On the US and China in Africa
These days it’s impossible to think about America and its future role in the world without also thinking about China’s growing influence, if not domination, in Africa. The most important development in Africa’s international relations since the end of the Cold War is the rise of China. This has the potential to tear down pre-existing concepts and long-held friendships. Clearly,this seems to have worried the US which began a counter offensive strategy of criticizing the Chinese economic model and its relevance to Africa. Well, China’s growing role in is both an opportunity and a threat to Africa. Indeed, Western narrative characterizes China as a new imperialist power in Africa. Not just the content but even the tone of this characterization can resemble the emanations from China hawks in the United States. Clearly, Africa has emerged as the major battle ground for the US and China. The growing involvement of China in Africa feeds into the new military profile of the US. The increasing interest in the continent’s energy resources, manifested for example in the growing importance of the Gulf of Guinea further threatens to compound an already fragmented diplomatic terrain.
Military and political measures aside, the US has recently come out with the so-called African Consensus designed to be an alternative to the so-called Beijing Consensus, which was meant to unite Africa with China economically and politically in exchange of investments and other financial help. The US is planning to take further steps to create new instruments and institutions in a bid to strengthen the African Consensus as a major mechanism to check the growing economic influence of China in Africa. Compounding this is US aggressive diplomacy aimed at several African countries. The US refocuses its efforts on developing African partnerships in order to further establish itself as a valued international partner different from China. Until the U.S. gets to accept China as legitimate competitor and partner relations between the two will remain fundamentally insecure.
“Creative Chaos” and the War in Libya
The recent events in the Arab world were influenced directly by a powerful and well organized external force. And it is not totally unrelated to some grand strategies. The importance of the Arab world for strategic interests of the West is hard to estimate. When for the first time the word ‘creative chaos’ was heard, it was from the former US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice in an attempt of transforming Middle East to a ‘new’ Middle East. This creativity worked almost a decade to get the desired results. Western military strikes in Libya wouldn’t solve the problem as the pro Western Libyan camp is divided and inefficient to bring stability and order to the country and its neighborhood. The ouster of Colonel Ghadafi from power may not herald the beginning of a new era. Unless credible political process is put in place the end of Ghadafi could mean the beginning of a new cycle of conflict and violence. The bottom line: NATO campaign is perverse. Military solutions are not sustainable and cause suffering. Besides, only the Libyan people should determine their own future and choose their own leaders. My readers will know that I am far from squeamish about the war and the end of the Ghadafi regime. I have several questions about the intent of NATO and the West, but my real concern is whether this is a low-cost, politically appropriate measure.
Afghan Drugs and Fragility in Eastern Africa
A major change in the global drug trade is taking place. A report published by the United Nations office on drugs and crime/UNODC/ in late July 2011 has drawn unprecedented international attention to Eastern Africa’s role as an intermediary in the drug trade between Afghanistan and Western Europe.
Some African law- enforcement officers are deeply concerned by the likely effects of the drug trade and drug money on their own societies, and indeed there is evidence that drug money may be funding criminal and political groups. Diplomats and other international officials worry that some African countries could develop along similar lines to other Latin American countries especially Mexico, where drug gangs have a symbiotic relationship with political parties and with the state and drug-related violence results in thousands of deaths every year.
There is an urgent need to combat drug trafficking from Afghanistan. So far the main focus has been for drugs coming from Latin America. The obsessions of the US with the drugs originating from the Americas have blurred the attention that should have been given to other drug trafficking and exporting regions. Nobody denies the threat from Latin America, but dealing with the threat of drugs from Afghanistan is equally immediate and important.
On the Crisis in Libya
Picks from Oliver Takwa
The crisis in Libya marks the first large scale bombings by the North Atlantic Treaty Organization/NATO/ in the African continent. It also heralded the first major military operation in Africa by the New US Africa Command or AFRICOM. Besides, Libya became the first major African crisis in which the African Union/AU/ became a mere spectator, unable to play a significant role. Again, the crisis in Libya epitomizes, perhaps for the first time, that the Maghreb has become the center of attention for political and armed conflicts in the continent.
