Link: Austria welcomes new migrants from Syria.
At times I am tempted to avoid posting on certain issues for fear of alienating my audience. We all have strong opinions about particular issues, but some subjects can be more emotionally charged than others. The heartbreaking photo of the three-year old Syrian boy who drowned trying to reach Europe, and washed up on the shore in Greece, has really energized the western media. The horrible reality is that young children die unnecessarily everyday, some by starvation in Ethiopia and Bangladesh, others as victims of war in Afghanistan, Syria and Nigeria. The immediate response to this particular photo will be typically knee-jerk and focus on a quick-fix for the symptom, without addressing the root problem. Because this young boy, who was traveling with his family from war-torn Syria to an unknown future in Europe, drowned and has his picture taken, all the major governments in Europe met to discuss their particular response to the issue of undocumented migrants, and the only question the media wanted answered was, "how many of these people are you willing to accept responsibility for and allow into your country?" In reality, what the activist European and American press wanted was an announcement that the European Union intended to establish a blanket policy for accepting all applicants for Asylum and Amnesty, no questions asked. Would this provide an answer to the growing number of migrants from the Middle East, Africa, the Indian Subcontinent and Southeast Asia who are looking for a new place to live? Yes, but at the same time it would bankrupt the EU and destabilize the cultural balance and identity of its member states. Anyone who seriously wants to address this problem must address not only the symptom, but also the root cause. These people come from somewhere; why are they leaving?
I live in Texas, therefore I am very familiar with the issue of undocumented migrants/immigrants. The term has changed over the years, as liberals decided that the terms "illegal" and "alien" were too harsh to use when discussing human beings. Again, just another distraction from facing the actual root of the problem. The United States of America, through a variety of mechanisms, financially supports the United States of Mexico. We accept their unemployed, and we provide a market for the narco-trafficking that has made Mexico its super highway. The Mexican nationals who live illegally in Mexico return a staggering amount of money back to Mexico to support family. This financial windfall has become a pillar of the current Mexican economic system. Simply put, roughly five to ten percent of Mexicans control the wealth of Mexico; it has always been this way, and the average Mexican has no reason to believe that it will ever change. Mexico is a wealthy country; although its petroleum deposits have started to dry up (all the easy stuff has been pumped out; only the hard-to-reach deposits remain), Mexico continues to have a tremendously bountiful agricultural sector, not to mention car-manufacturing and a growing textiles and high-tech industry. The government keeps a tight control over much of the economy, which allows a small percentage of Mexican families, utilizing endemic corruption, to steal much of the nation's wealth. The under-and-unemployed just cross the northern border into the United States to find work and create a life for their families. Mexico is in need of a real revolution, to rebuild the government so it works for the people, not vice-versa. The people need to become so desperate, that they take the issue into their own hands, and drag the thieves, corrupt politicians and narco-traffickers into the streets, and distribute a bit of mob justice. But this will never happen as long as the United States is willing to accept, feed and house the struggling Mexican under-and-unemployed, before they have reached the necessary point of desperation. This is a lesson that some in the United States are beginning to learn (thanks, Donald Trump), but I just don't see Europe ever having the courage to take the steps necessary to defend itself. Until the migrant believes that Europe offers no sanctuary, then the numbers will continue to grow.
In reality, it may be too late for the United States. President Obama will no doubt use Executive Action to sign an Amnesty Bill into law that provides a path to citizenship for at least twenty million Mexican nationals living illegally in the United States. Mind you, Obama isn't interested in providing a path to Legal Permanent Residency, his intent is to create citizens and new voters for his Democratic Party. But that is a story for another day. When we speak of addressing the genesis of the migrant problem in Europe, we must examine the circumstances that created this particular flow of refugees. The war in Syria, which has been raging for more than five years, has been displacing hundreds of thousands of people. Europe and the United States have welcomed many of these refugees already, and Turkey is already dealing with a refugee crisis. But the migrants aren't only coming from Syria. The majority actually come from Africa, and pay to be ferried across the Mediterranean in all sorts of dangerous, unseaworthy craft. Many are hopeful of finding a home and a steady job so they can support their immediate family, and eventually send for the rest. South Africa has been dealing with a refugee crisis since the end of apartheid; Nigerians, Ghanians, Zimbabweans, Congolese, all headed to South Africa, convinced that a good job and a new life awaited. Australia has been dealing with refugees from Southeast Asia since the end of the Vietnam War. The reality is, the prosperous western nations of the world do not have enough wealth to support its refugees. The math just doesn't add up, which is very frustrating, because the planet is nowhere near reaching the limit of its ability to support the human population.
Accepting the refugees as new European citizens will only guarantee an increased number of refugees. Europe's generosity is actually to blame for the direction of many of these refugees to begin with. Europe has always been willing to take Turks, Somalis, Algerians, Albanians, Palestinians, and others who are fleeing conflict, searching for the opportunity for a new life. But the problem has become so big that the only solution is to deal with it at its source. Syria is in upheaval because of the spread of ISIS; the Iraqi Refugees, especially from the north, are also beginning to make their presence felt. Since the entire world acknowledges what a horrific threat ISIS is to free people everywhere, then why hasn't some European or United States statesman risen to the occasion, and led an allied military campaign to destroy this human pestilence? Its not as if ISIS is willing to confine their expansion to the Levant; they have created cells as far away as South America, Canada, and The Philippines. Their stated goal is our destruction, so why haven't we solved the Syrian/Iraqi refugee crisis and the ISIS threat with a united military effort? In Africa, the refugee problem stems from what appears to be an inability for an African government to function outside the boundaries of institutionalized corruption. Even humanitarian aid has a habit of ending up in the hands of one smuggler or another. Since the end of apartheid, the ANC has started to follow in the footsteps of the Mugabes and Mobutus, with government ministers using public funds as a private bank account. If a nation does not have the resources to support economic growth, stagnation and recession occur, and the people will have no jobs. We can't invade Africa and force corrupt-free governments on the continent; it must be something that is decided at home. The same is true for Mexico. I have often heard that the United States should just invade Mexico, use the military to root out the narco-traffickers, and make Mexico work for the Mexican people once again. But its not our place; the people of Mexico have to decide when the time has arrived for a political sea-change, even though it does impact our national security when terrorists are able to utilize the same undocumented immigrant pipeline to enter the United States as the Mexican worker.
It's heart-warming to see those in need receive succor. I'm pleased that the various European governments have made the decision to address the migrant crisis this week. But what about next week, and next month? What about next year, when we may be dealing with hundreds of thousands? The total lack of shame on behalf of the wealthy Arab nations as they refuse to accept refugees, is very telling. They understand that once the spigot has been turned on, its difficult to shut off. Again, I argue, wouldn't it be in everyone's best interest if we destroyed ISIS together, while it is in its infancy, and bring some relief to the people who have yet to become refugees, and also give the current migrants a place to return to?
Showing posts with label Nigeria. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Nigeria. Show all posts
Monday, September 7, 2015
Saturday, August 8, 2015
The expansion of ISIS and its intended future targets.
Link: A. The expansion of The Islamic State.
B. Hamas aiding ISIS in Sinai?
This blog has regularly taken the opportunity to provide information regarding the recruitment efforts ands expansionist intentions of the extremist group, The Islamic State (ISIS). From out perspective, the United States and its European and Arab allies have not been nearly proactive enough regarding the ISIS' ability to establish itself rapidly in almost any part of the world. In fact, the allies haven't been proactive whatsoever. Until now, that is. We are beginning to see a bit more attention paid to the activities of ISIS, and more importantly, groups that have aligned themselves with the Islamic State. June and July were pivotal months regarding the expansion of ISIS from within the conflict zones of Syria and Iraq, to Egypt, Nigeria, Afghanistan, Yemen, Somalia, Kenya, and possibly even the United States itself. As detailed in our blog posting from July 8 (Link B), ISIS arrived with a bang in Sinai, taking out one Egyptian checkpoint before being dispatched themselves. Although the international press had published occasional stories regarding certain established terrorist groups pledging allegiance to ISIS, it was the attack in Sinai that sounded the alarm. From a strictly military perspective, the attack was a disaster. The ISIS fighters, most of whom were local Palestinian recruits with a few veterans of Syria thrown in for good measure, managed to kill a handful of Egyptian soldiers, but they lost roughly two hundred of their own. We know from a source on the scene that the Egyptian soldiers, especially the ones attacked at the original checkpoint, exhibited tremendous courage and determination. No doubt their ability to keep ISIS from quickly moving through the checkpoint and on to larger targets, saved many lives. In the end, though, the attack achieved its goals. ISIS wanted to announce to the world that the conflict was no longer limited to Syria and Iraq, and also demonstrate its ability to recruit and utilize dedicated supporters was basically unlimited.
Since the early July events in Gaza, ISIS has not conducted anymore high-profile attacks outside Syria and Iraq, at least not of which we are aware. In July, an Islamic extremist gunman opened fire on a U.S. military facility in Chattanooga, Tennessee, killing four Marines and a Sailor. Was this deranged young man connected to ISIS? Not according to the U.S. government. He was a frequent visitor to ISIS-friendly websites, message boards and chat rooms, and he recently spent six months in Jordan, which makes the "lone-wolf" declaration by the Obama Administration seem to us to be bizarrely premature and suspiciously political. We suspect that the shooter probably had some contact with ISIS agents while in Jordan, who ratcheted up the hate and anti-infidel message which was spinning in his head when he returned stateside. The most difficult question to answer, is what kind of sleeper-cell network has ISIS, and Al-Qaeda beforehand, developed in North America? From our optic, Al-Qaeda appears to favor the well-planned, highly trained, carefully chosen target, patient approach with regards to its cells, while ISIS seems to have no problem just handing someone a gun or a vehicle full of explosives, and telling them that when the signal comes in, just go out and kill people. Interestingly enough, Bin Laden, Zawahiri and Al-Qaeda loved a carefully planned, well-resourced operation, and al-Baghdadi and ISIS seem to prefer operations that result in the highest casualty list, regardless of cost. In the end, though, all three were definite believers in the power of fear. However the operation comes about, in the end, it must create enough fear in the target communities, to make people consider changing the way they and their families live life.
On a positive note, the new administration in Nigeria seems intent on destroying Boko Haram (BH)once and for all. The terrorist group has basically been on the run for some weeks, as the joint military efforts of Chad, Nigeria, Benin and Cameroon have left BH very little room to maneuver. BH achieved a great deal of attention with its announcement of allegiance to ISIS, but ISIS is smart enough to stay out of northern Nigeria, at least for the moment. The same can't be said for Libya, which seems to become more of a complicated mess everyday. The fact that Libya hasn't already been united under one Islamic extremist banner is a surprise in itself, because it certainly seems destined to happen. But for the time being, the United States and Europe continue to utilize some form of diplomacy to effect positive change, while at the same time, ISIS does its business out in the desert, visiting one isolated community after another, and adding them to the cause. I'm not sure if the current Libyan government sits in Benghazi or Tripoli, or if any government is currently being recognized by the United Nations. But the U.N. and the United States have been aware of the delicate state of affairs in Libya, since long before the Benghazi incident which killed five Americans. You could not plan a more advantageous situation for ISIS, as the people are desperate for someone to institute a bit of law and order, and maybe get the water turned back on. As demonstrated in Iraq, ISIS has learned the art of local government, and is expanding its footprint in Libya by providing communities with some level of organization and relief.
ISIS has also become active in Yemen, but to what degree is still a mystery. ISIS has also established itself in many of the large, urban township communities in central and southern Africa, which has the potential to be an unlimited source of recruits. Has ISIS found its way to the townships of Rio de Janeiro and Sao Paolo? When young people see no future, the color of their skin makes no difference. They will be a captive audience when the ISIS recruiters show up, with stories of glory on the battlefield, the holiness of killing infidels, and the providing of a wife (in this world, and forty additional ones in the next). But one of the most important thing that ISIS can provide is something that the planners at the U.N. and the Pentagon haven't really started to notice: ISIS provides these young people with DIRECTION, a cause, a reason to get up in the morning. One can never overestimate the value of "raison d'etre". If the various governments in Africa are unable to solve endemic problems of unemployment and homelessness, then we should have a good idea from where the next batch of young recruits will originate. Maybe the next Gaza-like statement will be in Pretoria, or Nakuru. One thing is certain: the problem of global youth unemployment will only feed the fire of discontent that continues to provide extremists like ISIS with young people who are willing to die for the cause.
B. Hamas aiding ISIS in Sinai?
This blog has regularly taken the opportunity to provide information regarding the recruitment efforts ands expansionist intentions of the extremist group, The Islamic State (ISIS). From out perspective, the United States and its European and Arab allies have not been nearly proactive enough regarding the ISIS' ability to establish itself rapidly in almost any part of the world. In fact, the allies haven't been proactive whatsoever. Until now, that is. We are beginning to see a bit more attention paid to the activities of ISIS, and more importantly, groups that have aligned themselves with the Islamic State. June and July were pivotal months regarding the expansion of ISIS from within the conflict zones of Syria and Iraq, to Egypt, Nigeria, Afghanistan, Yemen, Somalia, Kenya, and possibly even the United States itself. As detailed in our blog posting from July 8 (Link B), ISIS arrived with a bang in Sinai, taking out one Egyptian checkpoint before being dispatched themselves. Although the international press had published occasional stories regarding certain established terrorist groups pledging allegiance to ISIS, it was the attack in Sinai that sounded the alarm. From a strictly military perspective, the attack was a disaster. The ISIS fighters, most of whom were local Palestinian recruits with a few veterans of Syria thrown in for good measure, managed to kill a handful of Egyptian soldiers, but they lost roughly two hundred of their own. We know from a source on the scene that the Egyptian soldiers, especially the ones attacked at the original checkpoint, exhibited tremendous courage and determination. No doubt their ability to keep ISIS from quickly moving through the checkpoint and on to larger targets, saved many lives. In the end, though, the attack achieved its goals. ISIS wanted to announce to the world that the conflict was no longer limited to Syria and Iraq, and also demonstrate its ability to recruit and utilize dedicated supporters was basically unlimited.
