Digressions, but...
I know what you mean, but it seems to me to be more about the institutions, choked with rules and regulations, desperately covering their prodigious asses, and obsessed with trying to protect themselves from any claim that they failed to protect everyone in their charge from anything resembling an experience that might produce knowledge. A lot of the individuals seem to me to be quite eager to get out and have a look, but the barriers against it are almost insurmountable unless they show up with no institutional affiliation.Originally Posted by Misifus
Possibly so. I'm not at all sure, though, that (as I sometimes hear) the Chinese have discovered some magic formula for dominating and controlling the less developed world and are destined to dominate. I say that not from vast experience of Africa, but from a fair bit of experience in dealing with the Chinese. It's still relatively early days and there's a good bit of road left to travel, but I think some folks in Africa are destined to discover that while the Chinese might seem to be great benefactors in the short run, the long term intention is a bit different. Give 'em an inch, they'll take a mile, and they won't stop taking until they hit the backlash point. What form the backlash takes remains to be seen, but I strongly suspect that it will come, because I don't think the Chinese will stop pushing until it does.
I don't think the US is going to out-compete the Chinese for influence in Africa, but I do think it likely that the Chinese will wear out their welcome and make serious trouble for themselves... quite aside from the serious trouble they're already making for themselves on the home front. I don't buy the idea of the unstoppable Chinese juggernaut bound to consume the world.
I don't think the future of Africa lies with the Chinese or the Indians or the Russians, Europeans, or Americans. For better or worse, it's in the hands of the Africans.
“The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary”
H.L. Mencken
Yup. Sometimes it's great to be a free agent.
Yup. Like I said upthread. They will have to work these things out for themselves.I don't think the future of Africa lies with the Chinese or the Indians or the Russians, Europeans, or Americans. For better or worse, it's in the hands of the Africans.
You are correct, the US shouldn't try to compete with the Chinese for influence in Africa. But I wonder, what's the point of having an embassy in a country, if your diplomats don't appear to have interest in the country? You could easily outsource the visa services, have a few staff to support the Ambassador and limit the Ambassador to interacting covertly with top generals and politicians.I don't think the US is going to out-compete the Chinese for influence in Africa, but I do think it likely that the Chinese will wear out their welcome and make serious trouble for themselves... quite aside from the serious trouble they're already making for themselves on the home front. I don't buy the idea of the unstoppable Chinese juggernaut bound to consume the world.
I don't think the future of Africa lies with the Chinese or the Indians or the Russians, Europeans, or Americans. For better or worse, it's in the hands of the Africans.
The Chinese are not an unstoppable juggernaut. They are merely the next set of foreigners (after the Lebanese and Indians) to successfully set up shop in Africa. I expect to see a good number of naturalised Chinese in the future (just like we have naturalised Indians and Lebanese) and a fair amount of successful Chinese companies.
The Chinese are likely to wear out their welcome in some African countries, they are not likely to wear out their welcome in all African countries.
I totally agree with you that the future of Africa lies with Africans themselves. But many Western trained Africans like me are uncomfortable with the West's slow withdrawal from the African continent. (You are in Africa, but you make every effort not to be in Africa).
British district commissioners used to tour Northern Nigeria on horse back and interact with the locals in Hausa. In today's risk averse world, it is almost impossible to form such bonds.
Your news media seems to suggest so. Respected publications like The Economist, The New York Times, The Times of London etc. Have at least one "China is taking over Africa and the US/West is being left behind" story every week. Your politicians seem to suggest so - listen to Mrs. Clinton on China and Africa. Your academics write numerous papers on this topic and the almighty Fareed Zakaria seems to say so.Are we in a battle with the Chinese and Indians? I don't see that we are, or that we need to be. I also don't think spending more money or sending more people would necessarily increase influence or accomplish anything, especially if there's no clear idea of what they're meant to accomplish or how.
Who am I, and what qualifies me to disagree with the opinions of the Masters of the Universe?
