan?

Just wondering where you get the idea that Africa is somehow incapable of "fixing" itself. Yes, few African countries look much like Western Europe or the U.S. - guess what, 40 years ago, neither Western Europe or the U.S. looked much like they do now either. Minority rights were hardly secure, unless it was the right to occupy second-class status enforced by both law and enthusiastic violence by the majority.

A common failing of the present is to assume that the current state of affairs somehow represents the natural static order of things. Afghanistan is in chaotic violence now (well, parts of the south and east, but that's all that gets reported in the West so it must be so, right?), so it must have always been in chaotic violence! East Asia is peaceful and prosperous, so it must have always been so, no? Africa is poor and afflicted with poor governance - surely it must have always been that way. Of course 40 years ago East Asia was consumed in mass violence, starvation, war, and terror while Africa experienced a generally peaceful transition to self-rule. Who knows what the next 40 years will bring? I do know this - it's probably not going to look much like the present.

[JMA]

Just wondering where you get the idea that Africa is somehow incapable of "fixing" itself. Yes, few African countries look much like Western Europe or the U.S. - guess what, 40 years ago, neither Western Europe or the U.S. looked much like they do now either. Minority rights were hardly secure, unless it was the right to occupy second-class status enforced by both law and enthusiastic violence by the majority.

The word "fix" is in inverted commas for the reason that what constitutes "fix" in terms of Africa is not defined and therefore totally subjective.

What do you think constitutes "fix"?

Again you look backwards to justify slow forward progress. (Why do people do this?)

Your 40 year standard (don't know where you pick this figure from - maybe you can explain that?) does not on the face of it seem meaningful or relevant to the potential for democracy to thrive in Africa.

Way before minority rights come basic human rights. I don't see violence necessarily by the majority as the main problem but rather violence inflicted by a military and police supported ruling elite upon the majority (to keep in power and their snouts in the trough).

A common failing of the present is to assume that the current state of affairs somehow represents the natural static order of things. Afghanistan is in chaotic violence now (well, parts of the south and east, but that's all that gets reported in the West so it must be so, right?), so it must have always been in chaotic violence! East Asia is peaceful and prosperous, so it must have always been so, no? Africa is poor and afflicted with poor governance - surely it must have always been that way. Of course 40 years ago East Asia was consumed in mass violence, starvation, war, and terror while Africa experienced a generally peaceful transition to self-rule. Who knows what the next 40 years will bring? I do know this - it's probably not going to look much like the present.

Not sure of that being a common failure as I can't think who thinks that anything is static. Forwards, backwards slow or fast there is always movement.

Can you support your contention that the area Afghanistan now covers was once peaceful and orderly? Interested to see if you are able.

Again the 40 year frame of reference... what exactly is the relevance?

OK, so now back to the present. What about this thread and whether democracy can thrive in Africa. Certainly not happening now so... will that be possible in your lifetime? Ok then your children's lifetime? Your grandchildren's lifetime? ....

South Asia? Do you maybe mean Southeast Asia?

[JMA]

I'm not sure how my expectations or demands contribute to Africa's current state of affairs: I rather doubt that anyone in Africa gives a damn what I expect or demand. And while I would certainly hope that Africans will sort out their affairs faster and with less misery than Europeans, I'm not sure it would be reasonable to expect or demand it.

There are universally accepted human rights. If necessary they need to be enforced. Sadly for the world we have only a tired and wounded US prepared sometimes to make an attempt to protect those suffering under some dictator's jackboot. The world needs to be thankful to the US for their interventions over the years.

The difference between then and now is that we have a benchmark to measure just about everything against now so those behind on the curve have little or no excuse not to strive to comply with haste.

So yes the world has the right to make demands on the behaviour of countries... after all was that not what the ineffectual UN was supposed to do (and has failed in each of its four aims)?

I suppose Africans might have had a hypothetical right to demand or expect better than they got from the gang of European thugs that ran the place during the age of colonies, but their expectations and demands meant as little in that time as ours do in this time.

Yes they probably did... but do you have any idea how Africans dealt with Africans before the European thugs arrived?

Why not start with the rise of Shaka Zulu in South Africa or the Mfecane in the area now known as Zimbabwe. So before anyone sheds any tears for Lobengula who felt he was like the fly with the terrible English imperialists being the chameleon think about his (Matebele) victims.