Like NATO, AFRICOM’s function is that of every predatory military power: The threat and use of armed violence to gain economic and geopolitical advantages. Nothing more, nothing less. Whatever methods and motivations might have been displayed by Western powers two things have remained constant in their approaches to African conflicts. The first is the assumption that African regional organizations are incapable of resolving their own problems. The second is that, they- the Westerners- have all the solutions to whatever ails the continent. It is up to the AU to prove them wrong.
I hope this will trigger African responses and comments
The AU and the Crisis in Libya: Reclaiming the Game
Alice Kamba
The future of Libya as an African country should only be determined with the active participation of Africans represented by the AU and only by peaceful means through establishing a direct political dialogue between the two belligerents. This is the widely held view in Africa. If the AU believed that Western military intervention is bad for Libya, it should have said so and adamantly oppose the move in a serious and consistent manner. If it had thought that the underlying objective of NATO is corporate interest and the possession of Libya’s oil reserves, as argued by many analysts, then it should have been steadfast in its opposition of the plan from the beginning and mobilize support against the military intervention. It failed to do all that in the earliest convenient time possible.
A confused position is not what you would expect from the AU-and certainly not a silence when Western military powers were preparing the pounding of Libyan cities. The AU, as a body with the primary responsibility to attend to peace and security issues in Africa should not have allowed itself to be outsmarted and outmaneuvered by Western nations bent on promoting their parochial economic and political agendas to take the issue of Libya into their own hands. It was not until late February that an emergency meeting of the AU’s Peace and Security Council sent a mission to investigate the situation in Libya. Many are calling on African leaders to rethink the way the AU operates, review their ways and demonstrate strong commitment to fending the continent from disastrous external military interventions in the name of democracy and fundamental rights.
Have your say
Who is responsible for the Crisis in Ivory Coast? Gbagbo or Regional Diplomacy
Ivory Coast is descending into anarchy and regional diplomacy is partly to blame. Minor procedural issues aside, Laurent Gbagbo has lost the elections and this should have been communicated in clear terms by all international actors. Above all, the AU should have taken a clear position on the elections. Laurent Gbagbo is clinging to power after rejecting the results of the presidential elections, as declared by the Independent Electoral Commission, certified by the UN, and recognized by the international community designating Alassane Ouattara as the clear winner. The UN shouldn’t have allowed Gbagbo’s supporters to hijack the state media. There was an urgent need for all West African States to stand in unison against Gbagbo. The AU should have been in a position to out rightly condemn human rights violations as well.
Hesitations by some African countries, particularly from members of the Southern African Development Community/SADC/energized Gbagbo to continue evade international calls to handover power.Despite the hyped talk of democracy and good governance,most African leaders operate on the assumption that it is better to preserve the statusquo. So why are Africa’s regional organizations and their Panel of Eminent Persons treating the crisis in Ivory Coast in a manner that is shortsighted and wrong-footed? The answer is simple. Continental diplomacy is compromised by the calculations of regime security and deep sympathy towards an incumbent. The AU Mediation Team tried to drag the process backwards and contemplated the idea of a National Unity Government. This sent the wrong message to Gbagbo and his support base, a tiny but vociferous and agitated minority. Rigging elections and refusal to accept electoral defeat has become the easiest way to power sharing.
The tragedy is that Africa is slowly moving backwards pursuing agendas that often do not end up promoting peace and security. Africa’s regional organizations lack the power and tools to be able to impose their will. But on this particular case, it is not clear what the will contains.
A Puzziling Episode
Just as all political problems have historical foundations, the Sudan has one.