As I said earlier, the US shouldn't try to compete against the Chinese in Africa. But you are a competitive people and you like to win. For instance, you are building bases in Australia to contain China and protect shipments of iron ore from Australia to China.
This is a question that has baffled Americans living overseas for many decades... what exactly do the people in that building do? Believe me, we don't know either. I'm not even sure they know.
Certainly not all, and certainly not all at the same time. I suspect, though, that in at least one place they will step in it big time and find themselves harnessed to an inept government threatened by insurgents that are riding at least partly on an anti-Chinese platform. What they do then will be interesting to see... will they cut their losses and back out, or have a small war of their very own? A small war in Africa would be a real burden for them, especially if it stopped being small, which they often do.
The discomfort at a US absence seems matched by equal discomfort with a US presence, which always seems to be regarded with deep suspicion. A middle ground is hard to find, especially with the US populace wary of involvement. No matter what the US does, somebody - generally a lot of people - will be upset. If we say Africa is a priority and devote resources to it, we're making a sinister grab for resources; if we back off we don't care.
“The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary”
H.L. Mencken
What about the police?
I think counter-terrorism is should be more of police/CID type operation than a military operation. If things get pretty violent, then it points to a failure of policing (e.g. the Royal Ulster Constabulary, Nigerian Police).
The reason why I brought this up is that I am seeing vastly more military-to-military engagements than police-to-police engagements.
The Nigerian Police is in terrible shape and some people are suggesting that the entire (Federal, Central) police force should either be scrapped or streamlined and local policing should be handled by state police who have a better grasp of what is happening on the ground. A former head of state recently suggested that state police would be better equipped to deal with the problems of terrorism and militancy.
What do you guys think?
The discomfort at a US absence seems matched by equal discomfort with a US presence, which always seems to be regarded with deep suspicion. A middle ground is hard to find, especially with the US populace wary of involvement. No matter what the US does, somebody - generally a lot of people - will be upset. If we say Africa is a priority and devote resources to it, we're making a sinister grab for resources; if we back off we don't care.
We are not uncomfortable with a US civilian presence, we are uncomfortable (for understandable reasons) with a US military presence. That is the important distinction.
If the PLA were to announce the creation of a Chinese AFRICOM tomorrow, we will even be more uncomfortable.
The subject has baffled even those inside the embassy as if the building was some sort of force field to spare you from seeing the real world outside. Generally speaking the State staff have clear and defined tasks in addition to what congressmen and senators want. The embassy is but a place where your computer terminal resides and your job is outside.
The military at embassies are normally stationed very close to their contacts such as the MOD or Defense HQs.
Some people don't want to be there and that just stymies the system and hurts the host government. We have to fight for foreign assistance funds and if we don't, the other guy at another embassy with a passion for doing things gets the extra cash every year.
EDIT: Exactly and so well put. That, is in fact the job of the embassy to ensure such cultural diversities and concerns are addressed with their mission statement.
Last edited by Stan; 11-18-2011 at 09:50 AM.
If you want to blend in, take the bus
I doubt they'll commit their own troops to a war. They will either fight through proxies (like many other nations do) or cut their losses and back out. Alternatively, they may decide to invest heavily in regional organisations like the AU and craft a mechanism to protect their investments in Africa. (This of course, will involve heavy investments with regional heavyweights like Ethiopia and Nigeria).Certainly not all, and certainly not all at the same time. I suspect, though, that in at least one place they will step in it big time and find themselves harnessed to an inept government threatened by insurgents that are riding at least partly on an anti-Chinese platform. What they do then will be interesting to see... will they cut their losses and back out, or have a small war of their very own? A small war in Africa would be a real burden for them, especially if it stopped being small, which they often do.
I thought that Southern Sudan would chew them out, but they seem to have handled the situation there quite well. They are settling down well with Michael Sata in Zambia and the opposition in Zimbabwe doesn't seem to have many problems dealing with them. They are learning to court both the party in power and opposition politicians.
Jaja,
This is again a function for the embassy Legal Attache and/or Regional Security Officer. Although there are several bilateral and State Partnerships that cover the same inadequacies. We've been trained by both US and UK and most of that training was free. David could probably help you with some contact info, or, I can send you MET SO13/15 info.
