Tag Archives: US

Flattered Trump achieves little in Asia

By Rafiq Raji, PhD

Donald Trump, the American president, concludes his 5-country Asian trip in The Philippines today (14 November). Heralding his arrival in Beijing a week earlier – his third stop after earlier ones in Japan and South Korea – was a reminder of China’s trade surplus with America, data for which came out at US$26.6 billion for October; about US$223 billion thus far this year. And if he thought his trip would make China buy at least as much American goods and services as go the other way, he was a tad disappointed. Of course, there was much pomp about the US$253.4 billion in deals signed between the two delegations. But much of these were not substantive. And some were actually just old deals. The extent of the divergence in the views of the Chinese president, Xi Jinping, and President Trump, would become writ large in Da Nang, Vietnam, at the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) summit, where they both headed afterwards. They provided sharply contrasting visions on trade in their speeches to the gathering of Asian-Pacific leaders. While President Xi espoused multilateralism, openness, and globalisation, Mr Trump was unapologetically insular in his views. Brief incidental interactions with Russian president, Vladimir Putin, at the APEC summit, in place of a much anticipated formal meeting, did not yield much either. Because even though the Kremlin published a joint statement on the crisis in Syria, there was not much there that was new; a missed opportunity. It did not help of course that the controversy over alleged Russian meddling in the 2016 American presidential elections would not just go away; no doubt made worse by Mr Trump’s equivocation on the matter. In fact, what little progress that was made during his time in Asia was actually on matters antithetical to his agenda. A deal was reached by the 11 countries remaining in the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) trade agreement he ditched, for instance; albeit there were a few hiccups here and there before that came about.

Playground rhetoric
Mr Trump came out a little bruised on the North Korean matter as well. After initially striking a somewhat conciliatory tone towards the communist regime, urging it to do a deal over its nuclear weapons programme, he adopted an aggressive posture shortly afterwards in his address to the South Korean legislature; defiantly telling the volatile man up north not to test America’s might. Unsurprisingly, the North Korean regime replied with insults, calling Mr Trump an ‘old lunatic’, ‘warmonger’ and ‘dotard.’ Not one to take such expletives lying down, the American president threw back a few of his own, suggestively referring to Kim Jong-un, the North Korean leader, as ‘short’ and ‘fat’. Even so, if there is a slight chance of some deal with the communist regime, Mr Trump’s unusual style probably makes him best-placed to make it happen. China remains crucial to any potential progress, however. Unfortunately, they did not offer more than they already had on the matter.

Flatter to naught
The Japanese were more gracious at least; they imposed additional unilateral sanctions on North Korea. Not that this could necessarily be attributed to Mr Trump’s powers of persuasion: North Korea fired missiles over Japan in mid-September. And this was despite Mr Trump’s taunts at prime minister Shinzo Abe: He went on unabashedly about how the Japanese were inferior to Americans and wondered aloud why the Japanese did not shoot down the North Korean missile, suggesting how if they had American-made weapons, they would have been able to do so easily. (The Japanese are officially pacifist but have a military for self-defense purposes.) Little wonder then his Japanese trip turned out to be a failure somewhat. He did not get much from them on trade; a major issue for him. (Like China, Japan also maintains trade surpluses with America; albeit at 9 percent of the total American trade deficit, it pales in comparison to China’s 47 percent.) As if to buttress the point, the Japanese ruled out a potential Free Trade agreement (FTA) with the Americans, Mr Trump’s preferred route to dealing with trade imbalances. Instead, Japan led the effort to ensure a deal was reached on the so-called TPP-11. The Asians were all smiles but gave him little.

Also published in my BusinessDay Nigeria newspaper column (Tuesdays). See link viz. http://www.businessdayonline.com/flattered-trump-achieves-little-asia/

Advertisements

What is the point of Trump’s Asian trip?