The question of whether or not we should fix Africa seems somewhat moot until we consider the question of whether or not we can fix Africa. I don't think we can, though I suspect that we could mess it up even more. If you look at the number of dollars and troops we've applied to fixing Afghanistan, and then extrapolate based on relative size and population, it's fairly clear that we haven't a fraction of the dollars or troops that would be required to fix Africa. Then of course we have to consider that the dollars and troops so far applied to Afghanistan have yet to fix anything... I suppose we'll have to leave it to the Chinese, who have a lot more dollars and a lot more troops than we have. They'll choke on it of course, but so would we; better them than us.

Not a moot point at all. The sad truth is that the powers just can't leave Africa and its resources alone. If there was an African leader of the stature of Peter the Great who would take his country by the scruff of its neck and drag it kicking and screaming into the 21 century and thereby set a standard for the rest of Africa to emulate then things can be "fixed".

Why is it that all you seem to consider is military intervention and throwing money at the problem? Ever thought that having so few options in itself may be part of the problem? Africa is not begging for aid it is the governments which plunder their countries which beg for aid which they in turn loot for their own ends while the donors look on blindly.

Can't leave Africa to the Chinese, the West needs the resources too.

I guess the hope is that one day there will be a US administration which will comprise people who have the smarts to figure this all out... not happened so far.

Certainly the Africans can't fix Africa right away. Neither can we, or anyone else. I suspect that over the course of a century or two they can probably pull it off. For much of the 19th and 20th centuries East Asia and Latin America seemed beyond salvation; I'm not sure I'd call either "fixed", but they've managed considerable forward progress since we got it through our thick skulls that they needed to sort out their own affairs without our "help".

There are certainly some things which can be "fixed" right away and others will be a work in progress for many years to come. Can the people of Africa wait all those years for a chance to live in an enlightened country with a strong rule of law and the protection of a rock solid constitution? Just by dealing with corruption Africa will be able to take a giant stride forward. It won't take much to do if there is the will...

[M-A Lagrange]

somehow, I feel like some are discussing of a continent which is located on Mars or elsewhere in a galaxy far away a long time ago.
The idea that all plagues in Africa are due to colonisation is a non sense. Just like all development was stopped by europeans through slave trade. In such business you need 2 guys to robe the third one. And among the 2 bad guys, one native.

Such approach of this continent does participate to the counter efforts of several leaders and their clique to justify that what applies all around the world should not apply to the African continent because they are different and have suffered a lot.

It will take time but things will change, with or without the US, UN or EU or even the Chinese. It will most probably requires that a generation of leaders pass away and all the state servants they put in place too.

Africa is a sweet but harsh mistress, even for the african people.

[Dayuhan]

There are universally accepted human rights. If necessary they need to be enforced. Sadly for the world we have only a tired and wounded US prepared sometimes to make an attempt to protect those suffering under some dictator's jackboot. The world needs to be thankful to the US for their interventions over the years.

This isn't about what needs to be done or what should be done, it's about what can be done. The US can't enforce human rights, in Africa or anywhere else. We haven't the money or the manpower. Neither, realistically, has anybody else.

The difference between then and now is that we have a benchmark to measure just about everything against now so those behind on the curve have little or no excuse not to strive to comply with haste.

Who is this "we" of which you speak? The inmates here at SWJ? The White People? The process of political evolution is messy and violent. It always is, it has been everywhere. The former colonies are "behind the curve" in this process because the process was interrupted for several centuries. Now the process has restarted, and surprise surprise, it's just as messy and violent as it always has been. "We" - whoever "we" are - may or may not have the "right" to demand or expect that Africa will comply with our standards, but since "we" haven't the capacity to enforce compliance, the "right" is irrelevant.

Who, in your view, are "we", and what exactly do you propose that "we" do?

Yes they probably did... but do you have any idea how Africans dealt with Africans before the European thugs arrived?

Of course. They dealt with each other the same way that Europeans dealt with each other in their centuries of thuggery. They dealt with each other in the same way that European settlers dealt with native populations in North America and Australia. The strong crushed the weak. This is not an African trait, it is a human trait. The Africans are no better, no worse, no different than anyone else... why should we expect or demand that they should be?

Not a moot point at all. The sad truth is that the powers just can't leave Africa and its resources alone.

What would you have "the powers" do... assuming without evidence that "the powers" are capable of doing anything on a collective basis?

