U.S Congressional Black Caucus has infinitely less influence on US Africa policy than either the Energy Industry or National Security considerations. In fact, their real impact on US Africa policy is nearer to zero than anything else.
Mugabe is an interesting figure, in that he is a thoroughly nasty piece of business, but he has genuine support among vast swathes of his population (hard to imagine, but true). On the balance, most Zimbabweans know that Zimbabwe will be better without him.
Secondly, Mugabe may be an SOB, but there are quite a few other African SOBs that enjoy full US support (because they have Oil). (Please Google Teodoro Obiang - he is worse than Mugabe, but Chevron doesn’t want any disruption to its supply of crude oil from Equatorial Guinea).
It is this deeply schizophrenic foreign policy towards Africa that makes it impossible for educated Africans like me to buy into the “shining city on a hill” narrative about America. (People in Southern Africa - South Africa, Zimbabwe, Namibia, Angola, tend to be the most cynical because they’ve seen you support all kinds of thoroughly nasty individuals like Mobutu and Savimbi up close).
Finally, please be better informed about the foreign policy choices YOUR government makes ON YOUR BEHALF.
I can tell you straight up front that the US Government has a vested interest in securing Oil supplies in the Gulf of Guinea and will commit forces to protect these supplies should the need arise. I can also tell you that the US Government is committed to eliminating Al Qaeda activities in the Sahel region and has already assigned elements of the US military to assist local forces in doing so.
Your Government set up AFRICOM (US Africa Combatant Command) to (a) secure energy supplies in Africa (b) check the influence of Al Qaeda and (c) check the influence of China in Africa. In short, the USG is prepared /is preparing for a series of wars /entanglements in Africa.
The surprising thing is that the average man on the street in Nairobi, Lagos or Cape Town is better informed about US Foreign Policy than the average American.
“I can tell you straight up front that the US Government has a vested interest in securing Oil supplies in the Gulf of Guinea and will commit forces to protect these supplies should the need arise. I can also tell you that the US Government is committed to eliminating Al Qaeda activities in the Sahel region and has already assigned elements of the US military to assist local forces in doing so.
Your Government set up AFRICOM (US Africa Combatant Command) to (a) secure energy supplies in Africa (b) check the influence of Al Qaeda and (c) check the influence of China in Africa. In short, the USG is prepared /is preparing for a series of wars /entanglements in Africa.”
So you would rather have your country’s oil supplies in the hands of Muslim dictators or Al Qaeda? I don’t get what your main beef is. Do you support the US and Nato coming to ‘help’ Africa or not?
My main beef is that our current American potentate cannot be trusted to secure our country’s interests at home or abroad.
The surprising thing is that the average man on the street in Nairobi, Lagos or Cape Town is better informed about US Foreign Policy than the average American.>>>>>>>>>>>>>
I certainly look forward to your contributions on these subjects in the future. There is a paucity of information in the area here on FR and as you say we are ill informed, largely becauses our US press sources are much to blame for this fact,the MSM avoids writing much about Mexico or Africa for example, or our governments surreptitious work in these areas.Much of what information there is comes from
Australia and Britain, with a smattering from African news sources which tend to be dedicated to only local issues in a way that makes it difficult to obtain the larger continental picture.
So what you might bring here is important and needed.Please do not forget that.
That is sad but true. I'm married to a Korean, by the way, and have seen firsthand what it's like to have teenage Koreans know more about American foreign policy than too many of our elected leaders.
There was a day, up until World War II, that conservatives could make a good argument for being isolationists. I'm not saying the isolationists were right, but a policy of focusing on issues in North, Central, and South America, and (in the 1800s) of kicking European colonial powers out of the Western Hemisphere, made a lot of sense in the days when taking sides in European politics would just cause unnecessary problems for America, as had happened in the 1600s and early 1700s due to repeated American phases of European wars.
FReepers, as conservatives, need to understand that in the modern (post-World War II) world, foreign problems can reach out and touch us in a very bad way. 9/11 should have taught that to us. Ignorance of foreign policy is a major problem in the United States, and it leads to our political leaders being allowed to make bad decisions because we don't understand or even care what those decisions are.