By Rafiq Raji, PhD

Donald Trump, the American president, arrived Beijing today (8 Nov), the third stop on his 5-country Asian trip, after earlier stops in Japan and penultimately, South Korea. Heralding his arrival was a reminder about China’s trade surplus with America, which came out at US$26.6 billion for October; making it a total of US$223 billion thus far this year. President Trump would like the reverse to be the case. Unfortunately, it would continue to be a source of frustration for him, and in fact any other American leader who desires that China buy at least as much (if not more) American goods and services as go the other way. Incidentally, China is already making headway in the sophisticated industries that America may have once relied upon to stay ahead; which often are in partnership with American companies in China itself. And even as Mr Trump tries to bring back American companies back home from places like China, with jobs in tandem, the economics still favours them staying abroad; albeit not necessarily in China but in cheaper Southeast Asian countries. Turns out, Mr Trump is scheduled to address the 2017 ASEAN summit on 14 November in The Philippines, where bashful and often uncouth president Rodrigo Duterte may be just the ideal host for his similarly mannered American counterpart. And such is the importance the Americans attach to it that Mr Trump’s itinerary was extended by a day to accommodate the ASEAN speech. He would not be leaving China empty-handed, though. At least US$9 billion in deals are expected to be made between chief executives of American companies on Mr Trump’s entourage and their Chinese counterparts, commerce secretary Wilbur Ross is reported by CNBC to have said. (Another official is reported to put potential deals to be signed at US$250 billion.)*

Rocket man
With a belligerent leadership at the helm and reckoning by the Russians that in two to three years, it could have missiles able to hit America, North Korea remains a thorny issue. On his first day in Seoul (7 November), Mr Trump struck a somewhat calm tone on the great matter; urging the North Korean regime to come to the negotiating table and do a deal. Next day, while addressing the South Korean legislature, it was the reverse; defiantly telling the communist regime up north not to test America’s might. These are all very well; but fact is, Mr Trump achieved nothing there. And the elements came up against him en route to the demilitarized zone between the two Koreas, as his chopper could not risk an unanticipated fog. The Japanese, who he visited (5-7 November) before the Korean leg, tried to be gracious at least; they imposed additional unilateral sanctions on North Korea. Not that this could be attributed to Mr Trump’s persuasive powers: North Korea fired a missile over Japan in a show of strenght recently. Of course, Mr Trump could not stop himself from taunting prime minister Shinzo Abe on why the Japanese did not shoot down the missile. Ever the salesman, he did not forget to make a pitch for how American weapons would be able to easily do just that, though. (The Japanese are officially pacifist but maintain a handful of troops, supposedly for self-defense purposes.)

Emperor’s new clothes
Of course, Mr Trump did not see how ill-fitting it was to boast about American might to the face of Mr Abe; going on unabashedly about how the Japanese were still second fiddle to Americans. Little wonder then his Japanese trip turned out to be a failure somewhat. He did not get much from them on trade; a major issue for him. Like China, Japan also maintains trade surpluses with America; albeit at 9 percent of the total American trade deficit, it pales in comparison to China’s 47 percent. As if to buttress the point, the Japanese ruled out a Free Trade agreement (FTA) with the Americans, Mr Trump’s preferred route to dealing with trade imbalances; as opposed to the now 11-country Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) trade agreement that he ditched but which the Japanese are keen on, for instance. An FTA with the Japanese would have been hailed by Mr Trump as a victory. A highly likely meeting with Russian president, Vladimir Putin, on the sidelines of the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) summit in Vietnam, his next stop from China, would no doubt be overshadowed by ongoing investigations back home into Russian links of Mr Trump’s associates during his presidential campaign. In the meantime, he should enjoy some relief at his current stop: the Chinese reportedly plan to treat him like an emperor. That is not usually a compliment.

*Trump & Xi announced US$253.4B in deals on 9 Nov 2017; albeit a significant portion is not substantive, as they are simply MoUs and so on.