Since the early July events in Gaza, ISIS has not conducted anymore high-profile attacks outside Syria and Iraq, at least not of which we are aware. In July, an Islamic extremist gunman opened fire on a U.S. military facility in Chattanooga, Tennessee, killing four Marines and a Sailor. Was this deranged young man connected to ISIS? Not according to the U.S. government. He was a frequent visitor to ISIS-friendly websites, message boards and chat rooms, and he recently spent six months in Jordan, which makes the "lone-wolf" declaration by the Obama Administration seem to us to be bizarrely premature and suspiciously political. We suspect that the shooter probably had some contact with ISIS agents while in Jordan, who ratcheted up the hate and anti-infidel message which was spinning in his head when he returned stateside. The most difficult question to answer, is what kind of sleeper-cell network has ISIS, and Al-Qaeda beforehand, developed in North America? From our optic, Al-Qaeda appears to favor the well-planned, highly trained, carefully chosen target, patient approach with regards to its cells, while ISIS seems to have no problem just handing someone a gun or a vehicle full of explosives, and telling them that when the signal comes in, just go out and kill people. Interestingly enough, Bin Laden, Zawahiri and Al-Qaeda loved a carefully planned, well-resourced operation, and al-Baghdadi and ISIS seem to prefer operations that result in the highest casualty list, regardless of cost. In the end, though, all three were definite believers in the power of fear. However the operation comes about, in the end, it must create enough fear in the target communities, to make people consider changing the way they and their families live life.
On a positive note, the new administration in Nigeria seems intent on destroying Boko Haram (BH)once and for all. The terrorist group has basically been on the run for some weeks, as the joint military efforts of Chad, Nigeria, Benin and Cameroon have left BH very little room to maneuver. BH achieved a great deal of attention with its announcement of allegiance to ISIS, but ISIS is smart enough to stay out of northern Nigeria, at least for the moment. The same can't be said for Libya, which seems to become more of a complicated mess everyday. The fact that Libya hasn't already been united under one Islamic extremist banner is a surprise in itself, because it certainly seems destined to happen. But for the time being, the United States and Europe continue to utilize some form of diplomacy to effect positive change, while at the same time, ISIS does its business out in the desert, visiting one isolated community after another, and adding them to the cause. I'm not sure if the current Libyan government sits in Benghazi or Tripoli, or if any government is currently being recognized by the United Nations. But the U.N. and the United States have been aware of the delicate state of affairs in Libya, since long before the Benghazi incident which killed five Americans. You could not plan a more advantageous situation for ISIS, as the people are desperate for someone to institute a bit of law and order, and maybe get the water turned back on. As demonstrated in Iraq, ISIS has learned the art of local government, and is expanding its footprint in Libya by providing communities with some level of organization and relief.
ISIS has also become active in Yemen, but to what degree is still a mystery. ISIS has also established itself in many of the large, urban township communities in central and southern Africa, which has the potential to be an unlimited source of recruits. Has ISIS found its way to the townships of Rio de Janeiro and Sao Paolo? When young people see no future, the color of their skin makes no difference. They will be a captive audience when the ISIS recruiters show up, with stories of glory on the battlefield, the holiness of killing infidels, and the providing of a wife (in this world, and forty additional ones in the next). But one of the most important thing that ISIS can provide is something that the planners at the U.N. and the Pentagon haven't really started to notice: ISIS provides these young people with DIRECTION, a cause, a reason to get up in the morning. One can never overestimate the value of "raison d'etre". If the various governments in Africa are unable to solve endemic problems of unemployment and homelessness, then we should have a good idea from where the next batch of young recruits will originate. Maybe the next Gaza-like statement will be in Pretoria, or Nakuru. One thing is certain: the problem of global youth unemployment will only feed the fire of discontent that continues to provide extremists like ISIS with young people who are willing to die for the cause.
Wednesday, July 8, 2015
Is Hamas working with ISIS in Sinai?
Link: A. Is Hamas working with ISIS?
B. Developments in Sinai.
The Islamic State has a new name, folks. First, we struggled with ISIS; then we were challenged with "The Islamic State for the Creation of a Caliphate in the Levant", which, I guess, could become "ISCOCIL". Thank goodness someone had better sense. As for the new name on the scene, it has been selected to identify the nascent establishment of an armed element of the Islamic State that has been active in the Sinai region, and its name is "Wilayat Sinai". I'm no Arabic scholar, but the name "Wilayat" reminds me of "Vilayet", a term used to describe communities in the Ottoman Empire. My superior skills of deduction tell me that "Wilayat Sinai" identifies what the Islamic State has decided is a part of its future Caliphate. When they organize an armed group for a part of Jordan, it may be named, "Wilayat Amman". This new group located in north Sinai, traditional home of Hamas, introduced itself with a bang last week, by attacking an Egyptian Army checkpoint and killing all the soldiers on duty. The attack was coordinated to coincide with vehicle/suicide attacks on other Egyptian military targets, but things didn't go exactly as planned. The Egyptians acquitted themselves admirably and gave hell to the Wilayat Sinai fighters. Interestingly enough, this action took place under the noses of the U.S. military, which currently has a presence in Sinai. Task Force Sinai, a regiment-sized U.S. Army contribution to the Multinational Force and Observers, the U.N. peacekeeping organization in pace in Sinai since 1982. Aside from the Explosives Ordinance Disposal Unit, what exactly are these U.S. troops doing in Sinai?
When I think of Sinai, I think of that large land-mass that separate Egypt and Israel. When I was a child, I used to imagine the plight of the poor Israelites, crossing the Sinai desert, with Moses at the lead, to escape Pharaoh and slavery. The Sinai has been the location of a number of recent terrorist attacks against Egyptian soldiers and police. Last week, the ISIS-baby Wilayat Sinai got in on the act. The attacks against the Egyptian military were obviously a probing operation, to test the reaction time and effectiveness of the Egyptian contingent. The Pentagon has estimated that the Islamic State has roughly 200 fighters in north Sinai. We estimate the number to be closer to 500, but this includes new recruits, some of whom were probably present in last week's attacks, and gained experience through one helluva baptism of fire. We know that ISIS is spreading, and has established branches as far away as Nigeria. Yesterday Barrack Obama publicly announced that ISIS was on is heels. This guy really has Chutzpah. Only a few years ago, he described ISIS as being a "JV" (junior varsity) organization. They now control most of Syria and Iraq. He's a keeper, that's for sure. We can only imagine how Israel is digesting this recent news of ISIS presenting itself so near Israel's southern border. ISIS in the north, Hezbollah in Lebanon, Hamas in Gaza, and now ISIS in the south. I have a degree in Geography, so when I say that Israel is looking a bit "boxed in", you can take it to the bank.
I wasn't so much shocked about the coming-out party for Wilayat Sinai as I was the rumors of cooperation between the Islamic State and Hamas. I would have thought that ideologically, there would be some problems with this relationship, not to mention that Hamas considers itself the sage of terrorist activity, with ISIS being the snot-nosed upstart. But it does appear as if some level of cooperation has taken place, which really complicates an already muddy picture. For the moment, though, my concern is with Task Force Sinai. Again, I'm really confused about the marching order for these young men and women. Are they armed? Do they patrol? If they're peacekeepers, are they under the command of a foreigner? It wasn't so long ago that Hamas had militarized Gaza, and turned schools and hospitals into missile depositories, forcing the Israeli Defense Force (IDF) to enter Gaza. This is a dangerous place, folks. What kind of peacekeeping are our soldiers doing? For now, lets forget about yesterday and deal with today and tomorrow. If ISIS has decided to extend its war for the Caliphate to the Sinai, I demand that our troops be armed all the time, with orders to defend themselves as appropriate to any self-defense situation. If the Administration is going to insist that our troops be unarmed, then its time to pull back our soldiers and replace them with diplomats. That would be there function after all, n'est pas?
B. Developments in Sinai.
The Islamic State has a new name, folks. First, we struggled with ISIS; then we were challenged with "The Islamic State for the Creation of a Caliphate in the Levant", which, I guess, could become "ISCOCIL". Thank goodness someone had better sense. As for the new name on the scene, it has been selected to identify the nascent establishment of an armed element of the Islamic State that has been active in the Sinai region, and its name is "Wilayat Sinai". I'm no Arabic scholar, but the name "Wilayat" reminds me of "Vilayet", a term used to describe communities in the Ottoman Empire. My superior skills of deduction tell me that "Wilayat Sinai" identifies what the Islamic State has decided is a part of its future Caliphate. When they organize an armed group for a part of Jordan, it may be named, "Wilayat Amman". This new group located in north Sinai, traditional home of Hamas, introduced itself with a bang last week, by attacking an Egyptian Army checkpoint and killing all the soldiers on duty. The attack was coordinated to coincide with vehicle/suicide attacks on other Egyptian military targets, but things didn't go exactly as planned. The Egyptians acquitted themselves admirably and gave hell to the Wilayat Sinai fighters. Interestingly enough, this action took place under the noses of the U.S. military, which currently has a presence in Sinai. Task Force Sinai, a regiment-sized U.S. Army contribution to the Multinational Force and Observers, the U.N. peacekeeping organization in pace in Sinai since 1982. Aside from the Explosives Ordinance Disposal Unit, what exactly are these U.S. troops doing in Sinai?
When I think of Sinai, I think of that large land-mass that separate Egypt and Israel. When I was a child, I used to imagine the plight of the poor Israelites, crossing the Sinai desert, with Moses at the lead, to escape Pharaoh and slavery. The Sinai has been the location of a number of recent terrorist attacks against Egyptian soldiers and police. Last week, the ISIS-baby Wilayat Sinai got in on the act. The attacks against the Egyptian military were obviously a probing operation, to test the reaction time and effectiveness of the Egyptian contingent. The Pentagon has estimated that the Islamic State has roughly 200 fighters in north Sinai. We estimate the number to be closer to 500, but this includes new recruits, some of whom were probably present in last week's attacks, and gained experience through one helluva baptism of fire. We know that ISIS is spreading, and has established branches as far away as Nigeria. Yesterday Barrack Obama publicly announced that ISIS was on is heels. This guy really has Chutzpah. Only a few years ago, he described ISIS as being a "JV" (junior varsity) organization. They now control most of Syria and Iraq. He's a keeper, that's for sure. We can only imagine how Israel is digesting this recent news of ISIS presenting itself so near Israel's southern border. ISIS in the north, Hezbollah in Lebanon, Hamas in Gaza, and now ISIS in the south. I have a degree in Geography, so when I say that Israel is looking a bit "boxed in", you can take it to the bank.
I wasn't so much shocked about the coming-out party for Wilayat Sinai as I was the rumors of cooperation between the Islamic State and Hamas. I would have thought that ideologically, there would be some problems with this relationship, not to mention that Hamas considers itself the sage of terrorist activity, with ISIS being the snot-nosed upstart. But it does appear as if some level of cooperation has taken place, which really complicates an already muddy picture. For the moment, though, my concern is with Task Force Sinai. Again, I'm really confused about the marching order for these young men and women. Are they armed? Do they patrol? If they're peacekeepers, are they under the command of a foreigner? It wasn't so long ago that Hamas had militarized Gaza, and turned schools and hospitals into missile depositories, forcing the Israeli Defense Force (IDF) to enter Gaza. This is a dangerous place, folks. What kind of peacekeeping are our soldiers doing? For now, lets forget about yesterday and deal with today and tomorrow. If ISIS has decided to extend its war for the Caliphate to the Sinai, I demand that our troops be armed all the time, with orders to defend themselves as appropriate to any self-defense situation. If the Administration is going to insist that our troops be unarmed, then its time to pull back our soldiers and replace them with diplomats. That would be there function after all, n'est pas?
Sunday, April 26, 2015
Is the Rainbow Nation trying to erase a few colors? South Africa adds Xenophobia to it's list of post-apartheid demons.
Links: A. South Africa health of the Economy, 2015.
B. South Africa and Xenophobia.
My last post focused on Nigeria, and today I am writing on South Africa. This is the first time that I have dedicated back-to-back posts to individual African nations, but some of my comments in the previous post required a certain amount of follow-up. I will be returning to regular commentary on the struggle against terrorism and other international issues with my next post. In the past I have received emails that accuse me of being too negative on the state of affairs in South Africa. Its not easy to realize that something I write would be considered intentionally damaging to the reputation and overage image of South Africa. Outside of the United States, I have spent more years in South Africa than any other country. I speak Afrikaans and a bit of Zulu, and I absolutely love South Africa and all South Africans. But when I decided to embark on this blog experiment, I made a personal agreement to always blog honestly. Regardless of whether you live in Christchurch or Vereeniging, South Africa is a mess. A sizeable number of South Africans have started expressing their frustrations by verbally and physically attacking foreigners, most of whom appear to be in South Africa illegally. A young friend recently asked me why none of the South Africans involved in the attacks seemed to be white. "Aren't white South Africans suffering from economic hardships just like black South Africans?" Simply put, no.
I found the first link provided above after searching for an easy-to-understand, short explanation of South Africa's economic problems, circa 2015. I succeeded beyond my expectations, which excuses me from the unpleasant job of explaining the situation myself. I am obliged to mention a few of the more important points, though. When Thabo Mbeki was President, the South African government was still making a modest (but still not disciplined enough) effort to keep spending under control. This positive effort on behalf of the government was echoed in homes across the country, as South Africans continued to "save for a rainy day". But 2015 presents a starkly different scenario. The current government spends like a child in a candy store, and South Africans, probably due to necessity more than anything else, are no longer growing savings nest-eggs in the bank. The banking sector is another issue altogether, with a few banks taking advantage of the previous economic surplus to push a sizes of loans. At the time, the government (which has since rectified the problem, to their credit), didn't have much oversight in this area, and a number of banks were left carrying millions of Rand in unpaid and abandoned loans. This development effectively tightened the loan market, making it much more difficult for legitimate applicants wanting a mortgage for a new home, to get approval. And of course, regardless of the year or the state of the economy, South Africa will be facing a crisis in the labor market. South Africa does not seem to be able to create enough jobs to keep all able-bodied persons employed. The pressure placed on the already taxed social welfare net increased dramatically, and today we are left with high unemployment, high underemployment, low consumer confidence, limited growth, inability to buy homes, and a disturbing number of hungry mouths to feed in the Republic. Everyday the media provides salacious details of the latest scandal involving theft or related corruption by a management-level government employee. I made an effort to compile a list of which and how many South African government agencies had been looted by a former manager or three, but I shouldn't have wasted my time. The answer was obvious all along: ALL OF THEM.
So South Africans (mostly young and black), with no hope of finding a job, and no reason to plan for the future, sees foreigners in surprisingly large numbers moving into his or her community. These people are strangers who speak a different language, and come from places like Mozambique, Sierra Leone, Zimbabwe, and Somalia, to name a few. The young person reasonably assumes that the cause of a shortage in jobs is the appearances of all these foreigners. Why should they come to South Africa and take what little jobs we have available? Most people don't stop to realize that the foreigners are just as unemployed as the South Africans. The rumor that permeates throughout Africa, that South Africa is the land of great jobs and opportunity, is false. South Africans know this, but Eritreans paying their last few nafka to a smuggler in order to get to South Africa, have no idea. Hence the genesis of today's latest South African tragedy: the murders of innocent foreigners who are in Diepsloot, or Edendale, or Mamelodi, or Khyelitsha, in an attempt to find a job to feed their families, the same goal as everyone else. How did things go so bad after the unity, faith and hope of 1994? Unfortunately, where you have people, you will eventually find thieves, liars, and sociopaths. No one is exempt, although it seems that uneducated, poorer communities unfairly get more than their share.
