Noteworthy...

Posting here will likely be light(-ish) through the end of this month, as I'm currently in the process of moving back to Oxford after a year-long hiatus. As you might imagine, things are rather hectic, and I imagine that they will remain as such until I'm properly settled in the city of dreaming spires come the end of September/early October. Please do bear with me!

For now, some very noteworthy reads (now bulleted for your reading pleasure owing to their number. Slightly more optically pleasing, no?):

• Protests have again broken out in Urumqi, the capital of China's Xinjiang province, two months after the initial turmoil. Thousands of Han Chinese have taken to the street touting the "uselessness" of the government and its failure to provide appropriate security protections in the region
• John Prendergast, co-chair of the ENOUGH Project, discusses the flaws in the Obama administration's Sudan policy and what should be done to remedy them. Mark Goldberg was right: Darfur activists appear to be losing their patience
• Gmail was down for a while this week, and it seems that the world nearly stood still. Why do we freak out over such seemingly insignificant technical glitches?
• It's no secret that the Chinese cook their books. What's perhaps less well known is that the cooking is done not by central CCP bureaucrats, but by local and provincial government officials. Such a reality speaks to the complexities of center-periphery relations in the country
• Is Kenya falling apart? It certainly appears that way, especially with the Kenyan state growing increasingly less visible and less relevant
• One-third of Chinese scientists want to switch careers and wouldn't recommend their profession to their children. Too little pay, too much work
• While I'm certainly no expert on Honduran politics, I nevertheless find it rather curious that the U.S. is threatening not to recognize the results of the Honduran elections to be held this November. This decision is based on the "current existing conditions" in the country, which have deteriorated since the June 28 coup. If this is indeed the sole guiding motive, surely the U.S. should not have recognized the Iranian election results either?
• Via Texas in Africa I learn of a brilliant series being run by Myles Estey over at The Esteyonage. The series, 'Gettin by,' looks at the micro-economy of Liberia and the means by which people outside the national statistics make a living. While the focus in solely on Liberia, the findings are indubitably applicable to other African states as well
• Amartya Sen's new book, The Idea of Justice, is 490-some pages of wise Sen-isms. Two themes predominate: economic rationality and social injustice. Occasional swings at John Rawls are also taken, which (depending on your guiding philosophy) make the book both witty and exceptionally informative. The Economist's review of the book may be found here

Whither America's Africa policy? No, seriously. Where is it?

I really can do no better today than to direct you to Shashank's well thought out post in which he concludes:

After seven months, a presidential visit and now this major trip, it's still unclear what the Obama administration wants to do differently in Africa. The most important U.S. agency that works on Africa, USAID, still has no leader. Clinton's trip was full of the same hopeful but canned rhetoric about "good governance," "food security" and "helping Africans help themselves." Folks who care about Africa hardly expect the continent to be the Obama administration's No. 1 foreign policy priority. But they will be disappointed with this trip.

Not only is it disappointing, but it's actually quite laughable - and not in a joyous laughter sort of way. I really don't understand how anyone is meant to take US policy towards Africa (the presently non-existent policy, mind you) seriously when the country's own Secretary of State makes such ridiculous statements as her proposal for camcorders in the Congo, and her lending of support to Somalia's Sheik Sharif - evidently unaware of the consequences - among others. Her utterly distasteful outburst in the Congo doesn't do much to bolster her, or American, credibility either (surely there was a classier, more professional way of handling the matter, even if it upset you, Madame Secretary), and neither does her outlandish comparison of the 2000 Florida recount to Nigeria's rigged elections. I am terribly sorry to discover that she is still seemingly bitter over the matter, but drawing such faulty moral equivalences jeopardizes the advance of democracy in countries like Nigeria and others across Africa where corruption is rampant. To draw my own comparison, the ridiculousness implicit in such a statement is tantamount to that which would compare women's rights in, say, Sierra Leone - the worst place in Africa to be a woman according to the 2008 UN Human Development Report - to those in the United States. Think on that.

While Secretary Clinton may be dancing away across the continent, the U.S. missed a prime opportunity to seriously engage with African leaders on matters of trade, foreign assistance, human rights - heck, even the objectives behind AFRICOM - and other matters of actual consequence to the continent. It's little wonder that African leaders are more seriously engaging with the Chinese as regards their countries' needs and policies. I probably would, too.

Of rape, video cameras, and Clinton in the Congo. What did I miss?