But, you're still back to getting the embassy to initiate and seek funding. That translates into the Nigerian government requesting the assistance from the embassy. It has to start there because as you so noted above, there doesn't seem to be much outside activity at your US Embassy.
Every country handles counter terrorism differently.
If you want to blend in, take the bus
IISS Strategic Comment
A Comment that opens with:Ends with:With a suicide car-bombing of the United Nations building in the Nigerian capital, Abuja, in August, and recent deadly attacks in the northeastern states of Yobe and Borno, Islamist group Boko Haram has announced its return to the stage, two years after it was supposed to have been defeated. The radical group, which used to confine itself to drive-by shootings, is more violent than ever, adding to the pressures on Nigeria's security forces. Faced with the sect's calls for an Islamic caliphate and increasingly sophisticated guerrilla tactics, Defence Minister Bello Halliru Mohammed recently compared Nigeria's current position to 'the United States ... after 9/11'Link:http://www.iiss.org/publications/str...-new-headache/However, the group does represent a serious threat. In an already highly polarised country of 150 million people and nearly 350 ethnic groups speaking 250 languages, where about 50% of the population is Muslim and 40% Christian, and where nearly three-quarters of the people live on less than $1.25 a day, the potential for inter-ethnic and religious violence remains high. Poverty and unemployment in the north, coupled with population increase and government's inability to deal effectively with non-state groups, can turn northern states into an ideal recruitment ground for extremists and a springboard from which they could expand into the rest of the country. The Abuja attacks suggest that this is already occurring.
After a careful, first reading many of the points on the 'human terrain' or context for Boko Haram have been made here. I would contend with additional insight along the way.
davidbfpo
Opposition to US bases in Africa
Just at our own KingJaja has been expressing, other African leaders are beginning to express opposition to the US buildup in Africa. Yet, some countries, namely Kenya are asking for assistance.
I expand on this on in my newest blog post at Terrorism In Africa
Not a bad point considering where this thread is going.
Begs the question however, why isn't the Nigerian government requesting assistance ?
I'd hate to think that all these intelligent people are merely debating your country's fate and nobody is doing anything at the government levels. I don't want to sound naive (although I am a bit thick), but, what is the Nigerian government's official view on assistance requests ? If not transparent and open, there will be few takers.
You have a nice blog but far too much of anti-US Military sentiment for me. Don't take this too seriously, but you will not gain much sympathy outside of Africa with that. Not sure what your objective is.
Potential donor nations don't get off on being insulted.
If you want to blend in, take the bus
I am not sure what the Nigerian government's official view is, I am an American, not Nigerian. I have problems with our "military" involvement in African affairs unless it is strictly humanitarian in nature. We tend to stick around way too long once we get involved militarily.
No insult intended. Just opposition. Americans have helped Africa over and over again, some helpful, some not so much. There are, I believe, productive ways we can help, but I am convinced that military involvement will make the problem worse.
I have not specific agenda in my blog other than to report and comment on terrorism in Africa news.
BTW, I just noticed I was promoted to "Council Member" not sure what the distinction means.
I enjoy the give and take on the forum.
Chowing:
10 + 1 posts = "Council Member".
Not a real high bar. 479 "Council Members" since inception of SWC. You can check this via clicking "Community" > Members List > Search Members > Advanced Search - getting this form. 33 members are 1000+.
Regards
Mike
As I said earlier, Africa is huge (expansive, complex, diverse). This is the first thing every serious analyst should understand.Just at our own KingJaja has been expressing, other African leaders are beginning to express opposition to the US buildup in Africa. Yet, some countries, namely Kenya are asking for assistance.
I expand on this on in my newest blog post at Terrorism In Africa
Kenya is a tourism driven economy. The least informed Masai understands the link between terrorism and dwindling tourism revenue. Also remember that the threat is primarily external (Al Shabab) rather than internal.