If there was an African leader of the stature of Peter the Great who would take his country by the scruff of its neck and drag it kicking and screaming into the 21 century and thereby set a standard for the rest of Africa to emulate then things can be "fixed".

There isn't one, nor can we create one. Maybe someday there will be one. Russia existed as a distinct political entity for several centuries before it generated Peter; maybe with luck Africa can generate an equivalent within a century or two... or it might turn out that a personal saviour isn't what generates change in Africa at all.

Why is it that all you seem to consider is military intervention and throwing money at the problem? Ever thought that having so few options in itself may be part of the problem?

What option do you propose?

Can't leave Africa to the Chinese, the West needs the resources too.

The Africans, like everybody else, will sell the resources to the highest bidder, regardless of who intervenes or who invests. If investors get pissy about the terms of the deal, the deal will be changed, unilaterally. How long do you think it will be before some multi-billion dollar Chinese resource extraction enterprise gets nationalized? What do you think the Chinese will do about it?

I guess the hope is that one day there will be a US administration which will comprise people who have the smarts to figure this all out... not happened so far.

Perhaps you should enlighten us. What would you have us do?

And from M-A...

The idea that all plagues in Africa are due to colonisation is a non sense.

Of course it is. The idea that colonizers have no responsibility for the current state of affairs is equal nonsense. If nothing else, the egregiously perverse "national" boundaries inherited from the colonial age constitute a massive obstacle to progress.

All people, everywhere, have to gradually sort out the political identities that suit them, and to find ways for the entities they define to coexist without destroying each other. In Europe this process required centuries of almost continuous bloodshed. In the colonies the process was delayed by foreign occupation. That doesn't mean the process was made harder or easier, more or less complex, it was just delayed. When the colonists left the process picked up where it had stopped. It's going to be messy, as it has been everywhere else.

Such approach of this continent does participate to the counter efforts of several leaders and their clique to justify that what applies all around the world should not apply to the African continent because they are different and have suffered a lot.

Does it make any more sense to expect that Africans should be able to bypass stages in their political development that every other region has had to pass through just because we find those stages distasteful?

It will take time but things will change, with or without the US, UN or EU or even the Chinese. It will most probably requires that a generation of leaders pass away and all the state servants they put in place too.

With this I agree... if they do it in a single generation that would actually be a quite remarkable achievement. I would expect several.

[M-A Lagrange]

And from M-A...
Of course it is. The idea that colonizers have no responsibility for the current state of affairs is equal nonsense. If nothing else, the egregiously perverse "national" boundaries inherited from the colonial age constitute a massive obstacle to progress.

All people, everywhere, have to gradually sort out the political identities that suit them, and to find ways for the entities they define to coexist without destroying each other. In Europe this process required centuries of almost continuous bloodshed. In the colonies the process was delayed by foreign occupation. That doesn't mean the process was made harder or easier, more or less complex, it was just delayed. When the colonists left the process picked up where it had stopped. It's going to be messy, as it has been everywhere else.

Dayuhan,

Sengor was saying, Africa will have finally deal with slavery the day African will recognise their responsability in it. It is the same with colonisation. Through, I am not saying that Europeans did not do it and had only positive influx. This is a very racist position which I reject in block without taking time to discuss it. Europ had a responsability in it and Europ had bad influence. Now, please, we are 50 years later in most of the sub saharian countries. (And what about US influence in Liberia...)
My point is that even in Europe, Boundaries were imposed on the people: look at Yugoslavia, Poland that disapeared for centuries, the German minorities in Poland... The question is not there. Also, my experience is that people have true nationalist feelings in the Great Lake region for exemple. A congolese is a Congolese and he denise the right to be Congolese to Rwandese. The same with people from Burundi, South Sudan... Their personal history within those "artificial" boundaries in the last 50 years has shaped their national perception. The true problematic is TOO MANY SEE AFRICA HAS ONE SINGLE ENTITY. It is NOT. And then, the political use of ethnicity by all political actors, internal and external. Do you really think that coming from Bourgogne I have anything in comun with someone coming from Alsace or Provence part from a language and a school teaching?
It is the same with ethnicity. Yes it is stronger in Africa than in other places but as much as anywhere else. What makes it so artificially importante is the use politicians did and still do of it. But I know more and more individuals who just do not care from which ethnic group you are, what is important is that you come from the same country. (With some bemol, I accept that).