I forthrightly admit that neither am I an expert in matters pertaining to the Congo, nor do I know much about preventing or otherwise dealing with cases of rape - in the Congo or elsewhere. Having said that, I'm quite certain that I'm not the only one absolutely baffled (floored is more like it, actually) by Hilary Clinton's announcement yesterday of a $17 million plan to combat the abysmal levels of sexual violence in the Congo, part of which entails "supplying rape victims with video cameras to document the violence." Really? Video cameras? To rape victims? Hmm.....

Texas in Africa and the ladies at Wronging Rights have virtually summed up my thoughts on the matter quite well, raising among other matters questions pertaining to who, exactly, will be receiving said camcorders; where the footage will be sent (do bear in mind that both the Congolese government and military hierarchy are quite generally unwilling to prosecute rape perpetrators); and indeed how the camcorders will be charged given that the country lacks a power grid on which to charge portable electronic devices (a most astute observation). Might I also add that it is most, most improbable that a rapist will cease his evil actions upon being confronted with a recording device. Again, while claiming absolutely no expertise on the matter, intuition leads me to believe that he might indeed become more violent in his actions.

Given all of these considerations and quandries, what on earth would lead someone to believe that video cameras are part and parcel of the solution to combatting rape in the Congo? Having brought my initial frustrations over the matter under control, I began to ponder the logic by which one could possibly arrive at such a conclusion. A cursory glance through my Google history is enough to frighten just about anyone, with phrases like "rape victim, video"; "rape, congo"; "rape, video, persecution" floating about - evidence of my feeble attempt at discovering existing cases (in the developing world) where video cameras effectively served as preventative measures or lead to the prosecution of the perpetrators; or otherwise research suggesting that the distribution of such devices may indeed be the way forward. Presumably Clinton's statement is premised on some research that someone must have conducted at some point in time, right?

Maybe I'm not a very diligent Googler (though this is highly doubtful; of the countless skills one acquires whilst writing a Master's dissertation and subsequently tackling a PhD, Googling ranks quite high among them), but the results of my several hours of searching are indeed just as laughable as the proposition in question. Among my findings/musings:

• Video footage of rape acts has in some cases lead to the persecution and conviction of the perpetrators (see here, here, here and here, for instance), but in all such cases the acts were documented by either the perpetrators themselves or their cronies, or otherwise a passerby who happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time - or indeed the right place at the right time, depending on your perspective. I wasn't able to find a single case in which a rape act was prevented or otherwise persecuted in which the victim was the one pressing the 'record' button. Perhaps Secretary Clinton has a CCTV-style system in mind, but then where would you install the cameras?
• According to a recent Human Rights Watch report, a significant percentage of rapes in the Congo are committed by senior army officials, over whom the government and donors have little leverage. This ties into the earlier point regarding where footage would be sent and how it would be handled upon receipt. It moreover leads one to conclude that the focus should be on combatting the overall culture of corruption, rather than the supplying of video cameras. Alas.
• Suggesting video cameras as a means by which rape victims can "document the violence" operates on the assumption that the victims will bring such videos forward as evidence (though we still haven't established to whom). The problem with this, though, is that rape victims in the Congo - and elsewhere in Africa - are often grossly stigmatized, and in some cases jailed. Given such a reality, documenting the act (especially by the victim) may prove quite counterproductive.
• If the surrounding culture is one laden with corruption and embodying "entrenched notions of gender hierarchy and the sexual entitlement of men" (to quote Prof. Rachel Jewkes of the Medical Research Council speaking on South Africa's culture of sexual violence), video footage isn't going to assist victims in any significant way. Such measures will only be effective if the external environment is one in which such acts are outrightly condemned, of which the Congo isn't (yet) one.

I really could go on, but would nevertheless fail to understand how the camcorder proposition makes sense - or indeed discover any research suggesting its merits in the developing world. The effective use of camcorders for such means in the Western context is a moot point in my opinion, precisely because the surrounding culture is one in which acts of sexual violence are not only regarded with contempt, but are severely punished. While I'm sure Clinton's suggestion is well-intentioned and put forward with all the right motives, I cringe at such cases of "headless hearts" - arguably my favorite of Paul Collier's phrases - who fail to properly understand the realities of the countries they are somehow hoping to save. Inevitably, the law of unintended consequences always prevails. And while I certainly am no expert on the Congo, even I can make out the blatant flaws implicit in such a proposition. One would hope that the U.S. government could, too.

