Africom Stands Up 2006-2017

[KingJaja]

davidbfpo,

Another group session?

On March 28, Presidents Macky Sall, Joyce Banda, Ernest Bai Koroma & Jos Maria Pereira Neves met President Obama in a group at the White House.



Predictably, Macky Sall, the leader of Senegal (one of Africa's more important nations) got a LOT of flack from Senegalese media for going to the White House as part of a tour group.

There's something that the US doesn't get; that the Chinese seem to get - US might unwittingly be sending out the vibes that it is too busy to visit African officials, so it prefers to seem them in groups.

This is never intentional but, I think diplomats need to be careful about that - Africa is very diverse & it is very difficult to cover the ground in a group.

[ganulv]

Another group session?

[…]

There's something that the US doesn't get; that the Chinese seem to get - US might unwittingly be sending out the vibes that it is too busy to visit African officials, so it prefers to seem them in groups.

This is never intentional but, I think diplomats need to be careful about that - Africa is very diverse & it is very difficult to cover the ground in a group.

That’s fair. But there is also the practicality that the President of the United States is both the nation’s head of state and head of government. There are so many hours in a day and days in a term.

[KingJaja]

ganulv,

That’s fair. But there is also the practicality that the President of the United States is both the nation’s head of state and head of government. There are so many hours in a day and days in a term.

Try bringing the Presidents of Brazil, Argentina, Chile & Mexico in a group to see the US President because there are too few hours in the day and he's too busy to see them all.

Obama will be politely told that he isn't the only busy president in the World.

Some things are either worth doing well or not worth doing at all.

[KingJaja]

ganulv,

These people took their time, flew all the way to the US to see the US president - and he can't see them individually because he's too busy - give me a break!

What message does that send?

[ganulv]

Try bringing the Presidents of Brazil, Argentina, Chile & Mexico in a group to see the US President because there are too few hours in the day and he's too busy to see them all.

On the one hand you have the world’s 6th, 26th, 38th, and 14th largest economies. On the other you have the world’s 115th, 147th, 160th, and 168th largest economies. There is more to life and diplomacy than money, but do the math.

Also, the first are all within a historic sphere of American influence and one of them forms the U.S.’s southern border.

Obama will be politely told that he isn't the only busy president in the World.

I suspect he is far busier than the the President of Senegal. And I say that with due respect to President Sall and without intending to insinuate that he lounges all day being fed grapes.

Some things are either worth doing well or not worth doing at all.

Lord knows I didn’t attend the Kennedy School of Government (and Lord knows I didn’t want to and that they wouldn’t have let me in if I had) so I don’t know the ins-and-outs of high level diplomacy, but my impression is that my government takes a s*#t in that arena on a fairly regular basis, if you will pardon my vulgarity. So I’m not necessarily disagreeing with you. If the calculation was that Obama couldn’t spend public one-on-one time with each of the four leaders then perhaps the invitations should not have been extended at all. That would run the risk of coming across as dismissive in a different way, of course.

These people took their time, flew all the way to the US to see the US president - and he can't see them individually because he's too busy - give me a break!

Poor them! I bet they had to fly Coach, too! The U.S. President has 50 state governors to rub elbows with, as well, and flight time between Dakar and DC isn’t much longer than between Sacramento and DC. And AFAIK it has been over a half century since a Presidential candidate calculated it worth the time to fly to Hawaii for a campaign stop.

Do we even know that he didn’t meet with those four African leaders individually? Again with the poor diplomacy—maybe he did, and just didn’t arrange a fancy photo op. Like you said, worth doing well or not worth doing at all, perhaps.

[jmm99]

I was doing some reading on a different African topic and I came upon the following map (The Long-Term Effects of Africa’s Slave Trades; map is at p.17):

12-Nunn Map.jpg

It shows the major ethnicities within (and some split up by) the neo-colonial state borders.