Does it make any more sense to expect that Africans should be able to bypass stages in their political development that every other region has had to pass through just because we find those stages distasteful?

No but if it can be minimised, then it should. Political evolutionism is no reason for social darwinism.

With this I agree... if they do it in a single generation that would actually be a quite remarkable achievement. I would expect several.

Let say I am optimistic. But still, please, when it comes to Africa, do not forget that it is a continent with countries as different as Tunisia and Zimbabwe. Do you really think the political and maturation process in Ethiopia is the same as in Swaziland?

[Dayuhan]

My point is that even in Europe, Boundaries were imposed on the people: look at Yugoslavia, Poland that disapeared for centuries, the German minorities in Poland... The question is not there. Also, my experience is that people have true nationalist feelings in the Great Lake region for exemple. A congolese is a Congolese and he denise the right to be Congolese to Rwandese. The same with people from Burundi, South Sudan... Their personal history within those "artificial" boundaries in the last 50 years has shaped their national perception.

Certainly true. My point is simply that Africans are in the process of defining their political identities and affiliations. The state of this process and the manner in which it is carried out will of course vary considerably from place to place. Sometimes it may even be peaceful. It must, though, be worked out by Africans: no outside power can come in and decide what people should be part of what nation, where national boundaries should be, and how these emerging nations should interact with one another.

The process has involved violence and will involve more violence, as it has everywhere else. Africans have had to endure and will still have to endure absolutely horrible governance... just like everybody else has had to. The extent to which the outside world can change this is, I fear, quite limited.

No but if it can be minimised, then it should. Political evolutionism is no reason for social darwinism.

Agreed... we must do what we can. There are quite severe limits, though, to what we can do... and if we try to alleviate misery by taking charge ourselves, we may do as much harm as good. Our efforts to "fix" other places have not always been entirely successful.

[M-A Lagrange]

Kenya’s PM party distances itself from Bashir’s visit as more details emerge on trip

We would like to point out to Kenyans and the international community that this was indeed a very unfortunate visit that could put into question the commitment of the government to implement the Constitution of the second republic in letter and spirit

Nyong told a news conference on Saturday according to Capital FM website.

As we maintain cordial relations with our neighboring countries, we must not forget or disregard our equally important adherence to international conventions and commitments,”

Nyong said.

This is definitely not a good beginning to compound a new Constitution with an act of impunity

Orengo said adding that besides the explanation, Kenya had to take full responsibility.

We first have to give an explanation to ourselves because we broke our law that is supreme, besides violating an international agreement that we are a signatory.

http://sudantribune.com/spip.php?article36107

[JMA]

[QUOTE=M-A Lagrange;105763]Kenya’s PM party distances itself from Bashir’s visit as more details emerge on trip

We would like to point out to Kenyans and the international community that this was indeed a very unfortunate visit that could put into question the commitment of the government to implement the Constitution of the second republic in letter and spirit,” Nyong told a news conference on Saturday according to Capital FM website.

As we maintain cordial relations with our neighboring countries, we must not forget or disregard our equally important adherence to international conventions and commitments

Nyong said.

This is definitely not a good beginning to compound a new Constitution with an act of impunity

Orengo said adding that besides the explanation, Kenya had to take full responsibility.

We first have to give an explanation to ourselves because we broke our law that is supreme, besides violating an international agreement that we are a signatory.

http://sudantribune.com/spip.php?article36107

One needs to bear in mind that repercussions arising from the 2007 post-election violence in Kenya itself may well lead to ICC indictments for those currently serving within the current government.

Now looking at Mugabe's sheltering of another criminal, Mengistu, probably in so doing setting the example of "African solidarity" for the potential of he himself needing to seek shelter from justice at some point in the future.

The same could possibly be said of those Kenyans who may need a sanctuary safe from the ICC in the future. Bashir would no doubt return the favour. (Or at least they would be banking on it)

Look even that club of dictators and thieves who make up the AU would have to start to take the Rome Statute seriously if:

1) The US ratified the Rome Statute,
2) There was international pressure to comply and sanctions if they don't.

Note: This would offer a golden opportunity for the Brits to get out of the expense of the use of Kenya for near to valueless military training.