But then again, I'm no expert. Will someone please kindly inform me: what did I miss? ....

Update: For a different perspective on the issue of "Camcorders for the Congo," see Shshank Bengali's post. I'm not sure that it lends any credibility to the proposition, but it does well to suggest that this isn't the craziest U.S. initiative for Africa. I'm sure it ranks up there, though...

Africa does not need more hot air

I must admit that I've been rather disappointed with the present US administration's policies towards Africa. To be perfectly frank, I was much happier with America's African policies under Bush (*gasp* yes, I said it), with few exceptions (AFRICOM, which I have spoken about in the past) is indubitably one of them. What Bush tried to do - and was moderately successful in achieving - was positively engaging with the continent: increasing development assistance where needed, introducing programs to reduce the burden of AIDS and malaria, AGOA, working to secure a peace deal between north and south Sudan in 2005, etc. His policies weren't perfect - many were seriously flawed - but there appeared to be a genuine sense of engagement and interest. Whether that was driven by humanitarian goodwill or geopolitical interests I will leave for you to decide; the point is that the US appeared to be active in creating opportunity for Africans. In short, they not only talked the talk, but walked the walk.

Not only does the Obama administration appear disinterested, but it is seemingly failing to capitalize on opportunities where they exist. I bring this up because Hilary Clinton is presently in Africa. Like many others, I am following the news hoping to discover something - anything - of substance (indeed, something to blog about!), but am seemingly failing in this endeavor (if someone has managed to stumble upon anything worthwhile pertaining to Clinton's time in Africa, do please send it my way). Her rhetoric - much like President Obama's in Ghana earlier this year - is filled with the same empty jargon uttered by Western politicians of yore. Yes, Kenya needs to reform; and yes, we all know that the continent has "enormous potential for progress;" and we all understand the importance of stability in Somalia. Blah, blah, blah. By the by, overemphasizing agricultural policy to the neglect of manufacturing and entrepreneurship does little to foster sustainable development across the continent. And publicly making promises to Somalia's Sheik Sharif is tantamount to wishing death upon his administration. While I do understand that the trip was all quite last minute, there are some things on which a Secretary of State must absolutely be briefed.

While I do further realize that Africa isn't much of a priority for the US government at present (a grave flaw, indeed, given especially China's growing influence across the continent!) and is constrained by the financial crisis and domestic politics, there are things the administration can do besides simply blowing about hot air: increasing diplomacy with leading economies, improving foreign assistance and trade, and being actively involved in the prevention and resolution of conflicts, are foremost among them. Indeed, if the United States seeks genuine relations with African nations, it is in the interest of both parties to move beyond the one-dimensional quality that characterizes them today. One of my favorite bloggers, Texas in Africa, has an absolutely brilliant open letter to Secretary Clinton posted today in which she stresses precisely this point, and goes even further to suggest how the US might actively work to aid the continent. The post is focused primarily on the Congo, but several of the points are indeed quite applicable elsewhere around the continent. Its message even more so.

Where do I sign?

[image: the NYTimes]

Uncle Sam's African footprint

This week's issue of The New Statesman has a curious map tracking America's 'military footprint' around the world (i.e. the global distribution of American military bases):

From the map it is quite clear that the majority of U.S. bases are found in parts of Europe and the Middle East. In Africa, bases are located in Algeria, Chad, Cote d'Ivoire, Egypt, Equatorial Guinea, Ethiopia, Gabon, Liberia, Mali, Mauritania, Morocco, Niger, Sao Tome and Principe, Senegal, Sierra Leone, Tanzania, Tunisia, and Uganda. Many of these countries were considered for the home of AFRICOM, the US-Africa military command established under Bush (Esquire, of all places, had a great piece on the Africa Command programme back in 2007. Certainly worth a read!)

Many African states have been - and remain - quite vocal over their displeasure with the presence of such bases, maintaining that they constitute a direct violation of their sovereignty. Equally so, other states appear quite enthused to garner the assistance of the United States military in dealing with various regional issues. While I do certainly have my opinions on the matter, none are yet fixed in stone. What are your thoughts on U.S. military presence in Africa?

Humming a familiar tune

Barack Obama delivererd his speech to Ghana's Parliament this past Saturday (full text of the speech may be found here) in what was his first presidential trip to sub-Saharan Africa. A collection of opinions on the speech may be found at the BBC's fantastic 'Africa Have Your Say' program.