Kaguta’s ‘the present as history’ political analysis on Sudan is accurate. The year 1898 was the year that British occupation and subjugation of Sudan became irrevocable. It also heralded the beginning of the real problems of the country. During the same year, the British and the French concluded an agreement in Europe which made the French pull out of the South Sudan region handing over its portion of South Sudan to the same authorities who were already in control of North Sudan. This fateful decision resulted in decades of civil war and incessant political crisis. In Kaguta’s view, British colonial history made Sudan what it is. This is reasonably accurate.
As much as the British are responsible for what is happening in Sudan, the country’s political elite didn’t fare any better. That, the British are responsible for what is happening in Sudan is not doubted. What scares me most is, nobody-not least African leaders-not a single one mentions this. The British are in no mood for apology and compensation, not least because they are being allowed to get away with the mess they have created. Not to mention they are being asked by the AU High Level Panel and the Troika to extend their generous help to resolve the mess. The reality is that we are not any closer to independent foreign policy making than we ever were, and it has been too long.
Oil and War in Sudan: the Role of Carl Bildt and Co.
A recent report confirmed that the Lundin Oil Consortium led by the Swedish Oil Company Lundin Oil AB had caused enormous loss of human lives and destruction of property in Sudan. Due to the oil exploration, over ten thousands people died and almost two hundred thousand were violently displaced. The start of oil exploration by Lundin in 1997 set of a vicious war in the area.Lundin provided both the reason and resources to the armed forces of the government of Sudan to commit crimes against humanity.
Lundin signed a contract with the government for the exploitation of oil in the concession area called Block 5A that was not at the time under full government control.And all this happened at a time when some of the currently prominent politicians in Sweden, such as the foreign minister Carl Bildt served as Board of Directors of Lundin Oil.
The brief by Keith Morgan is specifically concerned with the following:
1. There should be an investigation into the role of the Lundin Consortium in the oil war in Sudan
2. The leaders of the oil companies that made up the Consortium and their respective governments should be questioned and interrogated; and are yet to account for their failure to act
3. The victims have the right to compensation
All concerned Africans should have a say on this matter
Making Somaliland Matter
For most of its recent history Somaliland politics adhered to democratic ideals and rule-based contest. Occasionally, as during the late 2008 and 2009, its political leaders tried to temper with the constitution, but it didn’t succeed. President Reyale conceded defeat in the recent presidential elections in Somaliland. Good for him,good for Somaliland,and good for the region.Inept he may have been and lacking in guile, he was at least predictable. Silanyo is a more complicated and seasoned politician, but he is also presentable.
Somaliland democracy owes much of its success to the aggressive political activity of its main opposition party, Kulmiye and its leader Ahmed Silanyo.In 2003 it accepted defeat but remained vigilant. There were other factors that made Silanyo triumph nearly certain. He is more knowledgeable and experienced than any presidential candidate Somaliland would offer. Somaliland has been waiting for a strong and responsible government, and this time around it might get one. The Reyale government had run out of enthusiasm for doing good and had to leave the scene.
The ICC and its Enemies
The ICCs short existence has already created a number of concerns, mainly in Africa: Some genuine, others not, evidently making a more measured assessment of the ICCs relevance for Africa necessary. I am in favor of most of the genuine concerns raised by Africans, but it would be a mistake to push them without proportions and make them political. Improvements and corrections on the approaches of the ICC going forward are the best avenue for our concerns. Outrage and political opposition only creates an atmosphere of uncertainty and capriciousness around international justice, democracy and stability in Africa. If we want to understand the real reason behind the vicious criticism and opposition towards the ICC is about, we first need to understand what it isn’t about. It certainly is not about reversing impunity and dictatorship.
The ICC faces real challenges of enforcing its arrest warrants. Eight warrants of arrest remain unexecuted; among them the most important is related to President Al-Bashir of Sudan. Nonetheless, the ICC and its focus on Africa serves as a perpetual notice to criminals, tyrants and would-be tyrants that there is a tribunal and judges constantly watching on them. They will always be put on notice that there are judges in The Hague waiting to try them. It serves as a reminder and a deterrent. The case for the ICC is much stronger than the arguments against it.