Commentary from our "sister"/"brother" website:
http://jukwaa.proboards.com/thread/9341/kenya-dumb-idea-president?page=1&scrollTo=133149so in my view the need to keep the perception that Chinese are here to exploit us wheas USA are here to help is what is making Obama take that risk explained in the article starting this thread. this brings to mind the very 1st USA ambassador to Kenya after we attained the flag and national anthem independence. he was expelled by old Jomo but he left a gem 'The Blacks and the Reds' which is still unavailable in our bookshops but a worthy read 50 years later.
This is the sort of mindset that got Africa f**ked during the Cold War: while the major protagonists were just playing games, Africa took it upon itself to fight a Hot War on their behalf. And the results are still evident today.
How did that happen? African "leaders" thought they were being clever in playing "East vs. West". And some today still think so. And the
manamba have also bought into this idea that everything the West (especially the USA) does in Africa is a reaction to the East (now the Chinese). I think not; perhaps it has not happened in Africa, but elsewhere lessons have been learned since the Cold War. In particular, the USA does not see it as an over-riding concern that it should go all-out stymie Chinese actions in Africa. Had it been otherwise, we would have seen more US "action" in Africa. The current US approach is best captured in the views of Brzezinski, and he is a guy that even Obama listens to quite carefully. That view is that the USA has no really vital interests in Africa---if you disagree, then list them for discussion---and to the extent that the USA should be concerned with the Chinese foray in Africa, it should be on how best to share Africa and whatever it has. He is also of the view that African leaders are incapable of charting their own path and so are easily "bendable". I doubt that Obama is that cynical, but I see no evidence that his government has been particularly concerned with China in Africa, in the sense that they felt something there needed a "hard counter". (By evidence, I mean more than words.)
This is what seems to have caused the current excitement:
That seems perfectly sensible advice, and it is astonishing that it is even necessary. What the "the West is just jealous" brigade seems to have missed is the need to reflect on that rather obvious advice. There seems to be no end to "the West is saying or doing this and that because China is doing this and that". But what is really required is not Cold-War type of soft-headed claims; the better response would an objective consideration of whether Africa is really gaining from this new love affair with Kung Fu. A concrete argument to that end would be far better than quoting, out of context, some guy who dies ages ago.
Ah, yes; Obama's visit to Kenya:
* First, given the historical significance of Obama's becoming the US president and his connections to Kenya, it was "inevitable" that a visit to Kenya should happen at some point. It did not happen earlier for a fairly obvious reason---and even now whether or not he will meet with a certain assistant leader is still in doubt.
* Second, Obama has been acting: shortly after he became the US president, Kenya shot into the Top-10 of US aid recipients. (Some other countries saw their lot cut.) A quick look at where that money is going will show that none of it is intended to "counter the Chinese".
And the little matter of Kenya being "vital" to US interests in the region. That's Cold-War stuff that got many suckered into the idea that Kenya is vital because it is "an island in an ocean of chaos" or whatever. Today that little con is being applied in the context of terrorism, but look along that coast and consider who's really vital in that dubious "war"---hint, hint: Djibouti.
Quite a few years ago, I had the opportunity (in Georgetown) to hear Brzezinski talk, or perform, depending on one's viewpoint. He barely acknowledged Africa during the 90 or so minutes, so at "question-time" I brought it up---by specifically pointing out that Kenya was an "important ally" of the USA. I can no longer remember his exact answer, but it was something along the lines of (a) why exactly did I think Kenya was an "important ally" and (b) what exactly did Kenya have that the USA wanted or needed and couldn't get elsewhere. (Perhaps you have some answers?) Rather unhelpfully, he also pointed out that we live in a
capitalist world, and in said world the USA works very hard to construct mutually favourable trade agreements with important allies. (How many of those are in Africa.)
So: what exactly does the USA have to worry bout Kung Fu's being in Kenya? The destruction of our wildlife?
In conclusion, RE Kenya: (1) There will be no great bag of goodies from Obama's visit. Anyone who follows the trend of US Congressional budget stuff knows that most of the money---which would come through USAID---has probably already been settled on. (If you can't find your local diplomat, he or she is probably in Washington D.C. for the annual begging season.)
(2) The USA is not competing with China in Kenya: US funding is largely focused on human development. (Kenya is already a huge beneficiary of the
Power Africa programme, and there's more to come; but, even if it is not Health & Society, again the driver there is human development.) China, on the other hand, does infrastructure: chicken gets eaten, expensive loans are entered into, and folks end up with stuff that won't last very long. (Note to myself: return, on another thread, to the fact that what is needed is not forever-new infrastructure; it's a culture of
maintenance.)
(3) I see Obama's visit in huge human dimensions. In biblical terms, the very stone that the builders rejected has now become the chief cornerstone. Or, if you prefer, the underdog got up, barked, and bit somebody. And what an inspiring tale for Kenya. The very place that on his last visit the BIG PEOPLE once dismissed him as mere "junior senator". Ha!