What I have to say is this: While there is little denying the significance of Obama's trip or the importance of his now oft-repeated statement that "Africa's future is up to Africans," the content of his speech was altogether unsurprising and contained nothing that hasn't already been said. Like other Western leaders who have addressed African nations in the past, Obama came touting the need for Africans to embrace democracy and market capitalism; to battle corruption, cease the ongoing violence, work with the West to combat disease and - in short - embrace the 21st century. This is all well and good, but such catch-phrases amount to no more than empty suits when not substantiated with specifics. Even his claim that Africa's future rests with its own people has been made numerous times in the past; most recently by the likes of Bill Easterly, President Kagame of Rwanda, and Dambisa Moyo in her ever-controversial book Dead Aid.

There was a welcomed shift in tone when Obama promised to cut down on funding American consultants and administrators and instead put resources and training into the hands of those who need them (i.e. resident Africans), as well as when he highlighted the economic possibilities implicit in African entrepreneurship (which, again, Kagame has been stressing for some time). But overall the speech diverged little from previous U.S. policy statements on Africa, no less so given Obama's insistence on continuing Bush's terrible idea of Africa Command. As Bill Easterly aptly notes in today's post, "[...] goodwill for U.S. military is nonexistent after a long history of Cold War Africa interventions, post-Cold War fumbles, reinforced by the more recent fiascos of Iraq and Afghanistan. Africans will never see US military (or any other Western force) as a neutral and benevolent force." *Sigh* When will we learn?

Of course the speech was inspirational - as may of President Obama's speeches are - and quite empowering for many Africans (and, apparently, for the UK Times' Libby Purves who sees a fantastic "new start" where those who understand African history and politics see none). Yet it pales in comparison to the speech Obama gave in Cairo when he addressed the Islamic world, and fails to represent much in the way of a novel shift in U.S. policy towards Africa and its people. Yes, Africans must pull themselves up by their bootstraps if they are to make anything of themselves, but didn't we (and they) know that already?

"We must start from the simple premise that Africa's future is up to Africans"

President Obama delivered his speech before the Ghanian parliament in Accra today. Full text of the speech may be found here. I will circle back with comments (and perhaps criticisms) on Monday; until then, do enjoy a lovely weekend!

Great expectations

Regarding President Obama's upcoming trip to Ghana, G. Pascal Gregory of Africa Works writes the following in Monday's Globe & Mail:

Scholars speak of “the empire striking back,” referring to former colonized peoples, such as immigrants from Africa and India, settling in Europe and North America and then challenging norms of race and identity. In his first official trip to Africa, U.S. President Barack Obama is striking back in a novel way. His visit to Ghana highlights the desirability of prominent people from the diaspora making a positive contribution to African affairs.

But Mr. Obama's visit, while heavy on symbolism, reveals the limits of his power. Burdened by economic problems in America and wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, he can't act boldly in Africa or make big promises.

There is certainly no denying the importance of Obama's trip to Africa... errr Ghana... but I am struggling to discover the novelty of the visit. Arguably the trip would have carried much more symbolism had he been 'returning' to Kenya, the birthplace of his father. As Kenya is the most corrupt state in east Africa, the President's decision to visit Ghana instead is being justified on the grounds that by his visit he is hoping to "lift up successful models of democracy" of which Ghana is surely one (and Kenya quite obviously not). If this truly is the objective, however, then he presumably should not have extended aid to Zimbabwe or made nice in Saudi Arabia or buddied up to Chavez, etc. etc. If one is keen to promote models of democracy, one would hope that this would apply on a global scale and not just in select regions.

I further hesitate to attach much significance to Obama's upcoming 'Africa' visit because a) he is in fact going only to one country which quite limits whatever impact he might have, even more so in light of the fact that he is not giving a speech as he did in Egypt when addressing the Islamic people. One would think that he would desire to address the people of Africa, if for no other reason to pay tribute to his roots. Moreover (point (b) as it were) as Gregory aptly notes, Obama cannot act boldly in Africa or make any big promises, though to be quite honest I haven't seen any signs signaling his intention to do so anyway.

While there certainly is much excitement surrounding the President's upcoming visit, much of it seems to stem from the symbolism surrounding the trip - a man born to a Kenyan father, elevated to the highest office in America, returning to his native continent. There is certainly much to be celebrated in this tale, but I fear that Obama's visit will be little more than that: another chapter in the history of a man. All the while, great expectations will be met with great disappointment.

