CNN: Can Democracy Thrive in Africa?

[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

[Dayuhan]

M-A,

I quite agree that the US should support and promote democratic development where it exists... throughout the developing world, not only in Africa. I agree that the US should promote investment and economic engagement where the conditions to support these things exist, again throughout the developing world.

The problem is that in many places there is no democratic development, and the minimal conditions needed for investment and economic development do not exist. The question of what, if anything we should or could do in these circumstances is very much open, and I see no good answers.

What I find frustrating in JMA's comments is the frequent reference to expectations and demands, to not tolerating certain actions, to going after bad governments, or people who do not conform to our expectations and demands. These things may or may not be desirable, but it doesn't matter, because they aren't possible unless somebody has the will and the capacity to do the enforcing... and I don't see anyone who does.

On the positive side, we can take some hope from developments in Latin America. Only a few decades ago Latin America was a global epicenter of Big Man politics. Terms like "banana republic" and "tinpot dictator" were coined in reference to the regions generation of monomaniacal despots, and the Latin American dictator in a medal-draped uniform became a standard caricature. Today those days may not be completely behind us, but a huge amount of progress has been made, more than many expected. It's not sure that African nations can do the same, but they might... and it's worth noting that the improvement in Latin America followed a general decrease in outside intervention.

[Rex Brynen]

On the positive side, we can take some hope from developments in Latin America. Only a few decades ago Latin America was a global epicenter of Big Man politics. Terms like "banana republic" and "tinpot dictator" were coined in reference to the regions generation of monomaniacal despots, and the Latin American dictator in a medal-draped uniform became a standard caricature. Today those days may not be completely behind us, but a huge amount of progress has been made, more than many expected. It's not sure that African nations can do the same, but they might... and it's worth noting that the improvement in Latin America followed a general decrease in outside intervention.

Thoughtful posts--I agree with you completely.

What also happened in Latin America was a tipping point of sorts--as democratizations occurred, popular and regional expectations shifted in a particular direction. Democracy came to be widely seen as the norm, not an aberration. This effect (among many others) was also at work in post-Soviet Eastern Europe, where to be "European" is widely understood to be synonymous with democratic governance.

As you say, Latin America faces numerous and continued challenges, including massive social inequality and populist authoritarianisms of the "Bolivarist" kind. Still, it is a remarkable change.

[JMA]

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.

What you say is true. It is that the West has not consolidated its experience of Africa into knowledge. This is on one hand frustrating while being somewhat laughable on the other.

There was a window of opportunity for the West to tie support and aid to Africa to governance, human rights and other such issues. This was not done and the end result is that China and India (as you said) have taken advantage of the situation.

Do any of these "smart" kids who now make policy in the West ever stop to consider what China and India want from Africa? Apart from the natural resources they are looking at the wide open spaces. You are correct in that increasingly (especially China) is getting into agriculture in Africa with the intention of growing food for consumption in China... using imported Chinese labour. So China has no incentive to care about the AIDS pandemic or genocides and wars that keep the African population growth in check. They want access to natural resources and land for agriculture and are not going to let stuff like human rights and governance get in the way. The world has taken note. Sri Lanka could not have resolved their Tamil Tiger problem without the support of China which allowed them to do what it takes to crush an insurgency like they were facing. The western powers complained about up to 40,000 civilian casualties in the last stages of the war by Sri Lanka secure in the loving arms of uncle Hong just flashed them the finger.

Now if China did not own the US things may be a little different around the world today.

[Rex Brynen]

Do any of these "smart" kids who now make policy in the West ever stop to consider what China and India want from Africa?

Yes, they do.

[JMA]

Yes, they do.

Then how come they act as if they don't?

[Rex Brynen]

Then how come they act as if they don't?

I think you mean "why don't they act the way I think think they should act," which is a very different thing.

[JMA]

I think you mean "why don't they act the way I think think they should act," which is a very different thing.

No not at all.

Maybe you can provide some examples of where these whiz kids have got anything right in terms of Sub-Saharan Africa?

[Dayuhan]

No not at all.

Maybe you can provide some examples of where these whiz kids have got anything right in terms of Sub-Saharan Africa?

What exactly do you mean by "right", and what exactly do you want the US to do?

[JMA]

What exactly do you mean by "right", and what exactly do you want the US to do?