In the first Democratic, all-inclusive general elections of 1994, there was absolutely no doubt that the ANC would be victorious. At the time, Inkatha was still a force to be reckoned with, and there was some question regarding the white vote and whether it would coalesce under the DA liberal banner, the former NP government, or move into laager mode behind the Freedom Front (which may have still been running under the title of "Conservative Party"). Two things occurred which were a surprise to me: the ANC ended up just short of a majority, and the National Party completely disintegrated (the NP had been bleeding voters to the Conservative Party for years before the first all-inclusive election, but in this instance it appeared that the white vote was choosing to unite behind a liberal party line). Not surprisingly, in the run-up to the election, the ANC campaign repeatedly promised the new South African electorate that "100,000 homes would be built in the first year", and that "rate cards would be torn up and electricity would be free". For a variety of reasons, not because of lack of effort, the number of homes built during the entire first ANC term as a national government was a far cry from the hoped-for 100,000. But this did not stop the ANC from bringing out the same promise in the next election, and the next. At any time during these elections, an honest economist would have been able to see that the ANC's promises were just impossible to deliver. No doubt South Africa has always had some unique demographic characteristics, but in truth race has very little to do with the basic economic situation. South Africa continues to grow in population, both through its natural birth rate and through illegal immigration. The number of persons needing to be feed, and the number of job seekers continues to rise. Even though over the past fifteen years, South Africa has experienced a number of substantial years of economic growth, it has never been anywhere near enough to compensate for the growth in population. It really is that simple, folks.
So why do I complain so much about corruption, if the real problem is uncontrolled population growth? Because it offends me to my core, and because it DIDN'T HAVE TO BE THIS WAY. The ANC government took the reigns of power, with Madiba at the helm and the support of the majority of all South Africans, white and black. The Truth and Reconciliation process was a true wonder to behold, as South Africans reminded the world about the power of forgiveness. Sadly, the problem didn't take long in manifesting itself, because the ANC felt the necessity to reward persons who sacrificed for the struggle, with well-paying jobs that they were totally unqualified to do. In the beginning their was hope that this would be the only issue that needed to be addressed, but when Madiba started to fade a bit, and a younger, more self-obsessed generation of politicians moved in, then the odd case of corruption would be discovered. Soon, people were whispering about how it was unfair that so-and-so was paid a higher salary, so I will rectify the situation on my own. Bribery became a real problem in the police force, until thank goodness the inclusion of dashboard cameras in police cruisers. Once Thabo Mbeki departed stage left, then the real hijinks began. Suddenly it was OK to hire your wife or your children to work in your department (no matter that they never showed up and just collected a paycheck...no one wants to rock the boat). Also, seeding your department with family and friends made it very difficult for investigators to find whistle-blowers. The potent South African media was on this problem like stink on shit, with front page photos of obese, drunk managers climbing out of their wrecked, brand new Mercedes, as the mistress lay in the passenger seat, dying from her injuries. Soon the dailies didn't have to fight for stories; their were plenty to go around. The Union bosses were on the take, the drug squads were bad, bribes and bribes for delivering government contracts became the normal way of doing business. If you think I'm laying it on a little thick, ask a South African.
So its no surprise that frustration has really taken root in this community. The whites of South Africa continue to be an amazing group. The live in their fortresses in Brooklyn, Waterkloof, Sandhurst, Bryanston, Bishopscourt, Constantia, Hilton, and Umhlanga, and continue the tradition of hard work that has been passed down for generations. White South Africans are needed to keep certain parts of this country functioning, and the truth is, they are still a dedicated, dependable bunch. At the same time, they continue to live as they always have, with garden boys, maids, cooks, and servants quarters (separate from the house, of course). I always take visitors on a drive through Bryanston and then north to Brooklyn and Waterkloof, and I always hear the same comment: "I thought all of this was supposed to end?" Forgive me for sounding a bit cynical, but the thieves of today realize that they need this trained and dependable group to stay happy, so they don't emigrate to Australia, before the current government has had its opportunity to rob the country of some of its resources.
Cynical? Absolutely. And also frustrated and disappointed. I believe that the resources of South Africa should be dedicated 100 percent to improving the living conditions of the most needy in the community. I lived in South Africa in 1989, and it seems to me that the same families have continued to accumulate wealth, with the ones who left having been replaced by the new ANC elite. I make no bones about the fact that I support the Democratic Alliance. The DA is just the panacea that South Africa craves. Multi-racial, multi-EVERYTHING, the DA has a surplus of brilliant economists and academics who are straining at the bit to put this house in order. Its not too late, because South Africa is resilient, and full of resources. The education model that has proven so successful in the western Cape should be the national model. In fact, so many programs instituted by the DA in the municipalities that they control, would bring needed relief to all corners of the Republic. I have always considered the ANC to be omnipotent, and South Africa to be another in a long-line of one-party African states. But maybe, just maybe, the tide has shifted with the most recent scandals, Nkandla being most offensive. What an amazing thing it would be for South Africa to have the chance to spread its wings and finally BREATHE.
B. South Africa and Xenophobia.
My last post focused on Nigeria, and today I am writing on South Africa. This is the first time that I have dedicated back-to-back posts to individual African nations, but some of my comments in the previous post required a certain amount of follow-up. I will be returning to regular commentary on the struggle against terrorism and other international issues with my next post. In the past I have received emails that accuse me of being too negative on the state of affairs in South Africa. Its not easy to realize that something I write would be considered intentionally damaging to the reputation and overage image of South Africa. Outside of the United States, I have spent more years in South Africa than any other country. I speak Afrikaans and a bit of Zulu, and I absolutely love South Africa and all South Africans. But when I decided to embark on this blog experiment, I made a personal agreement to always blog honestly. Regardless of whether you live in Christchurch or Vereeniging, South Africa is a mess. A sizeable number of South Africans have started expressing their frustrations by verbally and physically attacking foreigners, most of whom appear to be in South Africa illegally. A young friend recently asked me why none of the South Africans involved in the attacks seemed to be white. "Aren't white South Africans suffering from economic hardships just like black South Africans?" Simply put, no.
I found the first link provided above after searching for an easy-to-understand, short explanation of South Africa's economic problems, circa 2015. I succeeded beyond my expectations, which excuses me from the unpleasant job of explaining the situation myself. I am obliged to mention a few of the more important points, though. When Thabo Mbeki was President, the South African government was still making a modest (but still not disciplined enough) effort to keep spending under control. This positive effort on behalf of the government was echoed in homes across the country, as South Africans continued to "save for a rainy day". But 2015 presents a starkly different scenario. The current government spends like a child in a candy store, and South Africans, probably due to necessity more than anything else, are no longer growing savings nest-eggs in the bank. The banking sector is another issue altogether, with a few banks taking advantage of the previous economic surplus to push a sizes of loans. At the time, the government (which has since rectified the problem, to their credit), didn't have much oversight in this area, and a number of banks were left carrying millions of Rand in unpaid and abandoned loans. This development effectively tightened the loan market, making it much more difficult for legitimate applicants wanting a mortgage for a new home, to get approval. And of course, regardless of the year or the state of the economy, South Africa will be facing a crisis in the labor market. South Africa does not seem to be able to create enough jobs to keep all able-bodied persons employed. The pressure placed on the already taxed social welfare net increased dramatically, and today we are left with high unemployment, high underemployment, low consumer confidence, limited growth, inability to buy homes, and a disturbing number of hungry mouths to feed in the Republic. Everyday the media provides salacious details of the latest scandal involving theft or related corruption by a management-level government employee. I made an effort to compile a list of which and how many South African government agencies had been looted by a former manager or three, but I shouldn't have wasted my time. The answer was obvious all along: ALL OF THEM.
So South Africans (mostly young and black), with no hope of finding a job, and no reason to plan for the future, sees foreigners in surprisingly large numbers moving into his or her community. These people are strangers who speak a different language, and come from places like Mozambique, Sierra Leone, Zimbabwe, and Somalia, to name a few. The young person reasonably assumes that the cause of a shortage in jobs is the appearances of all these foreigners. Why should they come to South Africa and take what little jobs we have available? Most people don't stop to realize that the foreigners are just as unemployed as the South Africans. The rumor that permeates throughout Africa, that South Africa is the land of great jobs and opportunity, is false. South Africans know this, but Eritreans paying their last few nafka to a smuggler in order to get to South Africa, have no idea. Hence the genesis of today's latest South African tragedy: the murders of innocent foreigners who are in Diepsloot, or Edendale, or Mamelodi, or Khyelitsha, in an attempt to find a job to feed their families, the same goal as everyone else. How did things go so bad after the unity, faith and hope of 1994? Unfortunately, where you have people, you will eventually find thieves, liars, and sociopaths. No one is exempt, although it seems that uneducated, poorer communities unfairly get more than their share.
In the first Democratic, all-inclusive general elections of 1994, there was absolutely no doubt that the ANC would be victorious. At the time, Inkatha was still a force to be reckoned with, and there was some question regarding the white vote and whether it would coalesce under the DA liberal banner, the former NP government, or move into laager mode behind the Freedom Front (which may have still been running under the title of "Conservative Party"). Two things occurred which were a surprise to me: the ANC ended up just short of a majority, and the National Party completely disintegrated (the NP had been bleeding voters to the Conservative Party for years before the first all-inclusive election, but in this instance it appeared that the white vote was choosing to unite behind a liberal party line). Not surprisingly, in the run-up to the election, the ANC campaign repeatedly promised the new South African electorate that "100,000 homes would be built in the first year", and that "rate cards would be torn up and electricity would be free". For a variety of reasons, not because of lack of effort, the number of homes built during the entire first ANC term as a national government was a far cry from the hoped-for 100,000. But this did not stop the ANC from bringing out the same promise in the next election, and the next. At any time during these elections, an honest economist would have been able to see that the ANC's promises were just impossible to deliver. No doubt South Africa has always had some unique demographic characteristics, but in truth race has very little to do with the basic economic situation. South Africa continues to grow in population, both through its natural birth rate and through illegal immigration. The number of persons needing to be feed, and the number of job seekers continues to rise. Even though over the past fifteen years, South Africa has experienced a number of substantial years of economic growth, it has never been anywhere near enough to compensate for the growth in population. It really is that simple, folks.
So why do I complain so much about corruption, if the real problem is uncontrolled population growth? Because it offends me to my core, and because it DIDN'T HAVE TO BE THIS WAY. The ANC government took the reigns of power, with Madiba at the helm and the support of the majority of all South Africans, white and black. The Truth and Reconciliation process was a true wonder to behold, as South Africans reminded the world about the power of forgiveness. Sadly, the problem didn't take long in manifesting itself, because the ANC felt the necessity to reward persons who sacrificed for the struggle, with well-paying jobs that they were totally unqualified to do. In the beginning their was hope that this would be the only issue that needed to be addressed, but when Madiba started to fade a bit, and a younger, more self-obsessed generation of politicians moved in, then the odd case of corruption would be discovered. Soon, people were whispering about how it was unfair that so-and-so was paid a higher salary, so I will rectify the situation on my own. Bribery became a real problem in the police force, until thank goodness the inclusion of dashboard cameras in police cruisers. Once Thabo Mbeki departed stage left, then the real hijinks began. Suddenly it was OK to hire your wife or your children to work in your department (no matter that they never showed up and just collected a paycheck...no one wants to rock the boat). Also, seeding your department with family and friends made it very difficult for investigators to find whistle-blowers. The potent South African media was on this problem like stink on shit, with front page photos of obese, drunk managers climbing out of their wrecked, brand new Mercedes, as the mistress lay in the passenger seat, dying from her injuries. Soon the dailies didn't have to fight for stories; their were plenty to go around. The Union bosses were on the take, the drug squads were bad, bribes and bribes for delivering government contracts became the normal way of doing business. If you think I'm laying it on a little thick, ask a South African.
So its no surprise that frustration has really taken root in this community. The whites of South Africa continue to be an amazing group. The live in their fortresses in Brooklyn, Waterkloof, Sandhurst, Bryanston, Bishopscourt, Constantia, Hilton, and Umhlanga, and continue the tradition of hard work that has been passed down for generations. White South Africans are needed to keep certain parts of this country functioning, and the truth is, they are still a dedicated, dependable bunch. At the same time, they continue to live as they always have, with garden boys, maids, cooks, and servants quarters (separate from the house, of course). I always take visitors on a drive through Bryanston and then north to Brooklyn and Waterkloof, and I always hear the same comment: "I thought all of this was supposed to end?" Forgive me for sounding a bit cynical, but the thieves of today realize that they need this trained and dependable group to stay happy, so they don't emigrate to Australia, before the current government has had its opportunity to rob the country of some of its resources.
Cynical? Absolutely. And also frustrated and disappointed. I believe that the resources of South Africa should be dedicated 100 percent to improving the living conditions of the most needy in the community. I lived in South Africa in 1989, and it seems to me that the same families have continued to accumulate wealth, with the ones who left having been replaced by the new ANC elite. I make no bones about the fact that I support the Democratic Alliance. The DA is just the panacea that South Africa craves. Multi-racial, multi-EVERYTHING, the DA has a surplus of brilliant economists and academics who are straining at the bit to put this house in order. Its not too late, because South Africa is resilient, and full of resources. The education model that has proven so successful in the western Cape should be the national model. In fact, so many programs instituted by the DA in the municipalities that they control, would bring needed relief to all corners of the Republic. I have always considered the ANC to be omnipotent, and South Africa to be another in a long-line of one-party African states. But maybe, just maybe, the tide has shifted with the most recent scandals, Nkandla being most offensive. What an amazing thing it would be for South Africa to have the chance to spread its wings and finally BREATHE.
Friday, April 24, 2015
Nigeria: Africa's Great Resource and Hope for a Better Future.
Links: A. Nigeria tackles unemployment, corruption, energy needs.