Update: I stand corrected, President Obama will deliver a speech in Ghana, according to the White House blog. The speech is set to air at 6am EST on Saturday, 11 July for all of you early Americans risers (and at a much more reasonable hour for those in Europe and elsewhere!). The President's interview with allAfrica.com likely provides some insights into what we might expect from him. I very much look forward to learning what he has to say.

And if the Chinese scramble wasn't enough, Russia wants a piece now, too

Via the WSJ, Ariel Cohen writes:

[...] Russian President Dmitry Medvedev and more than a hundred Russian businessmen last week visited Egypt, Nigeria, Namibia and Angola on the longest tour of Africa a Russian leader has undertaken since the collapse of the Soviet Union. Unlike President Obama, who is going to Africa next week for a brief stop to talk about global warming, Mr. Medvedev and his team targeted oil, gas, diamonds and uranium. Mr. Medvedev is trying to score points before his G-8 meeting with Western leaders in Italy July 8-10.

[...] By all appearances Mr. Medvedev and, by extension, Prime Minister Vladimir Putin are reviving the old Soviet Africa strategy. The Soviet Union maintained friendly relations with many African countries, including Egypt, Sudan, Ethiopia, Somalia, Namibia, Angola and Mozambique.

[...] Africa lost its significance as an ideological chessboard after the collapse of the Soviet Union, and the current volume of trade between Africa and Russia is trivial. But the continent remains an economic prize. China has spent billions of dollars in the past few years gaining friends, influencing dictators, and tying African countries to Beijing.

Now the Kremlin is trying to regain its status as a global player, including re-asserting itself in Africa. Mr. Medvedev's visit to Africa appears to be the first coordinated attempt by Moscow to do so. Where once the Soviet Union sought political hegemony, today's Kremlin is after economic objectives like trade and access to raw materials. But a shift in Africa's relationship with Russia will have consequences for many.

Indeed, it will surely be fascinating to observe how Russia's Africa policy will unfold and the extent to which - if any at all - the Kremlin will seek cooperation with China, which currently has the upper hand in the continent - arguably even more so than do either the U.S. or Europe.

U.S. vs China, as played out in Africa

As President Obama gets ready to make his first trip to Ghana this July, one cannot help but wonder how he will be received. Of course quite warmly, I imagine, especially in light of his Kenyan roots, but it will be quite curious to see how - if at all - China's growing influence on the continent has shifted African perceptions of American assistance. Bear in mind that this trip will be Obama's first to sub-Saharan Africa (and during his 8 years as President, Bush II visited the continent only twice); Chinese President Hu has visited 15 sub-Saharan states since 2004. And I needn't remind you of the litany of recent Chinese investments in the continent, dubious though some of them may be.

The question of U.S. versus Chinese influence in Africa is brought home quite nicely by Ken Maguire. In his article today, Maguire expounds on this battle of authorities, if you will, ultimately concluding that the U.S.-China relationship in Africa can be cooperative. There is no denying that it can't; the question, I feel is much more one of degrees. Obama's upcoming trip may indeed prove quite central in shedding light on this issue, along with countless others.

Aid for Zimbabwe?

First it was the U.S., with its pledge of $73 million, and today it's the U.K. seemingly following suit with an additional $8 million (£5m), bringing total U.K. aid to Zimbabwe to $98 million (£60m) for this year alone. Now don't get me wrong, I am very much a proponent of assisting countries in need, but I question whether Zimbabwe has reformed itself to such an extent as to warrant such sizable aid packages. Surely the power-sharing government is a step in the right direction, but in my view not enough to merit such generous aid flows. At least not yet.

Indeed, I find myself agreeing with the Guardian's Tom Porteous who aptly observes:

There is much talk of reform in Zimbabwe but, as yet, no concrete action. The process of political change may have started but it is not irreversible. As long as Mugabe's nexus of repression and corruption remains in place, no amount of development assistance will help solve Zimbabwe's huge economic problems. And any economic aid to Harare from the UK or other donors will help to feed the crocodiles, just as surely as the blood-soaked profits of the Marange diamond mines.

Noteworthy….

The trouble with resuming aid to Zimbabwe

Tax deductible cycling: soon coming to an American city near you

Full-text of Timothy Geithner's speech at Peking University, which was seemingly well received by all in attendance

Gitmo: the video game (really? really?!)

For anyone wishing to brush up on their readings on Africa and development, this list should keep you perfectly busy for the next little while...