[JMA]

Dayuhan,

Sengor was saying, Africa will have finally deal with slavery the day African will recognise their responsability in it. It is the same with colonisation. Through, I am not saying that Europeans did not do it and had only positive influx. This is a very racist position which I reject in block without taking time to discuss it. Europ had a responsability in it and Europ had bad influence. Now, please, we are 50 years later in most of the sub saharian countries. (And what about US influence in Liberia...)
My point is that even in Europe, Boundaries were imposed on the people: look at Yugoslavia, Poland that disapeared for centuries, the German minorities in Poland... The question is not there. Also, my experience is that people have true nationalist feelings in the Great Lake region for exemple. A congolese is a Congolese and he denise the right to be Congolese to Rwandese. The same with people from Burundi, South Sudan... Their personal history within those "artificial" boundaries in the last 50 years has shaped their national perception. The true problematic is TOO MANY SEE AFRICA HAS ONE SINGLE ENTITY. It is NOT. And then, the political use of ethnicity by all political actors, internal and external. Do you really think that coming from Bourgogne I have anything in comun with someone coming from Alsace or Provence part from a language and a school teaching?
It is the same with ethnicity. Yes it is stronger in Africa than in other places but as much as anywhere else. What makes it so artificially importante is the use politicians did and still do of it. But I know more and more individuals who just do not care from which ethnic group you are, what is important is that you come from the same country. (With some bemol, I accept that).

No but if it can be minimised, then it should. Political evolutionism is no reason for social darwinism.

Let say I am optimistic. But still, please, when it comes to Africa, do not forget that it is a continent with countries as different as Tunisia and Zimbabwe. Do you really think the political and maturation process in Ethiopia is the same as in Swaziland?

Ignorance of Africa mixed in with the arrogance of "the smartest guy in the room" makes for a lethal cocktail. I have a friend who served in the USMC and later Rhodesia as an officer who went on to teach college in Virginia and has said that he constantly has to explain and re-explain that Africa is a content of 52 sovereign countries and not one country.

I read recently of a person who introduces himself as coming from Yorubaland but since the British colonization has become a Nigerian (for better or worse). Now considering all the wailing and gnashing of teeth about colonial borders does anyone else find it strange that the AU (and the OAU before) refuses to consider realigning colonial boundaries which cut peoples/tribes/nations in half? If they are not going to do anything about it why spend all the time complaining?

Then there are 2,000 languages in Africa (250 in Nigeria alone). I wonder if all this worries/concerns/matters to some whiz-kid from an Ivy-league university who runs the Africa Desk at the state department? Don't I get a good laugh when asked if I speak African... you bet.

In east Africa the Arabs were the middle men in the slave trade. They bought from the local chiefs and then sold on to the Portuguese or whoever. If the demand rose the local chief brought slaves back from his raids as they were worth more alive than dead. Never heard anything about the role of the local chiefs of the dominant tribes (other than from Sengor) and not much said about the Arab middlemen/wholesalers. Strange isn't it. Especially when it works differently when it comes to the drug supply chain where the users are seen as victims and the middlemen and producers are routinely interdicted. Then again its the old producers argument of "if there was no demand there would be no incentive to produce and supply". You go figure.

It is sheer ignorance of Africa in most cases that makes western/foreign actions such a joke. If there are problems in Africa dig a little and you will find and ethnic/tribal/clan or religious issue at the source. Yet the "smart guys" half a world away make decisions oblivious of the issues and underlying circumstances. Made all the worse when the decisions result in death and suffering often on a massive scale.

I can remember in post apartheid South Africa when the Zulu nation wanted a federal system as opposed to a unitary state system. Guess what, the US and the West said they could not support the Balkanisation of South Africa. When challenged by saying the the federal powers wanted were less than other afforded to the states in the US the US representative just said ... "Oh!"

Yes the various areas of Africa vary greatly from each other. Realising this and accepting it is the first step towards success. Thereafter one can begin to try to understand the specifics of the particular areas of interest. Can there ever be an Africa expert? No, but there are certainly people who have a great understanding of Africa (mostly Africans themselves) and know where to find the specific on a particular area quickly.

It was always all about social Darwinism (survival of the fittest) until the colonisers arrived. Then we saw a switch to the more biblical "the meek shall inherit the earth (in literal translation). If the Brits had not intervened/colonised the south area of Africa and defeated the Zulu, the Ndabele and the Ngoni there would certainly not have been too many of the minor tribes in South Africa around, not the Shona in Zimbabwe nor the Chewa in Malawi.

We can go on and on... but lets leave it there for now.