LOL... I appreciate this is getting difficult for you. What about half a dozen examples of successes in foreign policy interventions in Africa by the US or the West?

[Dayuhan]

LOL... I appreciate this is getting difficult for you. What about half a dozen examples of successes in foreign policy interventions in Africa by the US or the West?

You're not answering the question. What exactly do you mean by "right" and what exactly do you want us to do?

If "success" is accomplishing one's goal, than to have a successful foreign intervention you must first have a clear goal that is achievable with the resources and within the time frame that you are willing to commit to it. In the absence of such a goal, success cannot be achieved and intervention is best avoided. Our interventions in Africa (and many other places) have generally lacked such goals, and thus would have been better avoided.

Are you trying to make a point? If so, please reveal it.

[Dayuhan]

Do any of these "smart" kids who now make policy in the West ever stop to consider what China and India want from Africa? Apart from the natural resources they are looking at the wide open spaces. You are correct in that increasingly (especially China) is getting into agriculture in Africa with the intention of growing food for consumption in China... using imported Chinese labour. So China has no incentive to care about the AIDS pandemic or genocides and wars that keep the African population growth in check. They want access to natural resources and land for agriculture and are not going to let stuff like human rights and governance get in the way.

So what? Why should I, or any American, care? Could be seen as Africa's problem, or China's, but it's certainly not ours... and we have more than enough problems of our own without meddling in anyone else's.

I'm quite happy to see the Chinese investing in oil production or mining ventures in high-risk environments. It's not like they're competing with our companies, Western companies haven't the risk tolerance to even consider these projects. They take the risk, we share the benefit, what's not to like?

Of course you cvould ask whether these projects are of any benefit to Africa or Africanns, but that's for the Africans and the Chinese to work out.

[JMA]

You're not answering the question. What exactly do you mean by "right" and what exactly do you want us to do?

If "success" is accomplishing one's goal, than to have a successful foreign intervention you must first have a clear goal that is achievable with the resources and within the time frame that you are willing to commit to it. In the absence of such a goal, success cannot be achieved and intervention is best avoided. Our interventions in Africa (and many other places) have generally lacked such goals, and thus would have been better avoided.

Are you trying to make a point? If so, please reveal it.

Methinks playing with semantics is the last refuge of a scoundrel.

But I will play along.

I prefer successful as in "having succeeded or being marked by a favorable outcome". So I suggest successful in the long term for Africa rather than to meet a parochial (US, Russian, China etc) goal.

If success in your opinion is based on have a clear goal then why is it that you and others who have a lot to say on matters such as nuclear weapons development articulate no such clear goal?

Here we talk about "can democracy thrive in Africa".

So what is your clear goal on this one? To let Africa evolve at it own pace without US and maybe other intervention regardless of human rights abuses and the odd genocide?

My view would be to keep raising the bar using the "carrot and the stick" method and holding Africa through the AU and the states individually to these rising standards.

There is IMHO a duty to interfere to secure and protect the universal rights of citizens in any country. (The brave western countries are more likely to intervene in Somalia or the Congo than say in Tibet for instance)

OK one more time then, can you name a half dozen or so interventions which have led to improved and increasing democracy in Africa (presuming that is your clear goal of course)?

[JMA]

So what? Why should I, or any American, care? Could be seen as Africa's problem, or China's, but it's certainly not ours... and we have more than enough problems of our own without meddling in anyone else's.

I'm quite happy to see the Chinese investing in oil production or mining ventures in high-risk environments. It's not like they're competing with our companies, Western companies haven't the risk tolerance to even consider these projects. They take the risk, we share the benefit, what's not to like?

Of course you cvould ask whether these projects are of any benefit to Africa or Africanns, but that's for the Africans and the Chinese to work out.

So what actually, if anything, do you believe in?

[Dayuhan]

So what actually, if anything, do you believe in?

Limiting myself to what's relevant to the issue at hand...

I believe that Indian and Chinese investment in Africa is not a threat to US interests and is not a matter with which the US need be concerned.

I believe that the US does not have the right, responsibility, capacity, or will to "fix Africa", and that any effort to do so is likely to have bad results for both Africans and Americans.

I believe that unilateral intervention in Africa (or anywhere) should only be taken in the presence of a major threat to US interests, and the ambitions of such intervention must be proportional to our capacity and will.