Free trade as a tool for development

Via VoxEU Kimberly Elliott suggests the United States should lower tariffs on imports from small, poor economies:

... the Doha Round, under the best of circumstances, will take some time to conclude, and the US and other rich countries should move as quickly as possible to further open their markets to the world’s poorest countries. The eighth of the Millennium Development Goals adopted at a UN summit in 2000 calls on the rich countries to provide duty-free-quota-free market access for the least-developed countries (LDCs). This goal was reiterated at the WTO’s 2005 Hong Kong ministerial meeting, but US negotiators would only commit to provide access for 97% of products and only in conjunction with the conclusion of the Doha Round.

Importantly, the pledge to provide duty-free-quota-free access is not part of the round’s “single undertaking,” and the LDCs are not being asked to undertake liberalisation commitments. So President Obama would lose nothing and could gain a great deal of good will, as well as providing an economic boost to struggling developing countries, by asking Congress to act now and provide access on 100%of products, as the European Union already does, rather than just 97% as promised in Hong Kong. Three percent may not sound like much, but such liberalisation would unblock a number of items that that are of the most interest to poor countries.

Providing full market access will not reverse the decline in trade flows, but it would open opportunities for some of the poorest countries in the world. It would also address a fundamental unfairness created by the fact that US trade policy, like that of other rich countries, discriminates against poor countries and poor people. The highest US tariffs fall on agricultural products and labour-intensive light manufactures, where many developing countries have a comparative advantage.

I have generally found such an argument to be quite compelling, and tend to agree with Ms. Elliott's assessment of the matter.

Noteworthy….

Tsvangirai on what it's like to share power with Mugabe, from Foreign Policy

Keep your friends close and... export your enemies? Zvika Krieger on the newly appointed U.S. Ambassador to China, Jon Hunstman Jr., and the fate of the GOP, from The New Republic

Rwanda's national English paper, The New Times, slams Human Rights Watch (and Kenneth Roth specifically) for their "insensitivity" towards the people of Rwanda... and general meddling (the HRW piece in question can be found here)

A brilliant and fascinating piece in today's Guardian on the evolving nature of the Chinese Communist Party and changing face of modern-day China

On dealing with pirates

In an interesting letter to Barack Obama on the subject of Somalia, Senator Russ Feingold writes the following:

As you know, piracy off the coast of Somalia is a symptom of the state collapse and instability on land; thus, any military actions we take will only be stopgap measures.  In recent Congressional testimony, Director of National Intelligence Blair and Defense Intelligence Agency Director Army Lt. General Michael Maples cited lawlessness and economic problems on land for the rise in piracy at sea.  The ultimate solution to the problem of piracy, then, is the establishment of a functional government that can enforce the rule of law.  During the rule of the Council of Islamic Courts in 2006, there was a notable decline in piracy that can be attributed, in large part, to the rise of a central authority in southern Somalia. Without replicating the repressive rule of the Courts, we must keep in mind that establishing a central governing structure in Somalia is critical to resolving, not just stopping, the problem of piracy.

Feingold proposes closer U.S. cooperation with the Somali government to "help establish security and functional, inclusive governance within the country." At first glance this seems like the clear way forward. Given that a large portion of pirates are impoverished individuals attempting to make a livelihood for themselves in the absence of other options, an internal solution to the problem (i.e. establishing governance and subsequently creating opportunity) appears the right one. 

Yet while this nation-building route may be the most sensible of options, it does raise two questions. First, should the United States engage in yet another nation-building mission in the Islamic world? Recall that Somalia is in large measure (informally) controlled by al-Shabab, an extreme al-Qaeda aligned terrorist group that has been active in Somalia since 2006. Despite America's benevolent intentions, I remain highly skeptical that any sort of state-building activity would be welcomed, especially given America's recent track record (and reputation) in the Islamic world. And given, too, that Somalia is a sovereign nation. Arguably this would radicalize the pirates just as much as would the second option: military action.

The second option (and second question) is indeed that of air strikes on pirate land bases, an option currently being debated by the U.S. government. While I hesitate to believe that such action would do much to ameliorate the piracy problem in the long term, and would inevitably mar the vision of a peaceful, all-loving America which the Obama administration seems intent on creating, some argue that it may be the appropriate response to what are, in fact, acts of terror. Indeed, the fundamental question implicit in this option is that of what label we designate to pirates: are they merely (helpless) criminals (or a 'better class of criminal' as my colleague Jon Santiago comically muses), or are they terrorists? Hostis humani generis? 