G20 v Africa: Still same old tokenism

By Rafiq Raji, PhD

Evidence that America’s stature has diminished under the leadership of the erratic incumbent, Donald Trump, was writ large at this year’s heads of state meeting of the group of 20 major world economies (G20) in Hamburg, Germany. (Together, they constitute more than 80 percent of global economic output.) Mr Trump was a sorry sight to say the least, isolated consipicously from other leaders, with less seeming ones like Russia’s for instance, far more at ease. Even as world leaders are beginning to learn how to work around or without Mr Trump, America’s divergence from the other 19 members (and indeed the world) on hard-fought global consensus on trade and climate change is going to cost everyone. In contrast, Mr Trump very happily obliged four African countries US$639 million in food and other humanitarian assistance. Almost 20 percent of the funds would go to Nigeria to deal with the desperate situation in the northeast. When summed with earlier declared aid, the total American pledged assistance for Africa in the 2017 fiscal year comes to about US$1.8 billion. When proposed Trump aid cuts to United Nations’ African peacekeeping operations and the United Nations Population Fund (UNPF), a major funder of crucial family planning programmes on the continent, and the closure of some African-focused government agencies (like the US African Development Foundation), and so on, are considered, the announced American aid at the G20 summit rings hollow somewhat. The South African president, Jacob Zuma, whose country is the only African member of the G20, shed more light on the African gains from the summit. They were mostly related to aiding youth and women development. One initiative aims to create 1.1 million new jobs by 2022, with a skills programme for more than 5 million youths over the period. Another would finance women entrepreneurs and boost the technological savvy of girls. With one-third of Africa’s 420 million youths unemployed and another third in vulnerable employment, these initiatives would barely scratch the surface of the problem. Agriculture and labour-intensive manufacturing remain the most viable way to create jobs. Africa’s richest man, Aliko Dangote, already recognises the urgency and opportunity, and has announced plans to invest US$4.6 billion in the Nigerian Agricultural setor. The level of his commitment is a good way to assess the relative pittance of such nonsensical assistance like the announced American one. Quite frankly, until the world’s advanced economies genuinely desire that African countries succeed, their initiatives would continue to fall short.

Self-interested intentions
Still, much credit must be given to the German presidency of the G20 this year, which tried against daunting odds to focus on African issues. Considering myriad tensions among members over more pressing issues, German Chancellor Angela Merkel must be applauded that Africa managed to feature as prominently as it did. Unfortunately, it did not seem like her colleagues, Mr Trump for instance, shared her vision that what Africa needs is not more aid but partnerships. Of course, the symbolism of German city, Berlin, being were the fabled “scramble for Africa” was decided adds a tinge of irony to her advocacy. With illegal African immigration to Europe continuing unabated, there is a recognition that should Europe and other developed economies not do their utmost to make living in Africa more palatable for the continent’s youths, there is not much that can be done to stem the tide. It makes sense then that the focus of the G20 German presidency’s African initiatives were on youth and women. Simpler but more far-reaching moves could have been made, however. The advocacy made by Nigeria’s acting president, Yemi Osinbajo, ahead of the summit, did not receive the much deserved attention, for instance. Prof Osinbajo thought to reiterate how often these summits end with nice pledges for African countries but hardly translate into concrete action. Aptly titled “It’s time to move beyond pledges to back Africa’s future”, Prof Osinbajo was primarily interested in what the G20 would do to ensure information about beneficial owners of secretive companies and trusts used to hide illicit wealth is made public. Corruption investigations by African governments on the trail of treasury looters who have stashed their ill-gotten wealth in Europe and elsewhere would continue to prove difficult otherwise. Of course, it is probably foolhardy to expect these advanced economies would simply block at least US$50 billion in financial inflows, though illicit, from African countries. Fortunately, there is much more African countries can do to recover the significant portion of stolen public funds within their borders.