On the other hand, in Nigeria, our threats are internal (no matter how many links you conjure between AQIM and Boko Haram). Islamist terrorism in Northern Nigeria, kidnapping in South-Eastern Nigeria, Muslim-Christian clashes in Nigeria's Middle Belt and the Nigeria Delta Militancy are driven by our socio-economic environment.
[NB: Nigerians hold Western Oil and Gas companies and the Nigerian Government equally responsible for the mess in the Niger Delta. (Wikileaks revelations from Shell's Ann Prickard didn't help matters, she boasted that "they knew everything about key decisions in government"). The murky connection between Shell and the murder of Saro-Wiwa is coming to light. The Nigerian Army massacres at Odi and several other locations in the Niger Delta were driven primarily by the need to protect Western Energy interests.
Please watch this video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0kbLn...layer_embedded
The man on the street is of the opinion that the Nigerian Government are puppets of Western Oil Companies. (And you can work out the connection: Nigerian Government > Western Oil and Gas Companies > AFRICOM).
These tensions have always existed, in the 1970's, the memories of the Civil War and the Oil Boom attenuated them. Nigeria has experienced steady economic and institutional decline since 1982, and these are only symptoms of our long-running national disease.]
Nations with large Evangelical Christian populations are naturally going to be more accommodating of US presence. Nations with a history of fighting long, bloody wars of liberation will not (South Africa). Nations with significant Islamic populations will not (you can overcome this hurdle if you deal directly with the local strong man).
Many of you tend to forget that Nigeria is a democracy (albeit imperfect). Government is in a precarious position, if there is a strong indication that the Nigerian Government is taking orders from US or that US advisers are on the ground in Northern Nigeria, then Boko Haram recruitment will rise by at least 200%.I'd hate to think that all these intelligent people are merely debating your country's fate and nobody is doing anything at the government levels. I don't want to sound naive (although I am a bit thick), but, what is the Nigerian government's official view on assistance requests ? If not transparent and open, there will be few takers.
Sorry about that. You gave me the impression you were of Nigerian decent. My bad !
Were you or are you military ? Don't have to answer that, but it helps me gauge your view a bit better.
Here's where we differ in opinions... The US Military is not some kind of humanitarian tool in the POTUS' kit bag when all other (diplomatic) solutions fail. The vast majority of our military is not trained for nor equipped to perform humanitarian missions (meandering around unarmed with the expectations of maintaining security must be the dumbest thing I have ever set my eyes on). It was never our job and we (most of us) honestly suck at it. So, the USG ends up dumping the money on FEDBIZ and hopes to get the lowest bidder to a government contract that will be most effective in a country they have never stepped foot in.
How does that scenario sound ?
No wonder we are always into some Sierra longer than anticipated.
No offense intended herein, but what would you expect us to do when we arrive half prepared and already underfunded ? Nothing rhetorical there - it's been my life for over 30 years.
I couldn't agree with you more at this point in my life. I do not have the answers, dude
What productive measure sans US Military are you referring to? What's the mission objective, goals, exit strategy, estimated price, etc.? We now have over an inch of paper and congress has yet to approve FY12 despite the fact we are well into the first quarter in the middle of nowhere, and my people are not being paid, there's no fuel, and I have ceased ops. Sorry for blowing off steam with you, but that's exactly where my teams are right this second and I'm over 7,000 miles away. Hmmm, wonder why we stay so long ?
Forgive me, I have no clue what most of these blogs are for. Some I like (if they involve bikers) and some I just don't get.
Congrats on your promotion !
Last edited by Stan; 11-18-2011 at 08:39 PM. Reason: grammar again !
If you want to blend in, take the bus
Jaja,
Valid point. Thanks.
There are literally hundreds of ways to request civilian type assistance. What would be the Nigerian view if say the UK came in ? South Africa ?
So long as it is not the US we're OK ?
EDIT. Sorry Jaja, our posts crossed in the atmosphere before I could read your last post.
The man on the street is of the opinion that the Nigerian Government are puppets of Western Oil Companies. (And you can work out the connection: Nigerian Government > Western Oil and Gas Companies > AFRICOM).