[Rex Brynen]

I wonder if all this worries/concerns/matters to some whiz-kid from an Ivy-league university who runs the Africa Desk at the state department? Don't I get a good laugh when asked if I speak African... you bet.

On the other hand, I imagine the folks in the Bureau of African Affairs get a good laugh when anyone suggests there's a single guy on an "Africa Desk" at the Department of State.

[jmm99]

the present Assistant Secretary of State for African Affairs, Johnnie Carson ("Here's Johnnie"):

.... served as desk officer in the Africa section at State's Bureau of Intelligence and Research (1971-1974) .....

Not an Ivy-Leaguer though.



Mike

[JMA]

On the other hand, I imagine the folks in the Bureau of African Affairs get a good laugh when anyone suggests there's a single guy on an "Africa Desk" at the Department of State.

A single guy running the "desk"? I was talking about the guy in charge. But smart comment anyway. Now... do you have something of value to add?

[M-A Lagrange]

JMA,

Last time I went to US (20 years ago) I was asked if Berlin was still the capital of France. Let say I took it as a joke.

But I believe we were talking about the path to democracy. Look at what our good old friend Museweni is doing:
Uganda's president wants to extend his rule to 30 years
http://www.timeslive.co.za/africa/ar...le-to-30-years

As a colleage of mine from the Great lakes was telling me: yes, I have idears on what my country needs and what I want. But can they listen to me?

I gess not.

[Dayuhan]

Ignorance of Africa mixed in with the arrogance of "the smartest guy in the room" makes for a lethal cocktail. I have a friend who served in the USMC and later Rhodesia as an officer who went on to teach college in Virginia and has said that he constantly has to explain and re-explain that Africa is a content of 52 sovereign countries and not one country.

I read recently of a person who introduces himself as coming from Yorubaland but since the British colonization has become a Nigerian (for better or worse). Now considering all the wailing and gnashing of teeth about colonial borders does anyone else find it strange that the AU (and the OAU before) refuses to consider realigning colonial boundaries which cut peoples/tribes/nations in half? If they are not going to do anything about it why spend all the time complaining?

Then there are 2,000 languages in Africa (250 in Nigeria alone). I wonder if all this worries/concerns/matters to some whiz-kid from an Ivy-league university who runs the Africa Desk at the state department? Don't I get a good laugh when asked if I speak African... you bet.

In east Africa the Arabs were the middle men in the slave trade. They bought from the local chiefs and then sold on to the Portuguese or whoever. If the demand rose the local chief brought slaves back from his raids as they were worth more alive than dead. Never heard anything about the role of the local chiefs of the dominant tribes (other than from Sengor) and not much said about the Arab middlemen/wholesalers. Strange isn't it. Especially when it works differently when it comes to the drug supply chain where the users are seen as victims and the middlemen and producers are routinely interdicted. Then again its the old producers argument of "if there was no demand there would be no incentive to produce and supply". You go figure.

It is sheer ignorance of Africa in most cases that makes western/foreign actions such a joke. If there are problems in Africa dig a little and you will find and ethnic/tribal/clan or religious issue at the source. Yet the "smart guys" half a world away make decisions oblivious of the issues and underlying circumstances. Made all the worse when the decisions result in death and suffering often on a massive scale.

I can remember in post apartheid South Africa when the Zulu nation wanted a federal system as opposed to a unitary state system. Guess what, the US and the West said they could not support the Balkanisation of South Africa. When challenged by saying the the federal powers wanted were less than other afforded to the states in the US the US representative just said ... "Oh!"

Yes the various areas of Africa vary greatly from each other. Realising this and accepting it is the first step towards success. Thereafter one can begin to try to understand the specifics of the particular areas of interest. Can there ever be an Africa expert? No, but there are certainly people who have a great understanding of Africa (mostly Africans themselves) and know where to find the specific on a particular area quickly.

It was always all about social Darwinism (survival of the fittest) until the colonisers arrived. Then we saw a switch to the more biblical "the meek shall inherit the earth (in literal translation). If the Brits had not intervened/colonised the south area of Africa and defeated the Zulu, the Ndabele and the Ngoni there would certainly not have been too many of the minor tribes in South Africa around, not the Shona in Zimbabwe nor the Chewa in Malawi.

We can go on and on... but lets leave it there for now.

An impressive slaughter of the straw men, but you're responding to points that nobody here has made.