Since the thread has now turned to individual vs group leadership meetings, my thoughts when looking at the map turned to the "what if" questions:

1. What if the neo-colonial borders were scuppered; and new borders aligned on the basis of the ethnicities ?

2. How would these many more, much smaller countries fare in the diplomatic and trade arenas ?

3. Specifically, would the resultant multiplicity of West-Central African coastal countries (the most ethnically divided) then be placed at a competitive disadvantage as their pre-colonial antecedents apparently were - as recently argued in 2009 by two Univ. of Michigan economists, The Impact of the Slave Trade on African Economies.

4. What counter-strategies could that multiplicity of relatively tiny countries employ in order to offset the power of their trade "partners" (whether EU, China or US) ?

This is not an argument for keeping the neo-colonial borders; my dog is not in that fight; my presumption favors self-determination; but how many, many tiny countries would fare in a dog eat dog world seems a legitimate issue.

KJ: I expect you have considered this issue; I'd be interested in your thoughts.

Regards

Mike

[davidbfpo]

davidbfpo,

Another group session?

On March 28, Presidents Macky Sall, Joyce Banda, Ernest Bai Koroma & Jos Maria Pereira Neves met President Obama in a group at the White House.



Predictably, Macky Sall, the leader of Senegal (one of Africa's more important nations) got a LOT of flack from Senegalese media for going to the White House as part of a tour group.

There's something that the US doesn't get; that the Chinese seem to get - US might unwittingly be sending out the vibes that it is too busy to visit African officials, so it prefers to seem them in groups.

This is never intentional but, I think diplomats need to be careful about that - Africa is very diverse & it is very difficult to cover the ground in a group.

I wondered who three of the African leaders were, Ms Banda was easy. So the White House press release was found and has the spin on why they met:

Today President Obama welcomed President Ernest Bai Koroma of Sierra Leone, President Macky Sall of Senegal, President Joyce Banda of Malawi, and Prime Minister Jos Maria Pereira Neves of Cape Verde to the White House. The United States has strong partnerships with these countries based on shared democratic values and shared interests. Each of these leaders has undertaken significant efforts to strengthen democratic institutions, protect and expand human rights and civil liberties, and increase economic opportunities for their people.

[KingJaja]

Some other nations have been busy in Africa.

Israel is actually quite popular in a lot of Sub Sahara Africa (at least the Christian parts), so there's a bid to grant them observer status at the African Union - which Egypt naturally opposes.

CAIRO — Egyptian fears have been rekindled regarding the spread of Israeli influence in the Horn of Africa, and more particularly the Nile Basin, following information obtained by Egyptian security agencies that Ethiopia, Kenya and Nigeria were attempting to promote Israel’s candidacy as an observer member in the African Union (AU). These states were also urging other AU states to include a discussion of this request on the agenda for the African Summit in January 2014 in Addis Ababa.

Read more: http://www.al-monitor.com/pulse/orig...#ixzz2jCOANGQ3

[KingJaja]

jmm99,

It's a long read - let me get back to you (after working hours).

[Stan]

Kingjaja,
I'd like to have a link to that because I can't find anything even in the French press. There are gobs of news regarding Obama's gay rights during his trip to Senegal, but nothing about President Sall and his so-called tour to DC.

Would be great if you linked those articles concerning predictable outcomes. Otherwise, it's mere innuendo.
.
Regards, Stan

Predictably, Macky Sall, the leader of Senegal (one of Africa's more important nations) got a LOT of flack from Senegalese media for going to the White House as part of a tour group.

[KingJaja]

Sorry, the link was from a popular blog about Africa, not Senegalese media:

http://africasacountry.com/can-afric...f-state-speak/

[Stan]

Kingjaja,
Thanks for the link !

Pardon my interjection, but just as Ganulv suggested, this was not some discourteous act by the USG, rather a logical multi party meeting. These happen all the time when the state actors have a common problem and goal.
A similar multi party meeting took place in July 2011 with the presidents of Benin, Guinea, Nigeria and Ivory Coast.

I think you read too far into this, but that's your call.