Holier than thou
In the Nigerian case, for instance, the authorities have recorded greater success in recovering looted funds locally. A whistle-blowing policy, increasinlgy a double-edged sword, also proved to be helpful initially. With whistleblowers now realising that the government’s protective measures for them underwhelm in the face of greater resources in the hands of beneficiaries of corruption, the initial momentum has begun to slow somewhat. If Nigeria, which is in dire need of funds for its ambitious budget this year and later on, hopes to secure greater recoveries in the quickest time and lowest cost possible, there needs to be a wiser approach. Just this week, for instance, finance minister Kemi Adeosun announced the country could not borrow any further this year, asserting that needed funds for the 2017 budget would have to be sourced internally. The recent tax amnesty executive order for those who either are currently not within the tax net or have underreported their assets hitherto, which the government hopes would bring at least US$1 billion in additional revenue, is a little step in this direction. It is highly unlikely, however, that treasury looters that have thus far managed to escape the long hands of the law, would be willing to take the risk of disclosing their ill-gotten wealth. The only way this set of thieves would be willing to confess their sins is if they are assured of amnesty backed by law. So those who have been railing against the proposed economic amnesty bill in the Nigerian lower legislature should think again. Most are hypocrites, anyway, barely cringing when similar initiatives were proposed for people who committed murders and destroyed crucial infrastructure because it bordered on their personal security. If Truth and Reconciliation commissions can be instituted to grant amnesty to people who committed genocide in exchange for their confessions, what is the difficulty in an arrangement that allows us recover our stolen wealth from these shameless thieves in exchange for amnesty from prosecution. If it is made time-bound, and the tax on the declared stolen wealth set very high, 90 percent, say, would it be so bad an outcome? To be effective though, the law should be in tandem with blocking the loopholes that allowed the pilferage to occur in the first place. During the Goodluck Jonathan presidency, central bank governor Sanusi Lamido Sanusi claimed at least US$20 billion had been stolen, a move that cost him his job. Now Emir of Kano, Muhammad Sanusi II has been vindicated. Of course, that was just the hole he could see. Much more was pilfered. But tell me, how much of that has been or would ever be recovered? About half thus far; US$9.1 billion in assets and funds. The United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC) estimates Nigeria’s stolen wealth almost forty years since independence to 1999, when the country embarked on its most recent democratic experiment, at about US$600 billion. Another USD$125 billion is believed to have been embezzled since 1999. The sum, US$725 billion, is almost twice of the size of Nigeria’s economy in 2016 of about US$406 billion. There is no way a punitive approach would succeed in recovering even a quarter of that. Unless we start taking pragmatic approaches to solving our problems, we will continue to flounder.

Also published in my Premium Times Nigeria column (13 July 2017). See link viz. http://opinion.premiumtimesng.com/2017/07/13/g20-vs-africa-still-same-old-tokenism-by-rafiq-raji/

Can Africa win Trump over?

By Rafiq Raji, PhD

In mid-May, at the Africa Finance Corporation’s 10th year anniversary infrastructure summit (“AFC Live 2017”) held in Abuja, I asked Jay Ireland, the president and chief executive of GE Africa – the subsidiary of the American industrial giant on the continent – about his thoughts on whether Donald Trump, the American president, would be good or bad for Africa. Specifically, I wanted to know if President Trump would be worth the trouble of winning over. As Mr Trump does not know much about Africa, if the little mention the continent got during his election campaign is anything to go by, engaging with him early on might spring pleasant surprises, some pundits argue. Despite such assurances, I remained a little sceptical. So the opportunity to ask Mr Ireland, who incidentally is also the chair of former President Barack Obama’s Advisory Council on Doing Business in Africa and co-chair of the US Africa Business Centre, which leads the American business community’s engagement activities on the continent, was huge. In a sign of the times and the peculiar style of the current American president, Mr Ireland demurred, humorously wondering if his answer might not become the “subject of a tweet.” More importantly, he said a strong case was being made to the Trump administration to continue ongoing initiatives. I was particulary interested in the “Power Africa” programme initiated during the Obama administration; especially since even during Mr Obama’s tenure, it was floundering, talk less that of Mr Trump. The African Growth and Opportunity Act (AGOA), is not as vulnerable to a Trump rethink, albeit the administration could still exercise certain prerogatives over the choice of beneficiary countries and so on. My interpretation of Mr Ireland’s comments are as follows: Should Africa indeed not be a priority for Mr Trump, ongoing African initiatives may simply continue under the aegis of able and experienced technocrats at the American State department. And in the event Mr Trump suddenly develops a keen interest on African issues, proactive engagement with the administration like his and the business people he represents may be hugely differential. It has also been argued that African heads of state should do likewise.