I'm still wondering what you wish to see done, and who you think should do it..

[Tom Odom]

This one is refreshing. Hopefully the ideas will continue to blossum.

Tom

Why Africa needs 'cheetahs,' not 'hippos'
By George Ayittey, Special to CNN
August 27, 2010 6:37 a.m. EDT

Editor's note: George Ayittey is a Ghanaian economist and the author of several books on Africa, including "Africa Unchained" and the forthcoming "Defeating Dictators in Africa and Around The World." In 2008, Ayittey was listed by Foreign Policy magazine as one of the "Top 100 Public Intellectuals" of our time. He writes for Africa 50, CNN's special coverage looking at 17 African nations marking 50 years of independence this year.

(CNN) -- Currently, Africa -- a continent immensely rich with mineral resources and yet mired in poverty -- suffers from a catastrophic leadership failure or monumental deficit of leadership.

Since 1960, there have been 210 African heads of state, but just try to find 10 -- just 10 -- good ones among them. Names like Mandela, Nkrumah, Nyerere easily come to mind but then rapidly fall off.

But there is hope in what I call the "Cheetah Generation."

The Cheetah Generation refers to the new and angry generation of young African graduates and professionals, who look at African issues and problems from a totally different and unique perspective.

[JMA]

This isn't about what needs to be done or what should be done, it's about what can be done. The US can't enforce human rights, in Africa or anywhere else. We haven't the money or the manpower. Neither, realistically, has anybody else.

[snip]

With this I agree... if they do it in a single generation that would actually be a quite remarkable achievement. I would expect several.

Over time I have come to understand there are two stock answers that are developed to justify intervention or justify taking no action.

When a murderous dictator is the enemy of your enemy (or is prepared to be so temporarily) then you see them pull out the stock answer to justify taking no action.

Its all too much like a high school debating society. That would be OK if they did not insult our intelligence by seeming to think we are not on to them and their game.

"We" would in this instance would include those of an IQ of more than 100 but less than 160 who are smart enough to see through this charade yet have the common sense not try to think they would get away with such a ridiculous game if they were to try it. (The smartest guy in the room theory falls down as found in the following research - Does Super-High IQ= Super-Low Common Sense?

The world has moved a little along from the days of unbridled thuggery. It has become less of an option for the developed world and those in the undeveloped world who still thing that genocide is still an option should be put on notice that it will not be tolerated any more. I believe the ICC is starting to make headway in this regard with that den of thieves and murderers the AU putting in a last ditch stand.

Of course doesn't help when you have a western leader who is willing to cast aside his morals, ethics and the rest to make a commercial deal with the devil yet still have the gall to go to church on Sundays. ( Blair secretly courted Robert Mugabe to boost trade - this comes as no surprise to those who have come to realise that Foreign and Commonwealth Office is an absolutely amoral organisation)

So you put the thugs of the world on notice not to chance their arm because if they do the rest of the world will come after them in no uncertain terms.

Yes there will always be those like Blair and before him Margret Thatcher who will be able to turn a blind eye and that makes for a difficult process to get international consensus on anything. But that should never stop people, their leaders and their country from taking a stand on such issues - its called moral courage.

You are correct there is no African "Peter the Great" at the moment so the world will just have to apply pressure on the AU mafia to start to behave in a more democratic and less corrupt manner. The AU is the main problem followed by the states which are prepared to sell their souls in order to do business with certain African countries.

As to the options. It would be a start if the western world accepted that their so-called diplomacy towards Africa has been an abysmal failure and that if they took the time to learn about Africa they would realise that each circumstance is as different as chalk and cheese.

Yes the situation is exacerbated by the new scramble for African resources led by the Chinese who it remains to be seen how they will handle their relations with Africa (having the opportunity to learn from the failures of others).

[Dayuhan]

So you put the thugs of the world on notice not to chance their arm because if they do the rest of the world will come after them in no uncertain terms.

The problem with this, to put it bluntly, is that the rest of the world won't come after them, in any terms.

All this talk about coming after them, not tolerating, of expectations and demands... it all assumes that there's somebody out there with the will and the capacity to enforce demands, to enforce what will or will not be tolerated, to come after people. Who is that somebody supposed to be?

From an American perspective, before we talk about doing anything, there are some issues that have to be addressed... quite a few issues, actually:

There has to be something we can do. There's no point in talking about "doing something"; you need a clear idea of exactly what you propose to do, and what you expect to accomplish.