Last edited by Stan; 11-18-2011 at 08:10 PM.
If you want to blend in, take the bus
A short history of Nigeria
The first thing you need to understand about Nigeria, is that it is an artificial construct, created by the British to reduce administrative expenses.After a careful, first reading many of the points on the 'human terrain' or context for Boko Haram have been made here. I would contend with additional insight along the way
The area called Nigeria has been inhabited by several ethnic groups with very different cultures, over a period of thousands of years. In Nigeria's South West, the Benin Empire and the Yoruba Kingdoms were predominant. (A distinguishing characteristic of the Benin Empire was that they refused to sell slaves to Europeans). In the South East, the Igbo were organised into villages, and in most cases they didn't have central leadership figures (they tended to be more consensual). There are other ethnic groups in the South that shared some of the characteristics of the Igbo and the Yoruba.
Slavery was the most significant event to occur in Southern Nigeria before British rule. The impact of slavery on African Americans has been extensively studied, but the impact of slavery on the African psyche has been less studied. I believe that corruption and inter-ethnic antagonisms are the biggest legacies of slavery (slavery was a deeply corrupting, soul-destroying business and most slaves were the victims of wars).
(These are merely my uninformed views).
In Northern Nigeria, Islam had a very long history. There were two major centers of Islam, the Hausa States and the Kanem Bornu empire. In between the Islamic North and the South, there were the Middle Belt people like the Tiv, the Jukun, the Berom and the Igala. The Islamic North hasn't always had a good relationship with these people - the North raided the Middle Belt to procure slaves to sell to the Arabs.
The most important Islamic figure in Islamic Northern Nigeria was Uthman Dan Fodio. Dan Fodio established the Sokoto Caliphate in the late eighteenth century / early nineteenth century. Before Dan Fodio, Islam tended to be restricted to the courts of Muslim rulers and the serfs practiced the local animist religion. Dan Fodio's greatest legacy was the jihadist tradition / less tolerant form of Islam practiced in Northern Nigeria. (In Nigeria's South West, the Islamic tradition is much more tolerant, because it was introduced by traders from the Mali Empire - you have many instances of Muslim wives / Christian husbands and vice versa in South West Nigeria).
The British originally ruled two colonies - the Southern protectorate and the Northern protectorate. In 1914, Lord Lugard (who cut his teeth in India), amalgamated the North and South protectorates and his fiance coined an expression "Niger Area" - Nigeria to describe this colony.
Northern Nigeria was ruled very differently from South Nigeria. Paradoxically, British rule enhanced the power of Northern emirs (local sheiks), the reverse was the case in the South. Lugard adopted a system called indirect rule from India. Under indirect rule, the British ruled through the established traditional structures. It worked splendidly in Northern Nigeria, but it had disadvantages:
1. Western education was not encouraged, because missionaries were the primary agents. Naturally, the emirs were not too happy with that.
2. The British put non-Muslims under emirs, this led to tensions.
3. At the end of the colonial era, the North was far behind the South, and that gap is yet to be bridged.
The British still needed low-level clerks, administrators and railway workers, so they had to bring them over from the South to the North. Their higher living standards, attracted jealousy and the 1953 riots in Kano was one of the first outbursts. There was also another movement led by Aminu Kano, which opposed the entrenchment of the existing class structure by the British and argued for the emancipation of the talakawas (commoners).
Nonetheless, in 1960, this entire area was granted independence by the British. A northerner was selected as prime minister, the president came from the South East, and the South West formed the opposition. A disagreement between the Obafemi Awolowo (the leader of the opposition) and Akintola (the Western premier), triggered Nigeria's first crisis. This led to a coup by officers from the South East in 1966. The major victims of the coup were from the South West and the North (Ahmadu Bello, the major Northern figure). This triggered a counter-coup by Northern Military officers, led by Murtala Muhammad and Yakubu Gowon. After the coup succeeded (so the story goes in Southern Nigeria), Murtala Muhammad hoisted the flag of Arewa and was ready to secede from the rest of Nigeria (until Western diplomats and Oil and Gas executives convinced him to do otherwise).