B. Everyone focused on ending poverty in Nigeria.
In the last few weeks, I have received dozens of emails from Nigerians either in-country or abroad, and I have been truly humbled by the thoughtful and polite comments regarding my posts on the recent Nigerian election. In addition, I have commented on Nigeria with regards to Boko Haram, and also on the state of economics in Africa as a whole. I receive more feedback on Nigeria than any other subject, which is encouraging, because I believe Nigeria is a tremendously important country, with the opportunity to lead the continent into a century of peace and economic growth. But words are cheap, if you'll excuse the cliché. I make no secret that I am very attached to South Africa. I love the land and the people; I consider it one of three places where I can actually feel at home. But for the sake of honesty, I have to recognize that South Africa seems bound and determined to abdicate its title as the "leader of the continent", and "powerhouse of Africa". South Africa has serious internal conflicts, which have yet to really effect the economy (which remains sluggish anyhow), but when they do, it will be a full broadside. I believe that the ANC government played its last "loyalty, sympathy and tradition" card in the last elections. Madiba has gone to his great reward, and what sits in his place is a sorry substitute by any measure. For over twenty years, the ANC, which has governed South Africa since the death of apartheid (1992-94), has been campaigning by promising free housing for millions. Here is the rub, folks: not only have the people not received their free homes, but the President of the Republic, Jacob Zuma, who already had three official state residences, was provided with "Nkandla", a living compound larger than most luxury hotels. In order to make Nkandla "livable" for Zuma, it required a helipad, a swimming pool, private hospital, and other amenities with a price tag of over 215 million rand. So how many modest, four-room homes could 215 Rand pay for? If we allocated 100,000 Rand per home, we could build over 20,000 homes. We could make a large informal settlement disappear overnight.
Instead of recognizing how damaging this scandal could become and ending the improvements (and possibly try to return some of the funds), Zuma has been indignant, and, of course, accepted no blame for the fiasco. Nkandla is a perfect example of what has become of South Africa. The ANC government, provided by the South African electorate with unlimited authority and no real oversight, has been like a group of children in a candy shop. EVERY government department is drowning in either validated cases or accusations of corruption. What is most heartbreaking about South Africa is that the official opposition, the Democratic Alliance (DA), is multi-racial and overflowing with brilliant economists, planners, economic experts, teachers, etc. If only....but it won't happen. And this is the reason why Nigeria will have the opportunity to pick up the banner and become the leader for the entire continent.
Nigerian President Muhammadu Buhari, the winner in last month's elections, has a number of pressing issues to address sooner rather than later. The Niger Delta militias, who, not that long ago, seemed to have the entire country held hostage, were smoothly co-opted by former President Goodluck Jonathan, and a serious crisis was resolved.....temporarily. Jonathan flooded the Delta region with amnesty, cash, and benefits, and the militia played along. In the last election, the Delta region voted heavily in favor of Jonathan, out of fear that the good times would come to an end with an All Progressives Congress (APC) victory. The answer to this problem lies somewhere in between, and I have full confidence that Buhari will be up to the task. The Delta region needs to be co-opted not into a small group of oil-revenue beneficiaries, but into the Nigerian economic system as a whole. Many Nigerians (and at least one Texan) continue to be frustrated by the fact that Nigeria has to import refined petroleum. Nigeria needs to build a refining capacity that is second-to-none. Buhari need to play hard-ball with these billionaire western company execs who are padding their own retirements with Nigerian resources; there is no excuse for Nigeria to not have a full refining capability, and the fact that Nigeria has to import refined petroleum is an absolute tragedy.
I like both President Buhari and President Jonathan, who earned my deep respect by the manner in which he handled his defeat in the last election. He could have made the outcome questionable, by encouraging demonstrations and denouncing the legitimacy of the process. Instead, he single-handedly delivered a peaceful wake-up to Nigeria the next morning. He could have caused all sorts of havoc in the Delta region alone. Cheers and hats off to you, President Jonathan. Buhari, as a Muslim, was in the delicate position of avoiding any inference that he might have sympathies for Boko Haram. Buhari is a very intelligent and patient man. When he was military leader of the Junta that governed Nigeria some years back, he never let anyone forget that Nigeria was destined to return to civilian rule in the near future. He also governed in a fair and responsible manner. Buhari has promised to address one particular issue that has received a great deal of internal press, and that is the borderline theft committed by outgoing governors and administrators in certain Nigerian states. The law allows these individuals to assume a great deal of power over the purse strings, and jobs appear out of thin air and are given to friends and relatives. Bonuses are awarded, and the most egregious act, increases in retirement salaries and related disbursements are summarily created. A number of Nigerian state governors have become multi-millionaires by abusing the state budgets in this fashion. Well, Buhari has promised to address the issue. He has some very close relationships with a couple of men who are accused of such activities. The Nigerian people will be able to test the sincerity, the mettle, and the honesty of their new president by how he handles this issue. Not only does he need to create new laws that are uniform throughout the Republic, but he also needs to take measures that will protect the Nigerian taxpayer from this type of abuse in the future. If at all possible, these men (and women) need to be held accountable, and if possible, the money needs to be returned to the people.
Corruption will always be a problem in a nation of low literacy. History has shown us that as education becomes more prevalent, nations tend to move away from endemic corruption, although there will always be exceptions. Russia is a modern country, and yet corruption plays an everyday part in the affairs of state and the economy. But the people of Nigeria seem to share a determination, a dedication to root out corruption and create a bureaucracy that is accessible to all, not just to those with money. This is the point of separation between South Africa and Nigeria. I don't sense that the South Africa people are willing to fight corruption, if it means that the ANC can longer be the governing party. Nigeria is rich in resources and in work ethic. That combination will be the platform that lifts this country to new accomplishments. Nigeria is evolving and growing as it confronts the Boko Haram menace in the north, and the devilish corruption that has taken root in the capital and the state houses around the country. But Nigeria appears to be united as never before, to demand accountability, to support a government that puts education and job creation as permanent priorities, especially when budgets are being written. The opportunity exists, with a mature, experienced, and considerate man as president, to make great things happen. Good Bless Nigeria and South Africa.
B. Everyone focused on ending poverty in Nigeria.
In the last few weeks, I have received dozens of emails from Nigerians either in-country or abroad, and I have been truly humbled by the thoughtful and polite comments regarding my posts on the recent Nigerian election. In addition, I have commented on Nigeria with regards to Boko Haram, and also on the state of economics in Africa as a whole. I receive more feedback on Nigeria than any other subject, which is encouraging, because I believe Nigeria is a tremendously important country, with the opportunity to lead the continent into a century of peace and economic growth. But words are cheap, if you'll excuse the cliché. I make no secret that I am very attached to South Africa. I love the land and the people; I consider it one of three places where I can actually feel at home. But for the sake of honesty, I have to recognize that South Africa seems bound and determined to abdicate its title as the "leader of the continent", and "powerhouse of Africa". South Africa has serious internal conflicts, which have yet to really effect the economy (which remains sluggish anyhow), but when they do, it will be a full broadside. I believe that the ANC government played its last "loyalty, sympathy and tradition" card in the last elections. Madiba has gone to his great reward, and what sits in his place is a sorry substitute by any measure. For over twenty years, the ANC, which has governed South Africa since the death of apartheid (1992-94), has been campaigning by promising free housing for millions. Here is the rub, folks: not only have the people not received their free homes, but the President of the Republic, Jacob Zuma, who already had three official state residences, was provided with "Nkandla", a living compound larger than most luxury hotels. In order to make Nkandla "livable" for Zuma, it required a helipad, a swimming pool, private hospital, and other amenities with a price tag of over 215 million rand. So how many modest, four-room homes could 215 Rand pay for? If we allocated 100,000 Rand per home, we could build over 20,000 homes. We could make a large informal settlement disappear overnight.
Instead of recognizing how damaging this scandal could become and ending the improvements (and possibly try to return some of the funds), Zuma has been indignant, and, of course, accepted no blame for the fiasco. Nkandla is a perfect example of what has become of South Africa. The ANC government, provided by the South African electorate with unlimited authority and no real oversight, has been like a group of children in a candy shop. EVERY government department is drowning in either validated cases or accusations of corruption. What is most heartbreaking about South Africa is that the official opposition, the Democratic Alliance (DA), is multi-racial and overflowing with brilliant economists, planners, economic experts, teachers, etc. If only....but it won't happen. And this is the reason why Nigeria will have the opportunity to pick up the banner and become the leader for the entire continent.
Nigerian President Muhammadu Buhari, the winner in last month's elections, has a number of pressing issues to address sooner rather than later. The Niger Delta militias, who, not that long ago, seemed to have the entire country held hostage, were smoothly co-opted by former President Goodluck Jonathan, and a serious crisis was resolved.....temporarily. Jonathan flooded the Delta region with amnesty, cash, and benefits, and the militia played along. In the last election, the Delta region voted heavily in favor of Jonathan, out of fear that the good times would come to an end with an All Progressives Congress (APC) victory. The answer to this problem lies somewhere in between, and I have full confidence that Buhari will be up to the task. The Delta region needs to be co-opted not into a small group of oil-revenue beneficiaries, but into the Nigerian economic system as a whole. Many Nigerians (and at least one Texan) continue to be frustrated by the fact that Nigeria has to import refined petroleum. Nigeria needs to build a refining capacity that is second-to-none. Buhari need to play hard-ball with these billionaire western company execs who are padding their own retirements with Nigerian resources; there is no excuse for Nigeria to not have a full refining capability, and the fact that Nigeria has to import refined petroleum is an absolute tragedy.
I like both President Buhari and President Jonathan, who earned my deep respect by the manner in which he handled his defeat in the last election. He could have made the outcome questionable, by encouraging demonstrations and denouncing the legitimacy of the process. Instead, he single-handedly delivered a peaceful wake-up to Nigeria the next morning. He could have caused all sorts of havoc in the Delta region alone. Cheers and hats off to you, President Jonathan. Buhari, as a Muslim, was in the delicate position of avoiding any inference that he might have sympathies for Boko Haram. Buhari is a very intelligent and patient man. When he was military leader of the Junta that governed Nigeria some years back, he never let anyone forget that Nigeria was destined to return to civilian rule in the near future. He also governed in a fair and responsible manner. Buhari has promised to address one particular issue that has received a great deal of internal press, and that is the borderline theft committed by outgoing governors and administrators in certain Nigerian states. The law allows these individuals to assume a great deal of power over the purse strings, and jobs appear out of thin air and are given to friends and relatives. Bonuses are awarded, and the most egregious act, increases in retirement salaries and related disbursements are summarily created. A number of Nigerian state governors have become multi-millionaires by abusing the state budgets in this fashion. Well, Buhari has promised to address the issue. He has some very close relationships with a couple of men who are accused of such activities. The Nigerian people will be able to test the sincerity, the mettle, and the honesty of their new president by how he handles this issue. Not only does he need to create new laws that are uniform throughout the Republic, but he also needs to take measures that will protect the Nigerian taxpayer from this type of abuse in the future. If at all possible, these men (and women) need to be held accountable, and if possible, the money needs to be returned to the people.
Corruption will always be a problem in a nation of low literacy. History has shown us that as education becomes more prevalent, nations tend to move away from endemic corruption, although there will always be exceptions. Russia is a modern country, and yet corruption plays an everyday part in the affairs of state and the economy. But the people of Nigeria seem to share a determination, a dedication to root out corruption and create a bureaucracy that is accessible to all, not just to those with money. This is the point of separation between South Africa and Nigeria. I don't sense that the South Africa people are willing to fight corruption, if it means that the ANC can longer be the governing party. Nigeria is rich in resources and in work ethic. That combination will be the platform that lifts this country to new accomplishments. Nigeria is evolving and growing as it confronts the Boko Haram menace in the north, and the devilish corruption that has taken root in the capital and the state houses around the country. But Nigeria appears to be united as never before, to demand accountability, to support a government that puts education and job creation as permanent priorities, especially when budgets are being written. The opportunity exists, with a mature, experienced, and considerate man as president, to make great things happen. Good Bless Nigeria and South Africa.
Monday, April 6, 2015
In Nigeria, The Establishment Takes A Hit; Is Real Change On The Way?
Links: A. In Nigeria, Opposition Candidate wins the Presidency.
B. Petroleum Industry in Nigeria.
Until just recently, nine to eleven percent of all oil imported by the United States originated in Nigeria. For a variety a reasons, the figure has been reduced to roughly five percent.
Frankly, both numbers were a bit of surprise to me. I assumed that the Brits and the French would have sewed up all Nigerians contracts early on, but I've learned that U.S. oil companies can be competitive just about anywhere. As for Nigeria, I'm glad that the Nigerian people are in a position to benefit from the valuable commodity on which they sit (or that waits offshore). Over the past sixty years, Nigeria has been one of those African countries that, regardless of the political party or brand of leadership, just could not get their house in order. Arguably more than any other large African nation, Nigeria has been decimated by corruption. Nigeria is home to 174 million people. Providing a stable environment for the average citizen to better themselves becomes all the more difficult with a high population and endemic corruption. Because of its geographic location, Nigeria should have no trouble growing enough food to feed itself, but since the late 1950's, imports have always included foodstuffs. The first oil well started pumping in 1958, and the oil industry has had a decidedly negative impact on the agricultural sector. The increase in wealth was partially responsible for a dramatic rise in population, which made it impossible for the Nigerian agricultural sector to produce enough to feed the Nigerian people. But we all know that petroleum brings in much more money than agriculture, so who cares, right? One way or another, everyone in Nigeria will care.....when the oil dries up. If it ever does.
On a more positive note, most analysts believed that the incumbent, president Goodluck Jonathan of the People's Democratic Party (PDP), would win the March 28 election in Nigeria. Although the party was open to any number of candidates who met the criteria, it was apparent early on that the race would be decided between either Jonathan, or former General and Junta leader, All Progressive's Congress (APC) candidate Muhammadu Buhari. It was easy to understand why the odds maker's were in Jonathan's corner. The PDP had mobilized all politically appointed persons in different branches of the Federal Government to either deliver contributions or votes. Jonathan is widely believed to have been instrumental in the negotiations that ended the conflict with the Niger Delta militants, which once successfully concluded, has allowed Nigeria to finally start taking full advantage of its oil. And although Jonathan was criticized for the handling of the Boko Haram crisis, in the weeks leading up to the election, the Nigerian Military (with substantial assistance from Chad, Benin, Niger and Cameroon) delivered a string a decisive, strategic defeats to Boko Haram. The fact that Buhari is a Muslim also encouraged Jonathan supporters into believing that the independent and undecided voters would trend towards Jonathan. In the end, it wasn't really that close. Buhari outpolled Jonathan by some 2.7 million votes, and the APC went from 41 seats in the Senate to 64, while the PDP dropped from 64 to 45 seats. Jonathan faired best in the southern half of Nigeria, particularly in the south south-central part of Nigeria around Port Harcourt and the Niger Delta. Buhari was strongest in the north and also in the suburbs of Lagos and Abuja. Enough analysis of the voting; what does this change in governments mean for the average Nigerian?