Unfortunately, the recent string of events appears to point to the latter. Mortars were fired on upon a plane carrying U.S. Congressman Donald Payne as it took off from Mogadishu airport on Monday (al-Shabab has claimed responsibility for the act). Pirates attempted an attack on a second U.S. vessel today, and have hijacked four more ships since the rescue of Captain Richard Phillips. Where before I was willing to pass off acts of piracy as acts of desperate individuals attempting to sustain a livelihood, such events seem to suggest something quite different - no less so given the pirates' threats of defiant, bloody revenge.

The question of how to solve the piracy problem is fantastically complex, and I don't claim to have much in the way of a solution. There is much to consider and, as it stands, America appears caught between a rock and a hard place. Arrrghhh matey, indeed.

The secret behind China's global rise, #45870458

Ignorant American politicians who are incapable of intelligently engaging in timely and necessary debates.

Via Trade Diversion, Jonathan Dingel writes:

Congresswoman Michelle Bachmann is clueless about the dollar’s role as the world’s reserve currency. In fact, it seems she’s clueless about what a reserve currency is. That’s why, in reaction to China’s SDR proposal, she’s introducing legislation to “bar the dollar from being replaced by any foreign currency.” And apparently a lot of people are similarly confused and need a quick explanation of the difference between legal tender and currency reserves.

If Rep. Bachmann’s office needs some assistance with international economics, I’d be happy to provide some advice over the phone at a reasonable price.

Having had my fair share of economic discussions with Jonathan, I can readily vouch for his expertise.

Having had their fair share of international gaffes in recent weeks, too (see here and here, for instance), I would urge U.S. politicians to do engage in greater background research before making future pronouncements (pertaining to anything, really) or attempting gestures of goodwill. Unfortunately, things in this department do not appear especially promising: standing in front of the Basilica of Our Lady of Guadalupe, which was "miraculously imprinted by Mary on the tilma, or cloak, or Juan Diego in 1531," Hilary Clinton on her recent trip to Mexico turned to the priest who was showing her the Basilica and asked, "Who painted it?"

Quite frankly I don't know how anyone is to take the U.S. seriously if such blunders continue to be made. Of course such slips of the tongue occur frequently in the wonderful world that is international relations, but one would hope that politicians in the world's superpower would be sufficiently knowledgeable on what really are commonplace matters. Even I understand the difference between legal tender and currency reserves, and I will be the first to admit that economics is not my forte.

While on the surface such slips may not appear to be a big deal, they do go a long way in discrediting the United States in the global arena, and are likewise utilized by leaders in countries who are interested in asserting their superiority over (or equality to) the U.S. in doing precisely that. China is no exception.

[HT: Andrew Sullivan]

Marking their territory

I initially refrained from commenting on the US-China naval spat in the South China Sea earlier this month, assuming that it was perhaps a one-off misstep; a faux pas, if you will. These things happen, right? Well, yes, but it would appear that the incident is part and parcel of China's broader attempts to assert itself in the South China Sea or, as James Kraska writes, a careful and deliberate attempt to promote "a vision that de-legitimizes the forward presence of the U.S. Navy in the region." This warrants some commentary.

The FT today reports that China is sending even more navy patrols to the South China Sea, seeking to extend its reach over the disputed Spratly Islands (disputed insofar as they are claimed in full (!) by China, Taiwan, Vietnam, the Philippines, Malaysia and Brunei). The Chinese have indeed become more aggressive and forward-looking than they were several years ago, both in terms of their hard and soft power strategies. Such activity begs two key questions: first, with respect to the incident in particular, who or at what level in the Chinese government was the incident (de facto harassment) ordered?; and second, with respect to China flexing its naval muscles, what is an appropriate U.S. response?

Gordan Chang writing in RealClearWorld (the global edition of RealClearPolitics) certainly seems to have some thoughts:

Analysts speculate as to Chinese intentions, but in a sense it really does not matter what Beijing is trying to accomplish. Its conduct is simply unacceptable. Washington, however, seeks to establish “dialogue” with China’s generals, admirals, and officials as if their belligerent acts are the result of the lack of contact. It is simply ludicrous for the Obama White House to claim that the Chinese want to “strengthen cooperation” or build a “positive and constructive” relationship after engaging in such truculent behavior.