I tend not to trust hungry journalism especially in my field of expertise.


Edit: Something slightly worth reading without too much journalism

The Significance of Obama’s Meeting with African Leaders at the White House

Regards, Stan

Sorry, the link was from a popular blog about Africa, not Senegalese media:

http://africasacountry.com/can-afric...f-state-speak/

[KingJaja]

Jmm99,

It shows the major ethnicities within (and some split up by) the neo-colonial state borders.

Since the thread has now turned to individual vs group leadership meetings, my thoughts when looking at the map turned to the "what if" questions:

1. What if the neo-colonial borders were scuppered; and new borders aligned on the basis of the ethnicities ?

2. How would these many more, much smaller countries fare in the diplomatic and trade arenas ?

3. Specifically, would the resultant multiplicity of West-Central African coastal countries (the most ethnically divided) then be placed at a competitive disadvantage as their pre-colonial antecedents apparently were - as recently argued in 2009 by two Univ. of Michigan economists, The Impact of the Slave Trade on African Economies.

4. What counter-strategies could that multiplicity of relatively tiny countries employ in order to offset the power of their trade "partners" (whether EU, China or US) ?

This is not an argument for keeping the neo-colonial borders; my dog is not in that fight; my presumption favors self-determination; but how many, many tiny countries would fare in a dog eat dog world seems a legitimate issue.

KJ: I expect you have considered this issue; I'd be interested in your thoughts.

Regards

I'm extremely sorry for responding late to your questions. They require a great deal of thought, and might have to be dealt with in detail by much smarter people than me, but I'll try.

I won't answer your questions directly, but I'll give my perspective on these issues.

African states are ex-colonial administrative units, they are not nations in the same way the United States of America or France are nations. Most are incoherent & lack an internal logic.

So the present order is unsustainable, but what will replace it?

Ideology has no place in African politics, but two factors predominate - religion & ethnicity. Religion is not that much of an issue in Southern & Central Africa, but it is a much bigger issue in West Africa.

So the first point of separation is likely to be religion and we can see that in Nigeria. Only a fool will maintain that Fundamentalist Islam and Sharia can coexist peacefully with Evangelical Christianity. So Nigeria's future will be two nations at the minimum - the Sharia compliant North & people in the South who aren't that crazy about Sharia.

After mutually incompatible religions (example Sudan/South Sudan, Nigeria, appearing in Kenya, Tanzania & Central African republic & possibly Chad in the future), the most important fault lines are ethnic.

Let me add here that not all ethnic groups are mutually antagonistic, some ethnic groups have long history of interaction, speak similar languages, have similar cultures & have mechanisms for conflict resolution.

In East Africa, everyone knows the Nilotics are a bit different from the Bantus. Obviously, these geniuses (i.e the French & British - America's closest allies), weren't interested about such distinctions and drew lines wherever they pleased.

In some states (such as Ghana & Tanzania), the national identities are strong enough to weather these storms, but I don't see how states like Nigeria, Congo DRC or Central African Republic will persist as united, cohesive entities for much longer this century.

In Nigeria, the ethno/religious fault-lines are already expressed in the political arrangements. The coastal peoples of the Niger Delta have formed an alliance with the inland Igbos & the many ethnic groups of Nigeria's "Middle Belt" - cultures are somewhat similar and predominantly Christian. This could be the nucleus of one nation.

There are 12 states the implement Sharia law, once again, with some modification, this could be another nation. Then there are the Yoruba people, who could form another nation.

Another trigger for the modification of Sub-Saharan African boundaries are its massive coastal cities. I expect Lagos to expand into Cotonou & swallow it up - colonial boundaries are increasingly meaningless as Lagos will soon expand into Cotonou.

Finally, when the French finally withdraw from Africa, Francophone Africa will fall apart.

All this will result in a redrawing of Africa's maps. I don't think the resulting nations will be as small as a single tribe, but they will be more logical, more cohesive and hopefully more economically viable than what obtains today.