At least for the near future, don't expect any major developments. This is not Buhari's first time at the rodeo, as the old saying goes. He was the leader of a military junta that
governed Nigeria from 1983 to 1985. He has the reputation of being a thoughtful, fair man who will fill his cabinet with competent, experienced, and well-educated officials. His military background, and his expression of continued funding and support for the current operations against Boko Haram, have received a positive reaction. All of these factors point to the potential success of a Buhari Administration. But Nigeria is burdened with chronic unemployment and a dangerously high level of poverty. As some of the recent media investigations have highlighted, corruption is still a major drain on resources and confidence. And the average Nigerian remains confused about the impact and value of the petroleum industry. Surprisingly, Nigeria still imports gasoline. The communities in and around Port Harcourt appear to have benefitted nicely since the end of the trouble with the Niger Delta militants. Many Nigerians, especially in the poorer north, believe that certain areas of the country have directly benefitted from the largesse of the petroleum industry, while the rest of Nigeria is left out. During the March 28 election, it is believed that a high percentage of unemployed young Nigerians supported Buhari, who actively courted the economically-burdened classes with speeches about "equality" and "spending oil money on the poor".
President Goodluck Jonathan took a huge step in the right direction when he announced, relatively early by Nigerian standards, that Muhammadu Buhari and the APC had won the election. Any hesitation on Jonathan's part would probably have brought Buhari supporters into the streets of Lagos. The decision made by Jonathan to choose a peaceful transition over another contested election, demonstrates that Nigeria is in the midst of a growing spurt. The recent military success against Boko Haram is another example. In most instances, growth spurts are accompanied by a certain amount of maturing, which would be so invaluable to Nigeria at this very moment. I believe that the Nigerian people will avoid the dissent into the type of north-south, Muslim/Christian schism that almost destroyed Cote D'Ivoire during the last decade or so. The election of Buhari, and his unexpected electoral strength in some Christian areas argue that Nigerians truly want change. The biggest monster to be tackled, the beast that South Africa appears unwilling to destroy, is the rot of corruption that practically binds Nigerian civil service, the military, education, and politics together. The end of the cycle of corruption would provide the Nigerian government with the type of resources it needs to strengthen the education system, build schools in rural areas, train teachers, and also get working on so many long-overdo infrastructure projects. If Nigeria were to eliminate all corruption overnight, and the government focus on education, jobs, health care and infrastructure, in five years, Nigeria would breeze right past South Africa as the new leader of the African Continent.
B. Petroleum Industry in Nigeria.
Until just recently, nine to eleven percent of all oil imported by the United States originated in Nigeria. For a variety a reasons, the figure has been reduced to roughly five percent.
On a more positive note, most analysts believed that the incumbent, president Goodluck Jonathan of the People's Democratic Party (PDP), would win the March 28 election in Nigeria. Although the party was open to any number of candidates who met the criteria, it was apparent early on that the race would be decided between either Jonathan, or former General and Junta leader, All Progressive's Congress (APC) candidate Muhammadu Buhari. It was easy to understand why the odds maker's were in Jonathan's corner. The PDP had mobilized all politically appointed persons in different branches of the Federal Government to either deliver contributions or votes. Jonathan is widely believed to have been instrumental in the negotiations that ended the conflict with the Niger Delta militants, which once successfully concluded, has allowed Nigeria to finally start taking full advantage of its oil. And although Jonathan was criticized for the handling of the Boko Haram crisis, in the weeks leading up to the election, the Nigerian Military (with substantial assistance from Chad, Benin, Niger and Cameroon) delivered a string a decisive, strategic defeats to Boko Haram. The fact that Buhari is a Muslim also encouraged Jonathan supporters into believing that the independent and undecided voters would trend towards Jonathan. In the end, it wasn't really that close. Buhari outpolled Jonathan by some 2.7 million votes, and the APC went from 41 seats in the Senate to 64, while the PDP dropped from 64 to 45 seats. Jonathan faired best in the southern half of Nigeria, particularly in the south south-central part of Nigeria around Port Harcourt and the Niger Delta. Buhari was strongest in the north and also in the suburbs of Lagos and Abuja. Enough analysis of the voting; what does this change in governments mean for the average Nigerian?
At least for the near future, don't expect any major developments. This is not Buhari's first time at the rodeo, as the old saying goes. He was the leader of a military junta that
 |
| President Elect Muhammadu Buhari Source: Chatham House (via Wikipedia) |
President Goodluck Jonathan took a huge step in the right direction when he announced, relatively early by Nigerian standards, that Muhammadu Buhari and the APC had won the election. Any hesitation on Jonathan's part would probably have brought Buhari supporters into the streets of Lagos. The decision made by Jonathan to choose a peaceful transition over another contested election, demonstrates that Nigeria is in the midst of a growing spurt. The recent military success against Boko Haram is another example. In most instances, growth spurts are accompanied by a certain amount of maturing, which would be so invaluable to Nigeria at this very moment. I believe that the Nigerian people will avoid the dissent into the type of north-south, Muslim/Christian schism that almost destroyed Cote D'Ivoire during the last decade or so. The election of Buhari, and his unexpected electoral strength in some Christian areas argue that Nigerians truly want change. The biggest monster to be tackled, the beast that South Africa appears unwilling to destroy, is the rot of corruption that practically binds Nigerian civil service, the military, education, and politics together. The end of the cycle of corruption would provide the Nigerian government with the type of resources it needs to strengthen the education system, build schools in rural areas, train teachers, and also get working on so many long-overdo infrastructure projects. If Nigeria were to eliminate all corruption overnight, and the government focus on education, jobs, health care and infrastructure, in five years, Nigeria would breeze right past South Africa as the new leader of the African Continent.
Tuesday, March 31, 2015
Why should the West be concerned with the intentions of the Islamic State in Africa? (Part II)
Links: A. ISIS supporting Al-Shabaab in Africa?
B. ISIS eager to recruit South Africans.
In Part II we will focus on the Islamic State (IS) in Sub-Saharan Africa. The Muslim states of West Africa are vitally important, because they will discreetly provide financial and material support to Islamic extremist groups, while publicly disavowing any involvement or knowledge of these organizations.
Mauritania. To start, Mauritania is a bit of a mystery. The government gives the appearance of being deeply observant of all Islamic Laws and traditions. At the same time, Mauritania has steered a very moderate course diplomatically, snuggling up to France in particular. In truth, Mauritania is a lightly-populated country that consists almost exclusively of SAND. Eventually, the engineers and researchers will find oil in Mauritania, mark my word.
Al-Qaeda in the Magreb. Al-Qaeda remains active in West Africa, in Mali and Niger in particular. In 2013, Al-Qaeda more-or-less surprised everyone by hopping the coat tails of a Tuareg insurrection in northern Mali. The Tuaregs, who had made repeated complaints to the government in Bamako, were suffering from private French companies occupying oases and disturbing traditional Tuareg trading patterns. The Tuaregs felt that they had no choice but to take up arms, at least long enough to attract the European press. But before you can say, "Camel Fart", Al-Qaeda had hijacked the Tuaregs little rebellion. The Tuaregs quickly faded away, but Al-Qaeda in the Magreb (AQM) meant business, attacking Malian military and government installations as far south as Timbuktu. In steps the French, who roll up AQM in record time (not many prisoners taken, from what I understand). In the Fall of 2014, AQM, taking advantage of a government focused exclusively on combating Ebola, popped back up in northern Mali. And this time, they were better armed and willing to involve others. AQM repeatedly crossed the border into Niger and conducted raids against simple villages, along with the usual attacks against government and civilian targets in Mali. Again, the French military has arrived on the scene, and I expect and even more thorough accounting of AQM. I can hear you now, asking, "why all this AQM bullshit when the post is supposed to be about the IS"? The answer is simple; the post is about the IS. Al-Qaeda and the Islamic State are, for all practical purposes, the same organization. They are both Sunni-based, violent, terrorist groups dedicated to the removal of infidels from their "Holy Land". They communicate with each other, they assist one another, and they play-up the western media's insistence on separating the two. As always, this is only my opinion. Come see me in a year and remind me how wrong I was.
Al-Shabaab. One fact that is not debatable is that the IS was born into the Al-Qaeda family. In its former life, it was known as "Al-Qaeda in Iraq". After the death of Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi was appointed as the leader of the organization, and a new name, "the Islamic State in the Sham" (ISIS) was chosen. Folks, I'm leaving out all sorts of important background to the genesis of IS, but this post has to stay within reasonable limits. Al-Baghdadi really began to make the IS about himself, and let it be known to Al-Qaeda head Ayman Al-Zawahiri, that IS was able to function on its own. Now this is as close to a complete rift with Al-Qaeda as ever occurred. Zawahiri didn't have much to bitch about because the IS was kicking ass and taking names all over Iraq and Syria. More recently, as the organization stretches its legs a bit, relationships have been established with like-minded Sunni extremist groups around the world, including Africa. Al-Shabaab, that nasty bunch of turds that tried to turn Somalia into an Islamic State ruled by Islamic Courts (sounds wonderful, doesn't it?), have established themselves in the townships of Kenya, which are ripe recruitment areas. Social Media is the master at bringing people together, and the IS and Al-Shabaab have been expressing support for one another for some time. These two groups need each other. Al-Shabaab needs the organizational skills, the discipline, and the funding of the IS, and the IS needs the geographic reach, and the potential recruitment opportunities available to Al-Shabaab. They are both Sunni based, therefore there will be no trouble finding ideological (read: idiot-logical) common ground. Al-Shabaab has established a presence as far south as South Africa and as far west as Namibia.
Boko Haram. Ehen the Nigerian based terrorist organization, "Boko Haram", announced its support for the IS, the news was treated as a truly important development. During the same week, the combined military forces of Nigeria, Chad, Cameroon and Benin inflicted defeat after defeat on Boko Haram, who was now only in control of four northern communities (from twenty just the week before). It was no surprise that Boko Haram (BH) wanted to change the headline, and the press obliged. The poor Nigerian Army; after months of getting raked over the coals by the domestic and international press, they finally have a very successful strong of victories, and they get upstaged by BH's announcement of love for the IS. The truth is, even though BH has very recently received a black eye and a bloody nose, this organization is built similar to the Lord's Resistance Army in Uganda, and it is more than able to retreat into the jungle and reconstitute itself. I find BH to be the most dangerous terrorist group on the continent, and that includes north Africa. Anyone engaged against BH needs to be familiar with its history, as BH is very loyal to its founding principles and the accompanying religious ideology. The organization was originally established in support of providing Islamic education in northern Nigerian schools. At the time, there was a need for a bit of a "siege mentality", as the Islamic community in Nigeria had many opponents. Through concentration of resources and discipline, the Islamic community in northern Nigeria was able to effectively establish a network of Islamic schools. As is often the case, this well-meaning effort got out of hand. BH quickly morphed into a organization that allowed no disagreement and enforced the strictest of Islamic codes. Instead of living peacefully with the Christian community, BH made every effort to either drive them off or convert their children. When it became apparent that the Nigerian authorities were either unwilling or unable to respond, BH began large-scale forced conversions. Instead of focusing on education, BH became a para-military organization, bent on proselytizing extremist Islam. At the zenith of its reach, BH was smart enough to reach out to other like-minded organizations, which will provide a lifeline, if the Nigerian military is successful in forcing BH out of Nigeria. BH is present in Ghana, in Cote d'Ivoire, and in the Cameroon. Many of his soldiers are "brainwashed" teens, some not much older than ten, eleven years of age. In many cases, these young fighters are the most dedicated. I won't mention the fate of the young girls that are randomly kidnapped. Suffice to say that the lucky ones are forced into sometimes plural marriages with men usually many years older.
Because of the growing population rate in sub-Saharan Africa, the pressure on the various national economies will only increase. At the moment, even the most optimistic economies like South Africa, Nigeria, Namibia, Botswana, Gabon and Ghana, have unemployment rates for post-high school males as high as forty percent. This group of unemployed, bored, many times hungry, unable to afford university fees, young men are the perfect targets for the IS. Since the Islamic faith has done such an outstanding job introducing Islam to poorer African communities, many of these young men are already halfway home.
B. ISIS eager to recruit South Africans.
In Part II we will focus on the Islamic State (IS) in Sub-Saharan Africa. The Muslim states of West Africa are vitally important, because they will discreetly provide financial and material support to Islamic extremist groups, while publicly disavowing any involvement or knowledge of these organizations.
Mauritania. To start, Mauritania is a bit of a mystery. The government gives the appearance of being deeply observant of all Islamic Laws and traditions. At the same time, Mauritania has steered a very moderate course diplomatically, snuggling up to France in particular. In truth, Mauritania is a lightly-populated country that consists almost exclusively of SAND. Eventually, the engineers and researchers will find oil in Mauritania, mark my word.
Al-Qaeda in the Magreb. Al-Qaeda remains active in West Africa, in Mali and Niger in particular. In 2013, Al-Qaeda more-or-less surprised everyone by hopping the coat tails of a Tuareg insurrection in northern Mali. The Tuaregs, who had made repeated complaints to the government in Bamako, were suffering from private French companies occupying oases and disturbing traditional Tuareg trading patterns. The Tuaregs felt that they had no choice but to take up arms, at least long enough to attract the European press. But before you can say, "Camel Fart", Al-Qaeda had hijacked the Tuaregs little rebellion. The Tuaregs quickly faded away, but Al-Qaeda in the Magreb (AQM) meant business, attacking Malian military and government installations as far south as Timbuktu. In steps the French, who roll up AQM in record time (not many prisoners taken, from what I understand). In the Fall of 2014, AQM, taking advantage of a government focused exclusively on combating Ebola, popped back up in northern Mali. And this time, they were better armed and willing to involve others. AQM repeatedly crossed the border into Niger and conducted raids against simple villages, along with the usual attacks against government and civilian targets in Mali. Again, the French military has arrived on the scene, and I expect and even more thorough accounting of AQM. I can hear you now, asking, "why all this AQM bullshit when the post is supposed to be about the IS"? The answer is simple; the post is about the IS. Al-Qaeda and the Islamic State are, for all practical purposes, the same organization. They are both Sunni-based, violent, terrorist groups dedicated to the removal of infidels from their "Holy Land". They communicate with each other, they assist one another, and they play-up the western media's insistence on separating the two. As always, this is only my opinion. Come see me in a year and remind me how wrong I was.
