General notes
Disturbing, to say the least. But of course the US is not doing this intentionally. The question is, what are our real policy options here?
Find the story here: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/14/world/africa/14somalia.html?scp=1&sq=child%20soldiers&st=cse#
I remember reading about this first about a year ago or so. Glad to see that word of the innovation is spreading.
Ushahidi – Africa’s Gift to Silicon Valley – How to Track a Crisis – NYTimes.com.
The Financial Times has a great article on US intelligence. I especially like the chart depicting how the various intelligence agencies relate to each other. Apparently, they still don’t relate very well…
FT.com / Comment / Analysis – US intelligence: Tribal warfare.
Not sure that West Africa needs any more political instability…
Military coup ousts Niger president
The president was seized in a gun battle in Niger’s capital, NiameyA coup has taken place in Niger and the president has been captured after a gun battle in the capital, Niamey.
In a television announcement, a spokesman for the plotters said Niger’s constitution had been suspended and all state institutions dissolved.
The country was now being led by a group called the Supreme Council for the Restoration of Democracy (CSRD), the spokesman said.
President Mamadou Tandja is believed to be in captivity at a military barracks.
 |
So, as I posted last week, two stories to watch are the electoral cycles in Cote d’Ivoire and Nigeria. And two very interesting developments have taken place over the last week. First, “Goodluck Jonathan” has become the official acting president of Nigeria. This is significant for two reasons. One is that it means that Yar’Adua has truly lost his grip on power after (now) more than 80 days of sick leave. A second is that Jonathan is from the South and there is a sort of gentleman’s agreement in the main party there that leadership will rotate between the South and North. And many in the North expected to get two terms out of Yar’Adua. So, will Jonathan step aside in the upcoming election, or will he use his position as acting President to gain more authority. Thus far, he has been cautious.
Meanwhile, much more serious things have been happening in Cote d’Ivoire where Laurent Gbagbo dissolved the government. This apparently stops all plans at having an upcoming presidential election. And members of the opposition are reportedly saying that they no longer recognize Gbagbo as president. Gbagbo has never demonstrated an ability to work across political lines. In many respects, he has played an important role in his country’s decline from being a potential economic “lion” to being just a great disappointment.
A couple stories to watch:
In Nigeria, elections in the southeastern Anambra state, were marred by allegations of fraud and claims of disenfranchisement. The concern is what this might signal for next year’s Presidential election. Fortunately, the election itself was largely peaceful… this time.
Meanwhile, in Cote d’Ivoire, many are claiming they are being disenfranchised from upcoming presidential elections.
These are two of the most important countries in West Africa. The region as a whole could prosper were greater political stability to come to these two countries. What happens in the 16 months in those two countries may set the political trajectory for the region for the next five to ten years.
The BBC and others are reporting that the Confederation of African Football has banned Togo from participating in the next Africa Cup tournaments. Why? Because after being shot at and seeing their comrades killed in Angola they decided to withdraw from recent competition. At least, that is the general story (see clip below).
Some observers, such as Nkareng Matshe, have tried to point out that the ruling was based on the fact that the Togolese government requested its players withdraw. And the Caf does not like governments “meddling”, in their affairs. The argument is that some Togolese players wanted to keep playing, in memory of their fallen teammates, but were “summoned” home early by their government. While government meddling may be a legitimate concern, this does not seem like a great place to make a point. Even if the players said they wanted to go on playing, I suspect a legitimate argument could be made that they were in shock and that it may have been equally as good for them to go home (note: I’m not a psychiatrist or psychologist so this is not a professional opinion). And it may be that their best interests were what their government had in mind. And, if anything, Caf owes Togolese players an apology for poor security in Angola.
This is one bad decision by Caf that I expect will be overturned, especially as news of it continues to spread and protests continue in Togo.
Mass protest in Togo against African Cup football ban
Organisers say they will keep up their protestsMore than 10,000 people have demonstrated in Togo against a decision to ban the country from the next two African Cup of Nations tournaments.
The Confederation of African Football (Caf) suspended Togo for withdrawing from this year’s competition in Angola.
Togo pulled out after an attack on its team bus killed two officials on 8 January, days before the tournament.
 |
I’ve been away from this blog for the holidays, but now that I’m back I’m ready to start commenting on the recent news about the terrorism scare in Nigeria.
Consider the clip of the BBC news report posted below. The US has singled out Nigeria for tougher airport security rules. Now this MIGHT be a reasonable policy idea. It definitely could play well with Americans now scared about flying (I just flew and I must say I am not scared at all by any of this. I’m still safer flying than driving my car.) But it could backfire in a big way in a place like Nigeria.
Nigerians are clearly worried by this turn in US policy. And they rightfully sense that there is a double standard. Did we publicly ask Britain to change its airport security polices after the shoe bomber incident? No, as Nigerian information minister Dora Akunlyi mentioned in a report I heard on NPR this morning. And of course, the US has grown a number of “terrorists” of its own. So should the action of one individual impact our policy towards Nigeria?