And it is wrong to suggest that incidents can be avoided in the future if we only increase the level of communication or its frequency. We have had formal and informal military relations with China for decades, and now there is even a brand new mil-to-mil hotline connecting the United States to China. So it is an attack on common sense for the Pentagon to claim that “face-to-face dialogue in Beijing and in Washington will go a long way to clearing up any misunderstanding about this incident.” The problem is not that we don’t talk to the Chinese enough or that we misunderstand them. It is that they are hostile.

The hostile Chinese? David Axe doesn't appear to think so:

To be clear, Beijing and Washington are not enemies, Robert Kaplan stressed in a recent article for Foreign Affairs. Rather, China is a "legitimate peer competitor" of the United States. The task of the U.S. Navy will therefore be to quietly leverage the sea power of its closest allies -- India in the Indian Ocean and Japan in the western Pacific -- to set limits on China's expansion.

One would be hard-pressed to deny China as a "legitimate peer competitor," yet I would argue that some of this legitimacy is lost when harassment is adopted as a strategic tactic. There is nothing wrong with a state wanting to mark its territory; it is the fashion by which it goes about doing so, however, that sets the tone. As the old adage goes, actions speak louder than words.

Quick! Eat all the Roquefort you can find!

From Conde Nast Portfolio:

We're just ten short days away from R-Day -- the day at which tariffs on imported Roquefort surge to 300%, and the incomparable French sheep's-milk blue becomes, to all intents and purposes, unavailable in the USA. [...] Isn't repealing this tariff a no-brainer for the food friendly Obama administration? Why hasn't it been done yet? 

Why not, indeed? This tariff likely has me outraged as much as it does the French! One thing you must know about me is that I adore cheese. Especially, especially French cheeses. All the better when they're paired with a glass of red wine. Mmmmm. Is it too early to be thinking about this at 9 o'clock in the morning? Arguably so.

Right, well, what to do in these final - now nine (!) - days before the end of Roquefort as we know it (in America at least - lucky for those reading from elsewhere!)? From the gastronomically brilliant Barefoot Contessa: endive, pear and roquefort salad; filet mignon with roquefort chive sauce; and the most amazing blue cheese soufflé - ever. One can never let a good thing go to waste. 

[HT: Brad DeLong]

What China wants from Obama

From the New York Times' Room for Debate blog, Daniel Bell, Andy Xie, Zhang Haibin and Michael Meyer weigh in on Chinese expectations of the Obama administration following Clinton's visit.

Latin America looks East

It would appear that Africa is not the only continent "looking East" these days: Latin America likewise appears to be following suit.

Indeed, while the United States is preoccupied with other parts of the world (Latin America is currently not a major priority for the Obama administration), China is paying increasing attention to its international alliances, particularly in Africa and across Latin America. For starters, Chinese President Hu Jintao is embarking on his whistle-stop tour of Africa tomorrow, where he is expected to stress Sino-African energy relations and shore up African good sentiment. Just yesterday, Chinese Vice President Xi Jinping, who is likely to succeed Hu Jintao early next decade, left on a tour that will take him to Mexico, Jamaica, Columbia, Venezuela, and Brazil -- all nations eager to strengthen their ties with China. Annnd, elsewhere in the region, Vice Premier Hui Liangyu is paying official visits to Argentina, Ecuador, Barbados and the Bahamas from February 7-19. Whew. It's exhausting just writing about it.  

No biggie, you say? Well recall that: 

President Hu visited Latin America in November, stopping in to Cuba and Peru. And while Hu was rubbing elbows with most of the major Latin presidents at the APEC summit in Lima, China’s highest ranking military officer was elsewhere in South America on tour.

That officer, Xu Caihou, is vice chairman of the Central Military Commission, which controls the People’s Liberation Army. Only President Hu outranks Xu in the military hierarchy. On his trip in November, Xu toured military installations in Venezuela, Chile and Brazil and promised increased exchanges between the two regions.

Trade between Latin America and China has also grown 13-fold since 1995, from $8.4 billion to $100 billion in 2007. China is now the region's second biggest trade partner behind the United States, and is an official member of the Inter-American Development Bank, which has huge (huge!) implications for regional trade. Trade between China and Africa likewise reached an all-time high in 2008, effectively solidifying China's predominance in the continent. And let's not forget Beijing's ties with Russia and, of course, Iran.

So the world is indeed shrinking, and what was once America's playground is now China's playground, too.