The Northern counter-coup in 1966 triggered a violent reaction in the North against South Easterners (Igbos). These massacres led to the Nigerian Civil War, in which most of Nigeria's future military rulers played a role.
These men (Obasanjo, Babangida etc) , may be the last true believers in Nigeria's unity.
Oil was discovered in the Niger Delta in 1956. In the run up to independence, the Willink Commission made recommendations on how the Niger Delta should be treated in an independent Nigeria - they were never followed. Western Oil companies began their operations with scant regard for the environment - massive gas flaring and oil spills were neglected. The killer blow was the Land Use Act of 1978. Government had the right to confiscate your land and hand it over to an Oil and Gas company for an oil mineral lease or an oil prospecting lease and compensate you only for the cost of your property on the land (i.e. 0.50 naira for every stick of cassava).
The difference in living standards between employees of Oil and Gas companies and natives triggered resentment (especially when they had to deal with gas flares 24/7). Saro-Wiwa protested against this in Ogoniland, he was hanged by Abacha, the Kaiama declaration was written in 1999, and hell was let lose.
Meanwhile, the Northern elite continued to consolidate their hold on power (Nigeria was ruled by Northerners from 1960 - 1976, 1979 - 1999). More money was allocated to Northern Nigeria than to Southern Nigeria, and while this was resented by the South, it did not lead to any appreciable improvement in the standard of living of Northerners. The talakawa agitated, but they were put down by the Northern elite.
In 1982, our oil revenues could no longer meet our budgetary commitments (we learned very bad habits during the oil boom era). Austerity measures were introduced, and that led to a military coup in 1983 and another in 1985. Nigeria was forced to adopted IMF/World Bank structural adjustment programmes (Reagan/Thatcher reigned supreme then). We were mandated to cut spending on social programmes and embark on privatisation. The result was a hollowing out of the middle class and a massive drop in quality of health care / education.
(Sometimes, I wonder why our politicians listen to the West. In the 70's it was all about industrial development and infrastructure. In the 80's it was reduce spending on social programmes. Today it is increase spending on social programmes and some BS on millennium development goals. Anyway that is a topic for another day).
Sharia has always been a hot topic in Nigeria (at least since the constituent assembly in the 1970's). The British left a confused situation in which elements of Sharia were recognised and the role of Muslim traditional rulers were affirmed. The level of dissatisfaction with the Northern elite pushed them to adopt Sharia in twelve Northern States as from 1999 (more in theory than in practice). It was a cynical ploy to cement their relationship with the masses and to distance and distinguish themselves from the Christian-led Obasanjo regime.
However, there are true believers like Boko Haram, who can see beyond the cynicism of the North elite and want the real thing. They have the support of the masses and for the first time in my life, Nigeria's Northern elite are being openly and violently challenged by their people.
Boko Haram is many things, it is a:
1. Jihadist movement/terrorist organisation.
2. A vehicle to challenge the dominance of the Northern elite.
3. A source of identification for many unemployed, under-educated Northern Muslim youths.
These factors will put pressure on the Northern elite to dissociate/distance themselves from Abuja and hence impact on Nigeria's unity.
Meanwhile, Boko Haram taps into another source of tension, the rapid expansion of Evangelical Christianity in Northern Nigeria. This has led a series of conflicts and the prospect of the World's first Evangelical Christian militant organisation Akwat Akwop.
In summary, Nigeria is a mess. There is a steady supply of unemployed young men with grievances. I can see a proliferation of militant groups in the future (Christian militants in the Middle Belt, "Biafran" militants, Yoruba militants, Niger Delta militants). It will only take one successful Boko Haram operation in Lagos to trigger an ethnic war between the Hausa-Fulani / Kanuri and the Yoruba.
We need to sit down and renegotiate the basis for nationhood - and time is running out fast, a generation with no memories of the Nigerian Civil War is assuming positions of leadership.
Posting Permissions
Bookmarks