I believe that "humanitarian intervention" may at times be necessary, but that it has to be multilateral and that necessity and duration of our participation have to be assessed according to our interests.

I could probably think of a few others, but that will do. What do you believe?

[I]Methinks playing with semantics is the last refuge of a scoundrel.

If asking you to express yourself clearly makes me a scoundrel, I'll have to be one. I've been called worse. What do youthinks it should be called when someone consistently offers nothing but snide and unspecific criticisms of existing policy without offering any practical alternative?

I prefer successful as in "having succeeded or being marked by a favorable outcome". So I suggest successful in the long term for Africa rather than to meet a parochial (US, Russian, China etc) goal.

Fine. How is the US supposed to define "successful in the long term for Africa"? Doesn't that have to be defined by Africans? Americans botch things up badly enough when we try to pursue our own interests, and we at least (sometimes) know what those are. How are we supposed to effectively pursue someone else's, even if we had the resources to run about the globe trying to create favorable outcomes for other continents (we don't).

If success in your opinion is based on have a clear goal then why is it that you and others who have a lot to say on matters such as nuclear weapons development articulate no such clear goal?

A clear goal is necessary but not sufficient. The goal also has to be achievable with the resources and within the time frame you're willing to commit to it, and the expected benefit (to us) of achieving the goal has to exceed the expected cost (again to us).

Look at Afghanistan. The initial goal of removing the Taliban from power was clear and achievable, and was accomplished. The subsequent goal of establishing a centralized, democratic, sustainable government in Afghanistan is probably not achievable with the resources and within the time frame we're willing to commit, and I expect it to fail.

So what is your clear goal on this one? To let Africa evolve at it own pace without US and maybe other intervention regardless of human rights abuses and the odd genocide?

What are our options? I see no convincing evidence that US intervention on any affordable scale is likely to accelerate the pace or alter the course of African development. The costs are very high and the supposed benefits very uncertain. The benefits accruing to those who will bear the cost seem pretty nonexistent.

My view would be to keep raising the bar using the "carrot and the stick" method and holding Africa through the AU and the states individually to these rising standards.

And we should keep doing this because it has worked so well in the past?

I hope you've an abundant supply of carrots and sticks at hand, because we're about out... and how exactly does the US have the responsibility or the right to unilaterally define standards of conduct for other countries?

There is IMHO a duty to interfere to secure and protect the universal rights of citizens in any country. (The brave western countries are more likely to intervene in Somalia or the Congo than say in Tibet for instance)

I don't expect to see western countries intervening in Somalia, the Congo, or Tibet any time soon. Biting off what you haven't the capacity or will to chew is not brave, it's dumb.

OK one more time then, can you name a half dozen or so interventions which have led to improved and increasing democracy in Africa (presuming that is your clear goal of course)?

No. Can you? If intervention doesn't advance the goal, why resort to it in the first place? Unless of course you just like the idea of the white saviour descending on Africa to bring order and bestow the gifts of western civiization... that didn't work out so well last time round either, did it?

[JMA]

Limiting myself to what's relevant to the issue at hand...

Out here in the colonies we hear a lot of talk from a section of the US about what is or isn't in the US interests. You are just another in a long list of US citizens who want to speak on behalf of all of the US (using the 'we') about not getting involved here there and everywhere.

Please go to this site and tell me which of the listed interventions which were really vital to the US best interests.

So an onlooker would be forgiven if believing that you and your ilk do not speak on behalf of the US but rather are pushing a mere minority (albeit vocal) point of view.

For your edification the best US intervention into Africa was George Bush's PEPFAR where US$3 billion per year for five years was provided for AIDS interventions in Africa. Clinton was remembered for failing to act in Rwanda's time of need and cutting and running from Somalia.

So no I can't think of any positive intervention by the US in Africa other than PREPFAR... ever. (I maybe let something slip... then maybe not.)

The odds surely are that the US get it right sometime.

[Dayuhan]

Out here in the colonies we hear a lot of talk from a section of the US about what is or isn't in the US interests. You are just another in a long list of US citizens who want to speak on behalf of all of the US (using the 'we') about not getting involved here there and everywhere.

Do you hear anyone in the US claiming that military intervention in Africa is necessary, desirable, or consistent with US interests? It's actually one of the few things almost everyone seems to agree on.