Focus on first-order issues
In light of the recent exit from the Paris climate accord by Mr Trump, however, some are now beginning to think whether there is a need to even try. I would not be too quick to give up. True, with African countries already beginning to see the negative effects of climate change via droughts and so on, the recent American action is a setback. And of course, African countries initially had their own reservations about the accord. Not a few wondered why they should have to be environment-friendly at the expense of their development; especially as currently developed countries were not similarly cautious. But with research showing a nexus between climate change and increasing incidents of conflict in a number of African countries, there is a growing consensus about the need to be more caring of the Earth we live in. Still, to do this, African countries would require financial and technological support. To this end, the Paris agreement makes substantial provisions. With the American exit, however, also goes its financial commitments. It is also evidence that a Trump presidency would (at least for now) have second-order negative effects for Africa when the issues relate to broader international and multilateral arrangements that Mr Trump is averse to. So it is on the more specific African initiatives that African leaders should hope to influence him on.

Show respect
At the recent G7 summit in Italy, it was all too clear Mr Trump was not enjoying himself. He was particularly irritated by Emmanuel Macron’s (the French president) “macho-diplomacy”: Mr Macron’s overly firm and lingering handshake with Mr Trump at their very first meeting since the former’s inauguration was well-reported. As if determined to rattle the American president or put him to size, Mr Macron also made sure to refer to the incident afterwards as deliberate. That and another, where Mr Macron seem to be moving towards Mr Trump to shake hands, as the G7 leaders and invited guests did their traditional group-walk in front of the press, but at almost the last minute swerved to shake that of Angela Merkel, the German chancellor, must have been a little unnerving for a man known for his fragile ego. Thus, it is very likely that unpleasant experience was at least a secondary motivation for his action on the Paris accord. In his speech announcing the decision, Mr Trump was almost certainly taking aim at Mr Macron when he said: “I was elected to represent the citizens of Pittsburgh, not Paris.” (The Washington Post did a very insightful article on the dynamics leading to Mr Trump’s decision.) At the G7 summit it turns out, one of few instances where Mr Trump seemed to be enjoying himself was when he ran into some of the African delegates: Yemi Osinbajo (Nigeria), Alpha Conde (Guinea), Uhuru Kenyatta (Kenya), Hailemariam Desalegn (Ethiopia) and Akinwumi Adesina (African Development Bank). With deft handling, Mr Trump could become an ally.

Also published in my BusinessDay Nigeria newspaper column (Tuesdays). See link viz. http://www.businessdayonline.com/can-africa-win-trump/