[jmm99]

to what are difficult, futuristic questions. Two of your points stood out to me.

The first deals with co-operating ethnic groups:

Let me add here that not all ethnic groups are mutually antagonistic, some ethnic groups have long history of interaction, speak similar languages, have similar cultures & have mechanisms for conflict resolution.

This is also the point made by some (e.g., John Thornton) in the long ongoing American discussion of the African-American part of the African Diaspora. The "lumpers" (such as Thornton) recognize that, in 1400-1800 (and presumably today), one cannot speak of "Africans" as any sort of unity. The West-Central African coast (Gambia to Angola) in 1400-1800 had a large number of ethnicities. However, some of those ethnicities could (more easily than others) "lump" together for common purposes (such as, providing better survival chances under the adverse conditions of chattel slavery).

I also see your second point:

Another trigger for the modification of Sub-Saharan African boundaries are its massive coastal cities. I expect Lagos to expand into Cotonou & swallow it up - colonial boundaries are increasingly meaningless as Lagos will soon expand into Cotonou.

particularly, after reading this Atlantic article, How Africa's New Urban Centers Are Shifting Its Old Colonial Boundaries:

The continent's booming new economic zones are outstripping the ability of weak central governments to retain their hold on them.

Twice as populous today as the next biggest African country, Nigeria, which was cobbled together as a colony 100 years ago, has always stood out on its continent as the most ambitious and in many ways fanciful creation of British imperialism.
...
Lagos, which sits in the southwestern corner of Nigeria, sprawled over a collection of islands and swampy coastlands, occupies the leading edge of this phenomenon. Today, its extraordinary growth is driving sweeping changes in a five-country region that stretches 500 miles westward along a band of palm-shaded seaboard all the way to Abidjan, Ivory Coast, a mushrooming city of perhaps six million people that has long been this region's other major economic and cultural pole.

In between them, in one of the busiest staging areas of the historic Atlantic slave trade, West Africa is laying the foundations of one of the world's biggest megalopolises, and in Lagos itself, the start of a potentially powerful new city-state.
...
And this is where Africa's new political geography comes in. A simple tally of the projections for the three principal cities in this corridor, Lagos, Abidjan, and Accra, adds up to a mid-century population of 54 million.

To this, however, one must add places like Ibadan, Nigeria (presently 2 million people), only 80 miles from Lagos, Takoradi, Ghana (500,000 people), and the capitals of what are today sovereign countries, Lome, Togo (1.5 million) and Cotonou, Benin (1.2 million). Throw in the countless other towns and cities along the way that will be swelling or springing to life, and the foreseeable result is a dense and nearly unbroken urban zone from end to end.

One futuristic possibility for this urban zone would be something akin to the Hanseatic League, giving it leverage in trade without outright secession from the countries within which those cities are located today.

Regards

Mike

[KingJaja]

Jmm99,

I think US is focusing on the wrong things in Africa - counter terrorism & piracy - & its understanding of the term "state failure" is extremely problematic.

Terrorism and piracy are symptoms of state failure, but state failure is a product of the shoddy job of state creation done (in a hurry) by the European colonial powers.

For US engagement in Africa to be productive, it needs to think outside the box and consider African history, the mistakes made and what remedial actions might be necessary.

However, from the little I know about America, Americans neither have the patience, the resources nor the interest in getting involved in the "politics of tribes or pre/post-colonial history".

So, AFRICOM will fire its drones, but its drones will not solve underlying issues like a long standing Tuareg rebellion in Mali. The French and British will insist on preserving the established post-colonial order. So things will remain in an unstable equilibrium until:

The French withdraw from Sub-Saharan Africa and instability results.

This instability will cascade down to the rest of West Africa and is likely to have wide ranging implications.

Will Americans want AFRICOM to replace the French as a source of stability in Sub-Saharan Africa? I doubt it, they just don't have that interest.

I expect these events to shape up by mid-century. It might be bloody & messy, but Africa's maps will change.