The US should be aware that these policies could backfire. According to the Pew Global Attitudes Project, 79% of Nigerians had a favorable view of the US in 2009. However, that may be largely part of an “Obama effect” as the percentage hovered in the low 60s for much of the Bush Administration years. And approval of US anti-terrorism efforts was a much lower 49% in 2006. Unfortunately, these statistics do not mention the possible differences between Muslim Nigerians and Christian Nigerians. The US could lose support among the Nigerian public. We could, indeed, foster the very conditions that lead people to turn against the US. I’m not saying this is going to happen, only that it is a concern that we should consider.
The attempted bombing by Nigerian Umar Abdulmutallab was likely a random event in terms of its connection to Nigeria. Should we continue to pay attention to possible terrorist threats from Nigeria? Sure. But we should do so in a way that positively engages Nigerians, not in a way that may place them in the unsavory category of terrorist-producing states. Unfortunately, our targeting of their airport security seems to have done just that.
US screening ‘risks Nigeria ties’
Checking-in to Nigerian airports now takes longerThe US is risking its ties with Nigeria by asking travellers from the country to undergo stiffer airport security, Nigeria’s information minister says.
Dora Akunyili said she was disappointed with the US decision, which came after a Nigerian man was charged with trying to blow up a plane on Christmas Day.
Earlier senior Nigerian officials confirmed they had officially asked the US to scrap the new rules.
 |
Climate change
This was the week for thinking about climate change. And when not distracted by “climate-gate”, there were some good debates out there.
Not on climate change, per se, but Dan Bodansky’s new book, The Art and Craft of International Environmental Law, looks interesting.
International Public Opinion
Opinio Juris reports that the Council on Foreign Relations has released a report, “Public Opinion on Global Issues”. Some of the findings are relevant to concerns about climate change:
Perception of Climate Change as a Problem or Threat: On average in 2009, 85 percent of those polled globally said the problem was serious, with 56 percent saying it was very serious. The number of people saying that it is not a problem averaged just 3 percent and was always in the single digits, with the exception of the United States in 2009 when this figure reached 11 percent. (The average 2007 and 2008 numbers were almost exactly the same as those in 2009.)
Other findings challenge the idea of American Exceptionalism:
Contrary to conventional wisdom, the digest suggests substantial consistency in the views of Americans and their counterparts abroad regarding the importance of international law, international institutions, and multilateral cooperation to address global challenges. Far from being insular or obsessed with sovereignty, Americans convey support for internationalist principles and a willingness to compromise for effective multilateral cooperation.
A few headlines are particularly striking. Most Americans favor a world order that is multipolar or led by the United Nations, rather than based on U.S. hegemony or a bipolar balance. They believe that all nations must abide by international law even when doing so is at odds with their national interest. A large majority of Americans express support for U.S. participation in the International Criminal Court, even after hearing past U.S. government objections.
Dan Drezner has his own take on a recent Pew Survey on American public opinion about foreign policy. He finds that Americans are quite “realist” right now. But Americans are also rather uninformed (he actually calls us “dumb”).
Other stories
Opinio Juris has a link to some stories suggesting Blackwater “assassins” may be posing as aid workers. This reminds me of when I interned in Congress one summer during college. There was a Senate hearing on whether the CIA should use journalists, priest, Peace Corps Volunteers and the like as spies overseas. The hearing was stopped quite early on when it was decided that having a public debate about such things is not smart.
The Reuters Africa Blog ponders whether the war is over in Darfur.
Some of Ghana’s football stars are in trouble. Fortunately, it is a minor issue. But come on guys! You have to get your acts together for the World Cup!
Over the past week, a number of bloggers have pointed out a number of problems with the convenient “minerals = conflict” thesis. These stories have mostly been inspired by the recent CBS 60 Minutes news segment on “Congo Gold”.
Dan Fahey lays out three criticisms of that story in an African Arguments blog post:
Meanwhile, Texas in Africa pairs the CBS story with the more general story that is out there which links “cell phones/minerals” to rape in the Congo. “Show me the data”, Texas in Africa demands. Indeed, solid data is not there.
One common concern that underscores both of these bloggers attention is that often “misinformation” is worse than the “inattention” these problems generally get. As Africanists, it is easy to bemoan the fact that much of the world has barely noticed the largest war since World War II; that family members and friends believe politics in Zimbabwe is representative of politics everywhere in Africa; and so forth. So it is easy to get excited about anything that brings attention to Africa. The problem comes when the stories people finally hear about Africa include incomplete or erroneous information. In such cases, the consequences (unintended or intended) can be unfortunate. Stopping the flow of gold from the Congo can cut out legitimate Congolese businessmen and women, Dan Fahey warns; focusing on the minerals used in cell phones might connect American consumers to the conflicts but there are likely better ways to use our resources to stop the conflict in the Congo, Texas in Africa suggests.
So I agree with these bloggers’ concerns for the most part. That said, I think it would be wrong to swing too far away from acknowledging the important roles resources can play in conflict situations. Michael Ross has written persuasively on the types of mechanisms that make resources matter for conflict (see, for instance, here). David Leonard and Scott Strauss’ book, Africa’s Stalled Development, demonstrates that the economies surrounding resources (and foreign aid) can have profound consequences for the development of good governance in Africa.
So let’s not decide that a couple bad news stories means we should ignore the importance of resources in conflict situations, just that we need to be more careful about defining the precise ways in which they matter. And if you decide that you want to act on the information you hear/watch on the news, then please take the time to do a little research on the issue before getting carried away.
Michael Nelson 