Al-Shabaab. One fact that is not debatable is that the IS was born into the Al-Qaeda family. In its former life, it was known as "Al-Qaeda in Iraq". After the death of Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi was appointed as the leader of the organization, and a new name, "the Islamic State in the Sham" (ISIS) was chosen. Folks, I'm leaving out all sorts of important background to the genesis of IS, but this post has to stay within reasonable limits. Al-Baghdadi really began to make the IS about himself, and let it be known to Al-Qaeda head Ayman Al-Zawahiri, that IS was able to function on its own. Now this is as close to a complete rift with Al-Qaeda as ever occurred. Zawahiri didn't have much to bitch about because the IS was kicking ass and taking names all over Iraq and Syria. More recently, as the organization stretches its legs a bit, relationships have been established with like-minded Sunni extremist groups around the world, including Africa. Al-Shabaab, that nasty bunch of turds that tried to turn Somalia into an Islamic State ruled by Islamic Courts (sounds wonderful, doesn't it?), have established themselves in the townships of Kenya, which are ripe recruitment areas. Social Media is the master at bringing people together, and the IS and Al-Shabaab have been expressing support for one another for some time. These two groups need each other. Al-Shabaab needs the organizational skills, the discipline, and the funding of the IS, and the IS needs the geographic reach, and the potential recruitment opportunities available to Al-Shabaab. They are both Sunni based, therefore there will be no trouble finding ideological (read: idiot-logical) common ground. Al-Shabaab has established a presence as far south as South Africa and as far west as Namibia.
Boko Haram. Ehen the Nigerian based terrorist organization, "Boko Haram", announced its support for the IS, the news was treated as a truly important development. During the same week, the combined military forces of Nigeria, Chad, Cameroon and Benin inflicted defeat after defeat on Boko Haram, who was now only in control of four northern communities (from twenty just the week before). It was no surprise that Boko Haram (BH) wanted to change the headline, and the press obliged. The poor Nigerian Army; after months of getting raked over the coals by the domestic and international press, they finally have a very successful strong of victories, and they get upstaged by BH's announcement of love for the IS. The truth is, even though BH has very recently received a black eye and a bloody nose, this organization is built similar to the Lord's Resistance Army in Uganda, and it is more than able to retreat into the jungle and reconstitute itself. I find BH to be the most dangerous terrorist group on the continent, and that includes north Africa. Anyone engaged against BH needs to be familiar with its history, as BH is very loyal to its founding principles and the accompanying religious ideology. The organization was originally established in support of providing Islamic education in northern Nigerian schools. At the time, there was a need for a bit of a "siege mentality", as the Islamic community in Nigeria had many opponents. Through concentration of resources and discipline, the Islamic community in northern Nigeria was able to effectively establish a network of Islamic schools. As is often the case, this well-meaning effort got out of hand. BH quickly morphed into a organization that allowed no disagreement and enforced the strictest of Islamic codes. Instead of living peacefully with the Christian community, BH made every effort to either drive them off or convert their children. When it became apparent that the Nigerian authorities were either unwilling or unable to respond, BH began large-scale forced conversions. Instead of focusing on education, BH became a para-military organization, bent on proselytizing extremist Islam. At the zenith of its reach, BH was smart enough to reach out to other like-minded organizations, which will provide a lifeline, if the Nigerian military is successful in forcing BH out of Nigeria. BH is present in Ghana, in Cote d'Ivoire, and in the Cameroon. Many of his soldiers are "brainwashed" teens, some not much older than ten, eleven years of age. In many cases, these young fighters are the most dedicated. I won't mention the fate of the young girls that are randomly kidnapped. Suffice to say that the lucky ones are forced into sometimes plural marriages with men usually many years older.
Because of the growing population rate in sub-Saharan Africa, the pressure on the various national economies will only increase. At the moment, even the most optimistic economies like South Africa, Nigeria, Namibia, Botswana, Gabon and Ghana, have unemployment rates for post-high school males as high as forty percent. This group of unemployed, bored, many times hungry, unable to afford university fees, young men are the perfect targets for the IS. Since the Islamic faith has done such an outstanding job introducing Islam to poorer African communities, many of these young men are already halfway home.
Wednesday, March 4, 2015
Combating The Spread Of Extremism In The Third World (Part II)
Links A. Impact of The Repudiation Of Third World Debt
B. Council On Foreign Relations Comments Regarding Terrorism And Debt
(Part II)
I'm not an economist, though I have followed up on the arguments for and against the dissolution of all foreign debt in Africa. From my simple perspective, I imagine that the elimination of all debt will loosen up capital for job creation, education reform, infrastructure development, hydro-electric projects, and much more. Some individuals more cynical than myself, have argued for conditions on any debt relaxation agreement. The concern is that once the constraints are removed, the inmates will be uncontrollable. And why would that development automatically be considered a negative? We want uncontrolled growth. Granted, certain European and North American commodities might face some unexpected competition in the international marketplace. Another concern is that providing African nations with control of so much of their own revenue (without that revenue automatically disappearing in loan payments) will encourage a return to the days of political despots. The concern being, that if you remind the Africans of just how much wealth they have, that inevitably tribal conflict will return, along with the Idi Amins, Mobutu Sese Sekos, Jean-Bedel Bokassas, and the Robert Mugabes (wait a second....that crazy old rooster is still around, isn't he?). I say, "Racist much?" This type of thinking proceeds on the assumption that congenitally, the blacks of Africa (regardless of tribe, heritage or language), are unable to learn enough from the errors of the recent pass to avoid repeating those mistakes. Having spent a decent amount of time in Africa (by the way, six months living in the leafy Pretoria suburbs of Waterkloof or Brooklyn, shopping at the conveniently located Checkers and Menlyn Park Mall, and dining at Priva Gastrolounge, does not constitute "Africa" in my book), I think the people of this continent are ready for a change. And I don't think they will hesitate to remove anyone who tries to turn back the clock to the days of endemic corruption. The world is much smaller, and our leaders are much more accessible. Africans (especially the younger generation) are ACHING for the opportunity to start with a "Coup de Torchon", a clean slate. Most the these young people don't remember Daniel arap Moi, Kenneth Kaunda, or PW Botha. The amazing advances in communication technology has revolutionized education on our planet. Young people receive lessons in Cultural Geography and Social Studies every time they access the internet on their phone. In the past, the list of options regarding future employment was limited by many factors. Today, young people are beginning to accept the idea that they can achieve anything that they're willing to sacrifice and work for.
One particular argument against eliminating the debt of African nations is that it will discourage lenders from getting involved in Africa. Who wants to make a loan that can be erased twenty years down the road? No doubt Africa needs continued access to loans from wealthy countries, and its easy to understand how this decision could impact African nation's access to international currency. But lets approach this dilemma seriously. If the decision were made to dissolve all debt currently owed by African countries (including to each other), it would be a decision that could only be repeated again by the same group of people/organizations. If there was a legitimate concern that this one isolated decision would create some contagion effect, removing debt from Latin America (I already have a solution for Latin America...just dump everyone's debt into Christina Fernandez Kirchner's bank account) being next on the list, I would oppose this initiative. But as long as rational thought properly influences the decision making process of everyone involved, I believe that a one-time elimination of all African debt, would not create expectations of the same decision being made in other places. No one can convince me that Africa would become "persona non grata" with the international banking community. Companies exist for the sole purpose of negotiating international loan agreements. Personally, I would consider Africa to be one of the safest places to make a loan, if the international community had just agreed to a one-time elimination of all African debt. Certainly that event won't be repeated in our lifetimes, so any new investment would be safe. The idea that African countries would no longer have access to the IMF and the international banking community is bogus. Africa will continue to provide endless opportunities for making money, and plenty companies and organizations looking to make a profit, will line-up to loan money to African nations.
My opinion on this subject has evolved. When I was younger, I had a strong conviction regarding agreements between people. Someone's word, and someone's signature, had to be worth something. I believed that since countries had borrowed (and spent) the money, that they should pay it back. A bit of research later, and I had discovered that many African countries were using new loans to pay the interest on previous loans. Reminds me of me in my younger days. Its all become a bit of a mess. But technology has given Africans new hope for the future. Nigeria, Equatorial Guinea, Sao Tome and Principe, Mali, and an encouraging number of other African nations are discovering oil reserves (mostly off the coast). The process of fracking has also started to have an impact on a continent that has always been dependent on energy imports. Once again, thanks to technology, we have confirmed that West Africa is home to more deposits of Gold and Diamonds than previously thought. And I haven't even mentioned all the sensitive metals and minerals that sit under the African soil. If African nations are relieved of the repressive debt obligation, then they would be better-positioned to create their own exploratory companies to access all of this hidden wealth. But some players in the game don't want self-sufficiency in certain market places. They want to locate, dig, retrieve, and sell whatever particular resource of the moment, and pass back to the host nation a modest one-time payment. That is the way it has always been done. An elimination of African debt might just provide the impetus that encourages Mali to explore the north of the nation for oil on its own, not under the foot of a French company. Wouldn't it be something if Guinea and Botswana cleaned and processed diamonds themselves, instead of relying on Dutch and Israeli companies? In truth, I'm getting ahead of myself here. I'm grasping, folks. I'm looking for an opportunity to be excited for the future. With Islamic Extremism expanding so rapidly, I welcome any change of circumstances. Relieving Kenya of its international debt, will allow Nairobi to institute immediate job creation programs in the slums of Kibera. The government of Kenya can win the battle against Al-Shabaab/Al-Qaeda for the hearts and minds of its young people. The same argument can be made in Uganda and Nigeria. Young people will gravitate to a legitimate opportunity to create a successful career, before they will agree to picking up an AK-47 and randomly killing people. Call me foolishly optimistic, but this is what I believe.
The international banking community, including the IMF, should immediately institute a blanket forgiveness of all African debt, to include Mauritania, Ethiopia, Eritrea, Djibouti, and South Sudan.
B. Council On Foreign Relations Comments Regarding Terrorism And Debt
(Part II)
I'm not an economist, though I have followed up on the arguments for and against the dissolution of all foreign debt in Africa. From my simple perspective, I imagine that the elimination of all debt will loosen up capital for job creation, education reform, infrastructure development, hydro-electric projects, and much more. Some individuals more cynical than myself, have argued for conditions on any debt relaxation agreement. The concern is that once the constraints are removed, the inmates will be uncontrollable. And why would that development automatically be considered a negative? We want uncontrolled growth. Granted, certain European and North American commodities might face some unexpected competition in the international marketplace. Another concern is that providing African nations with control of so much of their own revenue (without that revenue automatically disappearing in loan payments) will encourage a return to the days of political despots. The concern being, that if you remind the Africans of just how much wealth they have, that inevitably tribal conflict will return, along with the Idi Amins, Mobutu Sese Sekos, Jean-Bedel Bokassas, and the Robert Mugabes (wait a second....that crazy old rooster is still around, isn't he?). I say, "Racist much?" This type of thinking proceeds on the assumption that congenitally, the blacks of Africa (regardless of tribe, heritage or language), are unable to learn enough from the errors of the recent pass to avoid repeating those mistakes. Having spent a decent amount of time in Africa (by the way, six months living in the leafy Pretoria suburbs of Waterkloof or Brooklyn, shopping at the conveniently located Checkers and Menlyn Park Mall, and dining at Priva Gastrolounge, does not constitute "Africa" in my book), I think the people of this continent are ready for a change. And I don't think they will hesitate to remove anyone who tries to turn back the clock to the days of endemic corruption. The world is much smaller, and our leaders are much more accessible. Africans (especially the younger generation) are ACHING for the opportunity to start with a "Coup de Torchon", a clean slate. Most the these young people don't remember Daniel arap Moi, Kenneth Kaunda, or PW Botha. The amazing advances in communication technology has revolutionized education on our planet. Young people receive lessons in Cultural Geography and Social Studies every time they access the internet on their phone. In the past, the list of options regarding future employment was limited by many factors. Today, young people are beginning to accept the idea that they can achieve anything that they're willing to sacrifice and work for.
One particular argument against eliminating the debt of African nations is that it will discourage lenders from getting involved in Africa. Who wants to make a loan that can be erased twenty years down the road? No doubt Africa needs continued access to loans from wealthy countries, and its easy to understand how this decision could impact African nation's access to international currency. But lets approach this dilemma seriously. If the decision were made to dissolve all debt currently owed by African countries (including to each other), it would be a decision that could only be repeated again by the same group of people/organizations. If there was a legitimate concern that this one isolated decision would create some contagion effect, removing debt from Latin America (I already have a solution for Latin America...just dump everyone's debt into Christina Fernandez Kirchner's bank account) being next on the list, I would oppose this initiative. But as long as rational thought properly influences the decision making process of everyone involved, I believe that a one-time elimination of all African debt, would not create expectations of the same decision being made in other places. No one can convince me that Africa would become "persona non grata" with the international banking community. Companies exist for the sole purpose of negotiating international loan agreements. Personally, I would consider Africa to be one of the safest places to make a loan, if the international community had just agreed to a one-time elimination of all African debt. Certainly that event won't be repeated in our lifetimes, so any new investment would be safe. The idea that African countries would no longer have access to the IMF and the international banking community is bogus. Africa will continue to provide endless opportunities for making money, and plenty companies and organizations looking to make a profit, will line-up to loan money to African nations.
My opinion on this subject has evolved. When I was younger, I had a strong conviction regarding agreements between people. Someone's word, and someone's signature, had to be worth something. I believed that since countries had borrowed (and spent) the money, that they should pay it back. A bit of research later, and I had discovered that many African countries were using new loans to pay the interest on previous loans. Reminds me of me in my younger days. Its all become a bit of a mess. But technology has given Africans new hope for the future. Nigeria, Equatorial Guinea, Sao Tome and Principe, Mali, and an encouraging number of other African nations are discovering oil reserves (mostly off the coast). The process of fracking has also started to have an impact on a continent that has always been dependent on energy imports. Once again, thanks to technology, we have confirmed that West Africa is home to more deposits of Gold and Diamonds than previously thought. And I haven't even mentioned all the sensitive metals and minerals that sit under the African soil. If African nations are relieved of the repressive debt obligation, then they would be better-positioned to create their own exploratory companies to access all of this hidden wealth. But some players in the game don't want self-sufficiency in certain market places. They want to locate, dig, retrieve, and sell whatever particular resource of the moment, and pass back to the host nation a modest one-time payment. That is the way it has always been done. An elimination of African debt might just provide the impetus that encourages Mali to explore the north of the nation for oil on its own, not under the foot of a French company. Wouldn't it be something if Guinea and Botswana cleaned and processed diamonds themselves, instead of relying on Dutch and Israeli companies? In truth, I'm getting ahead of myself here. I'm grasping, folks. I'm looking for an opportunity to be excited for the future. With Islamic Extremism expanding so rapidly, I welcome any change of circumstances. Relieving Kenya of its international debt, will allow Nairobi to institute immediate job creation programs in the slums of Kibera. The government of Kenya can win the battle against Al-Shabaab/Al-Qaeda for the hearts and minds of its young people. The same argument can be made in Uganda and Nigeria. Young people will gravitate to a legitimate opportunity to create a successful career, before they will agree to picking up an AK-47 and randomly killing people. Call me foolishly optimistic, but this is what I believe.
The international banking community, including the IMF, should immediately institute a blanket forgiveness of all African debt, to include Mauritania, Ethiopia, Eritrea, Djibouti, and South Sudan.