I suspect the only way you'd get significant US military action in Africa would be a major terrorist attack emanating from an African country. Even then, I'd expect it to be far more limited than what we've seen in Iraq and Afghanistan... Americans will need a few more decades to forget that tossing a regime out is easy and building a new one is very hard.

If the US government or any significant section of the populace thought military intervention in Africa was in the US interest, don't you think you'd see a bit more of it? Don't you think you'd hear more people demanding it? It's fairly obvious that this is not something Americans at any level want to get involved in, for equally obvious reasons.

So no I can't think of any positive intervention by the US in Africa other than PREPFAR... ever. (I maybe let something slip... then maybe not.)

The odds surely are that the US get it right sometime.

If military intervention has generally not had positive consequences, why should we not conclude that "getting it right" would mean less intervention?

If the question is "can democracy thrive in Africa", my opinion would be that it can... eventually, though it might well take a few generations.

If the question is "is American intervention likely to advance the progress of democracy in Africa" - a completely different question - I'd answer "probably not, though there might be a rare and unlikely exception somewhere along the line".

Out here in the colonies...

I was under the impression that South Africa was no longer a colony... did I have that wrong?

If we're talking ex-colonies, I'm in one myself... and indeed one hears a great deal of silly talk, from the US and from many other places.

[JMA]

I was under the impression that South Africa was no longer a colony... did I have that wrong?

Long time ago. Interesting history you should read up on it at some time.

Then from a military point of view both the Zulu Wars and the Boer Wars are too worthy of study leading to battle field visits.

There you will see the best (Rorke's Drift) and the worst (Isandlwana) of the Brits during the Zulu Wars and not to miss the Horse Memorial to the 300,000 horses that died in the service of the British during the Second Boer War.


(I have no personal or financial interest in battlefield tourism in South Africa)

[JMA]

Do you hear anyone in the US claiming that military intervention in Africa is necessary, desirable, or consistent with US interests? It's actually one of the few things almost everyone seems to agree on.

Yes since the end of the Cold War US interference in Africa has reduced. This has left a void for China to fill and now we see an increase of Al-Qaeda activity. Maybe not such a clever move after all?

I suspect the only way you'd get significant US military action in Africa would be a major terrorist attack emanating from an African country. Even then, I'd expect it to be far more limited than what we've seen in Iraq and Afghanistan... Americans will need a few more decades to forget that tossing a regime out is easy and building a new one is very hard.

Watch what's happening in Yemen and Somalia. Won't be long now.

If you toss out a regime who says you have to build a new one?

If the US government or any significant section of the populace thought military intervention in Africa was in the US interest, don't you think you'd see a bit more of it? Don't you think you'd hear more people demanding it? It's fairly obvious that this is not something Americans at any level want to get involved in, for equally obvious reasons.

Nobody is asking for US military intervention is Africa. It is the interference by proxy that has been the problem. Now if it was not in the US interest why do you think they interfered?

If military intervention has generally not had positive consequences, why should we not conclude that "getting it right" would mean less intervention?

Read that list again. Direct US military intervention in Africa has been minimal.

There is of course AFRICOM (United States Africa Command) which is appropriately based in Stuttgart, Germany. The reason for their existence? It appears that by 2015 25% of US oil imports will be from Africa. I suspect we shall see more of the US around in the future.

If the question is "can democracy thrive in Africa", my opinion would be that it can... eventually, though it might well take a few generations.

You need to read more widely to understand that there is growing pressure from within Africa itself to democratise. That the US is seen to be in league with that club of thugs that make up the AU (African Union) means that Africans are happy to receive stuff out of Hollywood but are correctly cautious about comes gift wrapped from the State Department.

If the question is "is American intervention likely to advance the progress of democracy in Africa" - a completely different question - I'd answer "probably not, though there might be a rare and unlikely exception somewhere along the line".

That's your opinion and you are entitled to it.

Support of democracy and democratic institutions in Africa is a low cost option for the US.

Humanitarian intervention with good intentions is always welcome like in Somalia before some hot-dogging cowboys went and screwed it up. So much so that when the real big crisis occurred Clinton sat on his hands and let a million people get butchered in Rwanda. It is just that the US displays such bad judgement so often. What the hell goes on in the State Department?