There has to be a realistic assessment of the probability of success, and the likelihood of unintended adverse consequences.

There has to be a clear assessment of likely costs, in money and in lives, and the expected benefit to us has to exceed the cost.

There has to be a clear assessment of political will: we are a democracy and our government is accountable to our populace. There's no point in starting what our voters won't let us finish.

The proposed action has to be consistent with our interests. We are not a charitable institution; we can't afford to be.

If any of these assessments comes up unfavorably, we will do nothing, and that's exactly what we should do. We don't have the right, the obligation, or the capacity to go charging around trying to fix other countries, in Africa or anywhere else.

I think you'll find that most countries with the capacity to "do something" run through similar assessments, with similar outcomes.

As to the options. It would be a start if the western world accepted that their so-called diplomacy towards Africa has been an abysmal failure and that if they took the time to learn about Africa they would realise that each circumstance is as different as chalk and cheese.

It's easy to point out failure... what do you propose that you think might succeed?

Of course every case is different. Why don't you select a single case and suggest a course of action? Might start with the most egregious problem cases... say, any of Guinea, Nigeria, Chad, DRC, Somalia, Zimbabwe. What exactly would you have us do, in light of the criteria reviewed above?

It's worth noting, as a start, that economic sanctions and aid conditionality have not been terribly successful at influencing the behaviour of bad governments. It's also worth noting that military intervention is not an option in any but an extreme case that directly impacts the interests of whoever is going to intervene: it's too expensive, the probability of success is too low, the cost/benefit equation is too unfavorable, and it is not politically acceptable in the countries that have the potential to intervene.

[M-A Lagrange]

It's easy to point out failure... what do you propose that you think might succeed?

Dahuyan,

From a US perspective, Africa as a continent has to be secured against the proliferation of armed groups and terrorist organisations such as AQIM, the Sheebab…
This is for the Saharan part of Africa: a huge sea of sand almost empty and open to any kind of traffic.

When it comes to the West coast, you find the problematic of Liberia/Ivory Coast/Sierra Leone/Guinea (the Mano River problematic). This needs to be stabilised and US should definitively stop working against the interest of their allies (like France…). The question there is raw materials (Cocoa, coffee, iron, rubber, diamonds…) and small arms and drug.

When you go to the horne you have the problematic of the petrol sea road and the Somali pirates. Also you have the problematic of small arms and drug.

In Central Africa, you have, well name it: diamonds, rare minerals, gold, uranium, oil… And an all bunch of countries that need to go out of civil war. They need to build credible invest environment for them to attract major companies. And small arms and drug…

In Southern Africa, JMA must know better than me, you have agricultural products, drug and small arms…

To say that there is room for US and other to come and support the emerging new Africa. The thing is that US, as the Europeans should be in position to condition their support to respects of engagements (I know easier to say than to do). The trick is that you have wild players as China who wants to put a feet in Africa and does not give a sierra about Africa. But they will have to come to the same view than the westerners: what you need in Africa is a safe investing environment.
As Tom and JMA pointed previously, you have talents in Africa. The shame is that they need to expatriate out side of the continent to make money and ENJOY it.

So the main question is: is it worst for US to keep on strengthening the democratic agenda (Good governance, human rights, democratisation…) in Africa. China has taken the decision to not play by that agenda and they have the financial means to not play it.
As JMA pointed so well, many leaders are ready to take that hand because following the “westerner” path will bring them one day or another to face ICC or trial from their population.
Recently, they also decided to go by the “chosen colonisation” with China and India by selling them land for Indian and Chinese to make it productive (just like African people were bad farmers…).

China and India have chosen to do cooperation in Africa through private sector. Soon will come the day both of them will need a secured economical and legal environment. Just like west.

And there is the nuclear question with its dirty roads.
I do believe that the democratic agenda has to be kept but may be promoted through the need of safe economical environment rather than through the problematic of Human Rights. It’s like a package and all depend on what angle you look at it. It’s more attractive if there is private business, at what all African people are very good at, than high moral values that no one is willing to look at closely, including US and western powers.

Saying so, Uganda and Rwanda are not a real model because, just like Ivory coast, the question is: what after the strong man? And for the moment it is, just like Louis 14 said: apres moi le deluge...

Here are my 0.2$ incentives.

M-A