Monday, January 26, 2015
Sub-Saharan Africa 2015: What To Expect
Link: Brookings Evaluates Sub-Saharan Africa 2015
When I consider the prospects for Sub-Saharan Africa in 2015, by habit, I always start with
political considerations. But Africa has changed, evolving and adjusting to international economic trends much more quickly than I expected. I don't think we can under-estimate the impact that communication has had on Sub-Saharan Africa. The relative simplicity and low cost involved with cell phone networks has brought every dark corner of Africa into the light. I remember the cell phone revolution as it arrived in South Africa. It seemed as if overnight, everybody had one. The real-time contact engendered by the presence of cell phone networks as instrumental in getting the continent reasonably wired on the net. I remember being in Bangui, Central African Republic, sometime in 2001, and suffering from water shortages and no taxis or public transportation. But the internet café was up and running, thanks to the world's first home-made satellite dish and a motley combination of modern and World War II-era French Army generators. From my perspective, the arrival of the cell phone ushered in a techno-economic revolution in Africa. We had BACP (Before the Arrival of the Cell Phone) and AACP (After the Arrival of The Cell Phone). I think this date-differentiation can be accurately used when examining economic trends in the Middle East and the Indian Sub-Continent. The cell phone has made that much of a difference, folks.
Africa in 2015 is connected. Abidjan is connected to Maputo, and Yaoundé is chatting with Tokyo. Sadly, the last bit of "African mystery" is gone. An archaeologist can be digging in Mali and be interrupted by a phone call from Dublin. But in this instance, there can be no doubt that the benefits of technology outweigh the negatives. African banks and stock markets have real-time communication with the big guys in Europe, Tokyo and New York. The western investments in oil and mining no longer have to wait for value-impacting information from on-site. That information is available as it occurs. Wow. More so than in many years, I am optimistic for the future of Sub-Saharan Africa. The days of military coups and brutal dictators seems to be ending. Africa still suffers from the ass-boil that is Robert Mugabe, but everyone dies eventually, right? Some folks see Museveni in Uganda as a dictator, and also young Kabila in Kinshasa. But these guys seem to be out of touch and behind the times. The world has become so much smaller, and the money to be made in Africa isn't limited to African money. There is Euro to be made, and Dollars. The Chinese seem to be all over Africa, but I think we will see a bit less of them in 2015. I think the trend away from despots and one-party rule will continue, because there is more money to be made in a competitive system, and even the nasty guys will end up chasing the bigger $.
Let's start with China in 2015. The Chinese started 2014 on a rampage, flying from capital
to capital, promising all sorts of funding for development projects. In the past, the Chinese have been good on their word. They have built roads, dams, and blocks of flats. Everyone, I mean EVERYONE, took notice when the Chinese offered to finance the rebuilding of the Dakar-Niger Railway. This ambitious and absolutely overdue plan included building an additional rail line, linking Bamako, Mali and Freetown, Sierra Leone. As things stand at present, the Dakar-Niger Railway is a mess. It rarely is able to keep to a schedule and its ability to transport is limited. Any rain or weather-related incident is likely to shut the rail system down for weeks. The real problem is the lack of repair of the track system. Why does this issue attract the attention of EVERYONE (as I stated earlier)? Because this rail system transports the gas that keeps the various mines in Mali and Guinea in operation, not to mention the other materials it transports that are essential to those particular mining operations that basically belong to western investors. Ideally, Mali should be able to rely on transport of goods in three directions: Dakar, Freetown, and Abidjan. I have no doubt that in my lifetime I will see this develop. But the anticipated rebuilding of the Dakar-Niger railway hit a huge snag. The Chinese went back to Beijing, took out their calculators, met with banking and economic officials, and announced that "they had never actually agreed to finance the project....that it was all just conversation". In the end, I think the Chinese will realize that the benefits outweigh the cost, and will provide a definite amount of invaluable goodwill.
Now for some serious conversation. African countries need to continue the move away from one-commodity economies. Nigeria, that doesn't mean you continue moving towards being totally dependent on oil, it means to diversify your economy, so that when the price of oil tanks, your economy doesn't crash as well. Cote d'Ivoire and Ghana have been successful moving away from a reliance on cocoa, as has Mali with cotton and Botswana with Diamonds. I am concerned about the falling price of oil and its impact on juvenile economies such as Cabo Verde and Equatorial Guinea. I don't really have much sympathy for Nigeria. They are sitting on a gold mine of resources, and all they can do in Lagos is fight their own cousins for every Dollar, while the nastiest of insurgencies terrorizes and brutalizes children all over the north of the country. How does a nation with the resources and international connections of Nigeria, not have an army worth a damn? All this may
change if Goodluck Jonathan losses the election in February (it ain't gonna happen, folks). I would be willing to take a chance on the other guy just for the sake of change. Ebola in 2015: I believe this outbreak of Ebola is winding down, and Africa learned some invaluable lessons on how to respond. This particular outbreak could have been monstrous. For Liberia, Guinea and Sierra Leone, it was. But the protocols that were put in place and followed worked exactly as expected. This bodes well for the future. Unfortunately, West Africa will take some time to climb out of the economic and social disaster that Ebola wrought. The rest of Africa needs to step up, especially South Africa, who pretends to be a leader, but always seems to be missing at the table during a crisis. I think China will revisit its commitments, and return with a smile. The Dakar-Niger project will begin, and positive economic fallout will help with the Ebola recovery.
I think this subject was a bit heavy to tackle in one post, but wither way, as a lover of Africa, I'm looking forward to 2015. I purposely left South Africa out of the conversation. They seem to be chugging along just fine down south, on their own schedule and in their own little world. Zuma had a tough year in 2014, and I anticipate that his enemies are smelling blood, so to speak. South Africa has always been a bit obsessed with its own identity and importance in the world. It's sad, because I believe that Nelson Mandela truly wanted South Africa to be the leader of the continent. Heck, even Nigeria seems to draw more attention from other African states. South Africa does remain popular for illegal immigration though, as people from all over go searching for jobs and opportunities. I believe that the fall in the price of oil will be a boost to South Africa, which has always been so sensitive to that commodity. South Africans have a tendency to worry when the Rand hits a free-fall against the Euro and the Dollar. They shouldn't. It directly impacts the all-important tourist industry, not to mention the increasing number of investors from the United States, looking for a good value for their Dollars.
Africa in 2015 is connected. Abidjan is connected to Maputo, and Yaoundé is chatting with Tokyo. Sadly, the last bit of "African mystery" is gone. An archaeologist can be digging in Mali and be interrupted by a phone call from Dublin. But in this instance, there can be no doubt that the benefits of technology outweigh the negatives. African banks and stock markets have real-time communication with the big guys in Europe, Tokyo and New York. The western investments in oil and mining no longer have to wait for value-impacting information from on-site. That information is available as it occurs. Wow. More so than in many years, I am optimistic for the future of Sub-Saharan Africa. The days of military coups and brutal dictators seems to be ending. Africa still suffers from the ass-boil that is Robert Mugabe, but everyone dies eventually, right? Some folks see Museveni in Uganda as a dictator, and also young Kabila in Kinshasa. But these guys seem to be out of touch and behind the times. The world has become so much smaller, and the money to be made in Africa isn't limited to African money. There is Euro to be made, and Dollars. The Chinese seem to be all over Africa, but I think we will see a bit less of them in 2015. I think the trend away from despots and one-party rule will continue, because there is more money to be made in a competitive system, and even the nasty guys will end up chasing the bigger $.
Let's start with China in 2015. The Chinese started 2014 on a rampage, flying from capital
 |
| Dakar Railway Station; Source: J.W.H. van der WAAL |
Now for some serious conversation. African countries need to continue the move away from one-commodity economies. Nigeria, that doesn't mean you continue moving towards being totally dependent on oil, it means to diversify your economy, so that when the price of oil tanks, your economy doesn't crash as well. Cote d'Ivoire and Ghana have been successful moving away from a reliance on cocoa, as has Mali with cotton and Botswana with Diamonds. I am concerned about the falling price of oil and its impact on juvenile economies such as Cabo Verde and Equatorial Guinea. I don't really have much sympathy for Nigeria. They are sitting on a gold mine of resources, and all they can do in Lagos is fight their own cousins for every Dollar, while the nastiest of insurgencies terrorizes and brutalizes children all over the north of the country. How does a nation with the resources and international connections of Nigeria, not have an army worth a damn? All this may
 |
| Goodluck Jonathan Source: World Economic Forum |
I think this subject was a bit heavy to tackle in one post, but wither way, as a lover of Africa, I'm looking forward to 2015. I purposely left South Africa out of the conversation. They seem to be chugging along just fine down south, on their own schedule and in their own little world. Zuma had a tough year in 2014, and I anticipate that his enemies are smelling blood, so to speak. South Africa has always been a bit obsessed with its own identity and importance in the world. It's sad, because I believe that Nelson Mandela truly wanted South Africa to be the leader of the continent. Heck, even Nigeria seems to draw more attention from other African states. South Africa does remain popular for illegal immigration though, as people from all over go searching for jobs and opportunities. I believe that the fall in the price of oil will be a boost to South Africa, which has always been so sensitive to that commodity. South Africans have a tendency to worry when the Rand hits a free-fall against the Euro and the Dollar. They shouldn't. It directly impacts the all-important tourist industry, not to mention the increasing number of investors from the United States, looking for a good value for their Dollars.
Friday, January 16, 2015
Just How Many Muslims Have Immigrated To Europe, Anyway?
Link A. Immigration To France, Wikipedia
B. Immigration to Germany, Wikipedia
C. Immigration In Europe From A U.S. Perspective
D. Islam in Europe, Wikipedia
The issue of Islamic Immigration to Europe is both difficult and complicated. When I decide to educate myself on a particular subject, my first task is to collect as much information as possible. With regards to Muslim Immigration, what should be the starting point of my research? Post World War One, when the dissolution of monarchies in Germany, Turkey, Austria-Hungary and Russia, encouraged people to relocate in search of better opportunities? Or possibly just after World War Two, when Europe, which had been bled dry of healthy young men, needed immigrants to work in both the fields and in the factories? Or should we start our conversation in the late 1960's, when Paris was fresh with revolution, and terrorists were beginning to make their presence felt? Actually, I think it's better to start with the present and work our way back. A number of prominent European nations have a Muslim population that is eight percent or greater. The growing number of Muslims in Europe is a relatively new development, something that began in earnest within the last sixty years. Three times in the last fifteen hundred years, Christian armies were fortunate to defeat much larger and better equipped Muslim forces that were intent on invading the heart of Europe. For our history lesson today, take note of the Battle of Tours in 732 (against the Moors from Spain), the 1529 Battle of Vienna I (against the Ottoman Empire), and the Battle of Vienna II in 1683 (the Ottoman Empire's last foray this far into Europe). During the years of Moor control on the Iberian peninsula, and Ottoman administration in the Balkans, no doubt the number of Muslims in Europe increased. But the Moors were sent packing by Isabella and Ferdinand, and rebellions by Bulgaria, Romania, and Montenegro in the late nineteenth century and early twentieth century all but ended the reality of "Turkey in Europe". Muslims still exist in the Balkans, but basically only in the Albanian community, which is about as close to secular as you can get (I would guess that a mosque exists for every three houses in Kosovo, but I never saw one in use).
The increase in the number of Muslims in Europe was driven by two factors: economics and post-colonial paternalism. Whenever Europe was in need of an influx of young men to work in the factories and on the farms, the people of North Africa and the Middle East were happy to oblige (no surprise; European wars had decimated the economies of those areas as well). North Africans came to work in France, and Turks came to Germany and Scandinavia. In most instances, they put down roots and had children. In the 1960's, as France and England (and to lesser and later extent, Belgium, Italy, Spain and Portugal), granted independence to their African colonies. For numerous reasons, guilt and a sense of paternalism being at the top of the list, Europe opened its doors to citizens of its former colonies. England was probably more affected by post-colonial immigration from India and Pakistan than Africa, but France welcomed hundreds of thousands of new immigrants from recently independent Algeria, Morocco, Cote d'Ivoire, Senegal and Guinea. Belgium was obliged to welcome Congolese. Later, following the Biafran War, England did open its doors to thousands of displaced Ibo, although white Rhodesians weren't nearly as welcome. As for the number of Turks in Germany and Scandinavia, I don't really have an explanation. Historically, Germany has always had close relations with Turkey, which may be part of the answer. Also, following the Civil Rights marches in the United States and the televised horrors of the Algerian conflict and the Vietnam War, European societies were determined to avoid the appearance of racism. And the Immigration Statutes written into law during that time are still in effect today. In less delicate terms, once it was turned on, the faucet was never turned off. Europe continued to accept immigrants long-past the ability of its economies to comfortably provide jobs and housing. This fact, along with other socio-economic and cultural issues, is responsible for the high percentage of minorities needing government support to survive.
In 2015, roughly ten percent of the population of France self-identifies as Muslim. Austria, Belgium, Sweden, the Netherlands, and Switzerland are not far behind. Albania, Macedonia, Bosnia-Herzegovina and Kosovo all have a substantial Muslim population because of the historic legacy of the Ottoman Turks, but rarely do you see an observant Muslim community in the Balkans (I understand that recently, a number of really nasty extremists have popped up, who were raised in these areas, so things may be changing). As of late, politics in western Europe have definitely swung in the direction of anti-immigration, and the events of last week will only increase that statistic. Sweden, Holland, France, and even Switzerland have taken steps to tighten up their immigration controls. Given the twenty-five thousand anti-Islamic demonstrators that marched in Leipzig last week, I'm guessing Angela Merkel has something in the works as well. No doubt, the high percentage of Muslims living in European countries is connected to the rise in extremist activity. But the increased police presence and the tightening of immigration laws is a knee-jerk reaction to attack the problem at the perceived source. Why are children of Algerian immigrants, who came to France, assimilated and worked their asses off, sympathetic to Islamic extremism? Since the symptom is the same in every country, then the problem must be the same as well. These young men and women have no distraction. They don't feel as if they belong anywhere, and once the European school systems, which are bedrocked to favor the native population, spit these kids out, they had nowhere to go. And the media and entertainment industry that our generation has allowed to take over the minds of young people today, tells these kids (and the inner-city youths in the United States as well), that there is something WRONG with working in a fast food joint, or on a farm, and there is something wrong with working for an hourly wage and taking college classes at night. The television and the MP3 players are constantly reminding these young, impressionable minds, that the life of a gangster is the life to be admired, and that money and sex should come easy. If it doesn't come easy, then someone is denying you your due, and you are entitled to take it.