Yes, I’m with her

By Rafiq Raji, PhD

Americans go to the polls today (8 November), most of them that is; some already cast their ballots in early voting. The campaigns ahead of the election have perhaps been the most vicious and uninspiring in recent American history. There is currently a wave of populism sweeping through some western democracies. From the anti-immigrant sentiment that underpinned the decision of Britons to leave the European Union to the growing clout of similarly inclined politicians in France and elsewhere, isolationist rhetoric is winning the day, posing a significant threat to years of progress on global multilateralism, inclusion and integration. Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump, the two leading American presidential candidates, are bipolar opposites, in the most extreme of ways. As wife to an American president, senator and then secretary of state, Mrs Clinton, the Democratic Party nominee, has contributed to the shaping of global geopolitics for much of the past two decades. Her main opponent, the Republican Mr Trump, a billionaire whose wealth derives from tapping the vanity of Americans, is not similarly experienced. But considering how he has broken almost every rule and convention in American politics and still emerged the Republican Party flagbearer, underestimating him was a huge mistake. But even as a potential Trump presidency is no longer farfetched, Mr Trump, an unashamed bully, would irrespective of the outcome of the election come to exemplify that ugly side of ‘Americanness’ for some time to come. Still, the election is Mrs Clinton’s to lose. But will she win?

Beware of closet Trumpistas
Mr Trump is racist, rude, and disrespectful of women. And he ran a very dirty campaign. Both sides did actually. But it could be argued that with Mrs Clinton’s vast political experience and clout, it would have been almost impossible for Mr Trump to gain an edge over her with a clean one. So to that extent, there is some sanity in his madness. And considering how almost just as much Americans who might vote for Mrs Clinton would do so for Mr Trump, his rhetoric, reprehensible as it is, clearly resonates with not a few of them. Yes, even the educated ones, who for fear of backlash may not voice their support in public and in polls by the media, but may gladly do so in the privacy of the voter polling booth: closet Trumpistas may account for more than the margin of error in the lead Mrs Clinton had in media polls.

Some hitherto undecided voters also pitched their tents in Mr Trump’s camp in the week to election day. That is, before the country’s Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) reckoned Mrs Clinton did not commit a crime after all by using a private email server during her tenure as secretary of state. After clearing Mrs Clinton of any wrongdoing initially, the FBI revealed about a week to the election that it was examining newly discovered emails on a third party’s computer. The revelation proved to be costly for the potential first female American president: angst was that her carelessness could have caused state secrets to be stolen or glimpsed by unauthorised parties. Although it is not all too clear how much of that support she has regained after the FBI clearance just two days to the vote, the renewed suspicions may not have mellowed quickly enough for her to regain lost ground. Regardless, concerns raised by some leading Republicans like House Speaker Paul Ryan about her inexcusable negligence – she had to have known her error – on the email issue are not entirely without merit: Mrs Clinton did put American national security at risk.

Which of them is best for Africa?
Mrs Clinton, definitely. The Democrats are typically pro-black and pro-Africa. About sixteen years ago, Mrs Clinton’s husband signed the ‘African Growth and Opportunity Act,’ a deliberate and well-considered legislation that has proved to be better for African trade than the European Union’s ‘Economic Partnership Agreements,’ say. Similar Africa-friendly policies – ‘Power Africa’ and ‘Young African Leaders Initiative’ – by outgoing President Barack Obama, another Democrat, would likely be continued and probably enhanced under Mrs Clinton. Mr Trump’s anti-immigrant stance on the other hand, is very unnerving to African greener pasture-seekers in America, whose remittances are a major source of support back home. Not that Republicans are generally averse to the best interests of Africans or African-Americans. For instance, George W. Bush, the 43rd American president, appointed exemplary African-Americans, Colin Powell and Condoleezza Rice, to the secretaryship of state, probably the most visible public office after the country’s presidency. Mr Trump is an unusual candidate, however. His barely veiled white supremacist rhetoric is hardly just that: fears are it might become policy should he get elected. Even so, there is a risk Mrs Clinton may be complacent about the continent: Africa was barely mentioned during the campaign, if at all.

Also published in my BusinessDay Nigeria newspaper back-page column (Tuesdays); http://www.businessdayonline.com/category/analysis/columnist/rafiq-raji/

Where does the African Union fit in the United States African military strategy?

By Rafiq Raji

US special forces (Reuters:Andreea Campean)

The increased presence of the US military on the African continent has coincided with an increased spate of terrorist attacks in hitherto peaceful states like Nigeria and Kenya. Some could argue of course that a correlation cannot be evidenced and dismiss attempts at suggesting causation to the oft-committed logical fallacy of cum hoc ergo propter hoc (“with this, therefore because of this”). There are also local factors, of course. That said, the coincidence is certainly uncanny. The analogy I like to use is that of a pressure cooker. The US presence has “pressure-cooked” a security threat that would otherwise have evolved at a pace within the management capacity of African governments. Surely, the US Africa Command (AFRICOM) has not been averaging at least one mission a day in Africa since 2008 just to say hello.[1] Before the US presence and US-pressured Libyan conflict, Nigeria didn’t have a history of terrorist attacks. At least, not a type with this level of sophistication. And it is certainly disrespectful to the intelligence of Africans when diplomats and leaders of African countries and the US say the US military presence on the continent is in non-combat functions. That is pure drivel. Articles have been written in respectable newspapers from Foreign Policy to the New York Times Magazine about this[2]. There are also many scholarly articles on the militarization of the new scramble in Africa.[3] So imagine my surprise when a respected African Union (AU) diplomat recently argued to the contrary when I attempted to make a connection between the US military presence and increased insecurity in Sub-Saharan Africa (SSA). Of course, no diplomat in his or her right mind would acknowledge a connection. But at least, you’d expect an intelligent convolution of the argument and not just a terse disavowal from an experienced hand.

In taking an objective view, we have to ask the following questions. What is the AU strategy for dealing with the increased spate of terrorism and insecurity in SSA independent of the US effort? How does the AU plan to fill the vacuum that ultimately would materialize when the US draws down its military presence (however far off that is)? In proposing a framework, one inevitably must draw on subsisting arrangements elsewhere. The North Atlantic Alliance (NATO) is a case in point. In adapting the NATO arrangement to Africa, the AU could simply formalize the unilateral military arrangements many African governments already have with the United States into a single holistic continent-wide framework. This would of course be after the fact. The reality is that the two entities already cooperate on missions. One also has to bear in mind the political sensitivities around the issue of overt military cooperation with the United States for African governments. Not that that has stopped them in any case. Nonetheless, the taciturnity of diplomats around the issue is somewhat understandable. However, with the Ebola epidemic and consequent formal military presence of the Americans amongst others, any such pretensions to independence in a globalized world is now really tenuous at best. The US military is on the African continent to stay. Citizens of the relevant African countries know they are not just “training and supporting” African militaries. You don’t set up an entire command like AFRICOM just to train and support. The African Union should simply become proactive (and honest) about it. It should harmonize the various military cooperation agreements the US already has with a couple of African countries into a single continent-wide one with military bases spread across the major regions. A stand-by force with teeth. One that would allow the AU stop coups, counter terrorist threats and someday try its own leaders for war crimes and corruption instead of them taking trips reminiscent of colonial journeys of shame that one African head of state had to make recently for the benefit of his people.

Opinions expressed are mine and not that of any institution(s) I may be affiliated with.

Picture/Image credit: Reuters/Andree Campean/The Nation

 

 

 

[1] http://www.thenation.com/article/179050/why-us-military-averaging-more-mission-day-africa

http://www.thenation.com/article/179324/us-military-has-been-war-africa-sly-years

http://www.thenation.com/article/174847/us-diaspora-terror-africa

http://www.thenation.com/article/178839/americas-proxy-wars-africa

http://www.thenation.com/article/176045/us-militarys-pivot-africa

 

[2] http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2014/05/08/portrait_army_work_in_progress_regionally_aligned_forces_raymond_odierno

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/15/magazine/15Africa-t.html?ref=magazine&_r=1&

 

[3] The New Scramble for Africa: Imperialism, Investment and Development in Africa edited by Roger Southall and Henning Melber (http://ukznpress.bookslive.co.za/blog/2009/04/30/welcome-to-the-new-scramble-for-africa/ )