Remember the riots in the urban, ethnic communities of France just a few years ago? Those kids had nothing to do. Their parents were at work, sometimes holding down two jobs, and unable to battle the message coming from the entertainment industry, and when I say entertainment industry, I point the finger directly back at the United States. The hip-hop and rap music that glorifies the selling of narcotics for easy money, and killing of rivals and anyone in authority. And sex? It is in no way connected to responsibility; it's all about the act, and the sense of domination. What is occurring in our inner cities in the United States, is replicated in Europe. We don't have many children of Muslim immigrants (in comparison), but our young people are latching on to a message just as theirs are. The message they are hearing is that the easy riches come with their ideology. That women are subservient, and should always be available for sex, and that the Jew has stolen everything from you, including your heritage. These young people, in the suburbs of Berlin, Paris, Barcelona, and Stockholm, are looking for an easy, quick answer and a place to belong as well. We will give you a gun, which will make you a man, and we will teach you to kill your enemy (who is the reason you can't have that Porsche you want, or those new three-hundred euro sneakers). Has it been so long since we were at that age? The mind is much like jello, waiting to be molded into the adult brain it is to become. You will rarely find a terrorist (at least a dead one) who is over the age of thirty-five. There is a reason for that.
B. Immigration to Germany, Wikipedia
C. Immigration In Europe From A U.S. Perspective
D. Islam in Europe, Wikipedia
The issue of Islamic Immigration to Europe is both difficult and complicated. When I decide to educate myself on a particular subject, my first task is to collect as much information as possible. With regards to Muslim Immigration, what should be the starting point of my research? Post World War One, when the dissolution of monarchies in Germany, Turkey, Austria-Hungary and Russia, encouraged people to relocate in search of better opportunities? Or possibly just after World War Two, when Europe, which had been bled dry of healthy young men, needed immigrants to work in both the fields and in the factories? Or should we start our conversation in the late 1960's, when Paris was fresh with revolution, and terrorists were beginning to make their presence felt? Actually, I think it's better to start with the present and work our way back. A number of prominent European nations have a Muslim population that is eight percent or greater. The growing number of Muslims in Europe is a relatively new development, something that began in earnest within the last sixty years. Three times in the last fifteen hundred years, Christian armies were fortunate to defeat much larger and better equipped Muslim forces that were intent on invading the heart of Europe. For our history lesson today, take note of the Battle of Tours in 732 (against the Moors from Spain), the 1529 Battle of Vienna I (against the Ottoman Empire), and the Battle of Vienna II in 1683 (the Ottoman Empire's last foray this far into Europe). During the years of Moor control on the Iberian peninsula, and Ottoman administration in the Balkans, no doubt the number of Muslims in Europe increased. But the Moors were sent packing by Isabella and Ferdinand, and rebellions by Bulgaria, Romania, and Montenegro in the late nineteenth century and early twentieth century all but ended the reality of "Turkey in Europe". Muslims still exist in the Balkans, but basically only in the Albanian community, which is about as close to secular as you can get (I would guess that a mosque exists for every three houses in Kosovo, but I never saw one in use).
The increase in the number of Muslims in Europe was driven by two factors: economics and post-colonial paternalism. Whenever Europe was in need of an influx of young men to work in the factories and on the farms, the people of North Africa and the Middle East were happy to oblige (no surprise; European wars had decimated the economies of those areas as well). North Africans came to work in France, and Turks came to Germany and Scandinavia. In most instances, they put down roots and had children. In the 1960's, as France and England (and to lesser and later extent, Belgium, Italy, Spain and Portugal), granted independence to their African colonies. For numerous reasons, guilt and a sense of paternalism being at the top of the list, Europe opened its doors to citizens of its former colonies. England was probably more affected by post-colonial immigration from India and Pakistan than Africa, but France welcomed hundreds of thousands of new immigrants from recently independent Algeria, Morocco, Cote d'Ivoire, Senegal and Guinea. Belgium was obliged to welcome Congolese. Later, following the Biafran War, England did open its doors to thousands of displaced Ibo, although white Rhodesians weren't nearly as welcome. As for the number of Turks in Germany and Scandinavia, I don't really have an explanation. Historically, Germany has always had close relations with Turkey, which may be part of the answer. Also, following the Civil Rights marches in the United States and the televised horrors of the Algerian conflict and the Vietnam War, European societies were determined to avoid the appearance of racism. And the Immigration Statutes written into law during that time are still in effect today. In less delicate terms, once it was turned on, the faucet was never turned off. Europe continued to accept immigrants long-past the ability of its economies to comfortably provide jobs and housing. This fact, along with other socio-economic and cultural issues, is responsible for the high percentage of minorities needing government support to survive.
In 2015, roughly ten percent of the population of France self-identifies as Muslim. Austria, Belgium, Sweden, the Netherlands, and Switzerland are not far behind. Albania, Macedonia, Bosnia-Herzegovina and Kosovo all have a substantial Muslim population because of the historic legacy of the Ottoman Turks, but rarely do you see an observant Muslim community in the Balkans (I understand that recently, a number of really nasty extremists have popped up, who were raised in these areas, so things may be changing). As of late, politics in western Europe have definitely swung in the direction of anti-immigration, and the events of last week will only increase that statistic. Sweden, Holland, France, and even Switzerland have taken steps to tighten up their immigration controls. Given the twenty-five thousand anti-Islamic demonstrators that marched in Leipzig last week, I'm guessing Angela Merkel has something in the works as well. No doubt, the high percentage of Muslims living in European countries is connected to the rise in extremist activity. But the increased police presence and the tightening of immigration laws is a knee-jerk reaction to attack the problem at the perceived source. Why are children of Algerian immigrants, who came to France, assimilated and worked their asses off, sympathetic to Islamic extremism? Since the symptom is the same in every country, then the problem must be the same as well. These young men and women have no distraction. They don't feel as if they belong anywhere, and once the European school systems, which are bedrocked to favor the native population, spit these kids out, they had nowhere to go. And the media and entertainment industry that our generation has allowed to take over the minds of young people today, tells these kids (and the inner-city youths in the United States as well), that there is something WRONG with working in a fast food joint, or on a farm, and there is something wrong with working for an hourly wage and taking college classes at night. The television and the MP3 players are constantly reminding these young, impressionable minds, that the life of a gangster is the life to be admired, and that money and sex should come easy. If it doesn't come easy, then someone is denying you your due, and you are entitled to take it.
Remember the riots in the urban, ethnic communities of France just a few years ago? Those kids had nothing to do. Their parents were at work, sometimes holding down two jobs, and unable to battle the message coming from the entertainment industry, and when I say entertainment industry, I point the finger directly back at the United States. The hip-hop and rap music that glorifies the selling of narcotics for easy money, and killing of rivals and anyone in authority. And sex? It is in no way connected to responsibility; it's all about the act, and the sense of domination. What is occurring in our inner cities in the United States, is replicated in Europe. We don't have many children of Muslim immigrants (in comparison), but our young people are latching on to a message just as theirs are. The message they are hearing is that the easy riches come with their ideology. That women are subservient, and should always be available for sex, and that the Jew has stolen everything from you, including your heritage. These young people, in the suburbs of Berlin, Paris, Barcelona, and Stockholm, are looking for an easy, quick answer and a place to belong as well. We will give you a gun, which will make you a man, and we will teach you to kill your enemy (who is the reason you can't have that Porsche you want, or those new three-hundred euro sneakers). Has it been so long since we were at that age? The mind is much like jello, waiting to be molded into the adult brain it is to become. You will rarely find a terrorist (at least a dead one) who is over the age of thirty-five. There is a reason for that.
Thursday, January 8, 2015
Al-Qaeda In Africa
Link: A. Al-Qaeda Presence In African Countries
(Today's post is the first in a four-part series to begin 2015. This series will discuss the current state of affairs for the various Al-Qaeda-affiliated groups around the globe. The next in the series will be the Middle East, followed by Southeast Asia, and concluding with Europe/United States. Somewhere along the line I will throw out a few comments about Al-Qaeda's presence in Latin America, especially as it relates to drug trafficking, smuggling and the tri-borders region.)
When I originally googled "Al-Qaeda" and "Africa", I expected to find a Wikipedia page full of useful dates and details. Have a look at the link so you can share in my disappointment. No matter; Al-Qaeda is so active at present that a review of any international news provider should bear fruit. Surprisingly, the link from Wikipedia doesn't even identify Mali as a location of interest, and Al-Qaeda in the Maghreb (AQIM) has been stirring the pot in the north of the country for a few years now. But enough criticism of Wikipedia. It is an invaluable resource that I would hate to lose, so follow my example and give them a few dollars whenever they start one of their fund-raising drives. Back to Al-Qaeda and Africa.
Personally, the U.S. Embassy bombings in Nairobi and Dar es Salaam in 1998 were the first time that I connected the terrorist group Al-Qaeda to the African continent. I was aware of the organization, mainly because I was already employed for an Intelligence Agency, and I was working in a counter-terrorist branch at the time. Having spent some time in Kenya and Tanzania, I was immediately useful, as street maps were spread out over desks and rolled-up, dusty maps were pulled out from behind cabinets. Interestingly enough, I can't remember a time when the group Al-Qaeda was not synonymous with Osama bin-Laden. Even then in the early years pre-9/11, everyone was already referring to the two as inseparable evils, and with good reason. Bin-Laden carried his organization on his back, figuratively and literally. He had spent some time in Afghanistan and trained in the Sudan and Yemen. I can't be sure but I believe the planning for 9/11 was already in place when the embassy bombings occurred. I believe another attack was intended, one involving multiple airliners that were to be hijacked out of Manila, and these three attacks (Kenya, NYC, Manila) were going to deliver a message to the West. The third operation never got off the ground, thank goodness.
Since the 1980s, Al-Qaeda has been active in Africa. When Somalia descended into post Siad-Barre hell, Al-Qaeda positioned itself to become an integral part of the conservative and extremist Islamic Courts Union, which was the de facto government in Moqdishu for a while. Once the African Union and the Ethiopian Army removed the Courts from Somalia, they found a comfy exile in Eritrea. I just don't understand the government of Eritrea, why they would want to announce to the world that they are friendly with Al-Qaeda. Obviously this is just another case of, "the enemy of my enemy is my friend", and the Eritreans despise the Ethiopians with a venom that is hard to match. Presently, with Puntland trying to sort itself out, and the Somali government in Moqdishu just trying to get the power back on, the bad guys, who have morphed from the "Islamic Courts Union", to "Al-Shabaab", are doing what they can to cause trouble in Kenya. Don't be fooled; Al-Shabaab is an unpolished, illiterate, ill-trained version of Al-Qaeda, and they understand the importance of establishing a presence in Kenya. The unemployment rate in Kenya is so high, I don't think the Kenyan government bothers to log it anymore. Most young men, at an age when they are supposed to be the most physically productive, are playing soccer in the townships and smoking hash behind the shabeen. The first time I ever saw someone wearing an Osama bin-Laden t-shirt was in Kibera, the huge township that feeds and feeds off of Nairobi. They are hungry in Mombasa as well, and in Nakuru and Kisumu. Al-Qaeda has always intended on taking advantage of the squalor and hopelessness of the third world, to recruit and spread its anti-west, anti-glutton message. But for some reason they have never really succeeded in appealing to the masses. But Africa, and Kenya in particular, give them an ideal opportunity. For Al-Qaeda, Somalia is over. The question is, to relocate the operatives and resources to Sudan and Yemen (and Eritrea), or to make a real push in Kenya.
In west Africa, Al-Qaeda in the Maghreb (AQIM) has caused quite a bit of heartburn. A few years back in Mali, the Tuaregs attempted a bit of a revolution. These usually non-confrontational, private nomads were having their traditional way of life negatively impacted by the activities of various French oil and mineral exploratory operations. They complained to the government in Bamako, but the Euro talks, and the Camel walks, so to speak. So the Tuaregs started a bit of a rebellion. Almost from the start it was hijacked by AQIM, and before long, the Tuaregs had been basically muscled out of the conflict altogether. AQIM proved too much for the Malian Army, so Mother France was called, and to make a boring story short, the French military sorted out AQIM in short-order. In the summer of 2014, when all of west Africa was focused on the anti-Ebola campaign, AQIM popped up again, and this time began attacking targets in Niger. Fortunately the French military always seems to be available, and it is yet to be determined if AQIM will acquit itself in a more positive way this time around. Unfortunately, the French can only be in so many places at one time, and AQIM has a habit of attacking Malian military targets, separate from a French military presence.
Boko Haram has been described as "Al-Qaeda in Nigeria", which is not far from the truth. Originally, Boko Haram was created as a method of educating and providing security for Muslim communities in northern Nigeria. A change in leadership was instrumental in Boko Haram's evolution into an Islamic extremist group, and they have quickly silenced the Islamic opposition (what there was of it). I have never considered Al-Qaeda to be overly religiously motivated, but they won't pass an opportunity to hijack a conservative Islamic movement, as they have demonstrated many times. In reality, I don't think Al-Qaeda has any input into the actions of Boko Haram. They make a bunch of noise and get a good deal of press, but until Boko Haram takes control of the Nigerian Oil Industry and starts pumping that oil to fill Al-Qaeda's coffers, I don't see the possibility of an Al-Qaeda initiative here (unless the U.S. and Nigerian security is lax and the embassy becomes a target of opportunity).
Africa can be a dangerous place for Americans. Because of the ease in which a person can cross one border after another, the U.S. Diplomatic Security folks have to always be on their game. Africa is useful to Al-Qaeda for three reasons: targets of opportunity, training, and recruitment. We know about the first two, but just how much success have the bad guys had at recruiting operatives in Africa? Up to now, I think it has been negligible. But that could change this year. Keep your eye on Kenya.
(Today's post is the first in a four-part series to begin 2015. This series will discuss the current state of affairs for the various Al-Qaeda-affiliated groups around the globe. The next in the series will be the Middle East, followed by Southeast Asia, and concluding with Europe/United States. Somewhere along the line I will throw out a few comments about Al-Qaeda's presence in Latin America, especially as it relates to drug trafficking, smuggling and the tri-borders region.)
When I originally googled "Al-Qaeda" and "Africa", I expected to find a Wikipedia page full of useful dates and details. Have a look at the link so you can share in my disappointment. No matter; Al-Qaeda is so active at present that a review of any international news provider should bear fruit. Surprisingly, the link from Wikipedia doesn't even identify Mali as a location of interest, and Al-Qaeda in the Maghreb (AQIM) has been stirring the pot in the north of the country for a few years now. But enough criticism of Wikipedia. It is an invaluable resource that I would hate to lose, so follow my example and give them a few dollars whenever they start one of their fund-raising drives. Back to Al-Qaeda and Africa.
Personally, the U.S. Embassy bombings in Nairobi and Dar es Salaam in 1998 were the first time that I connected the terrorist group Al-Qaeda to the African continent. I was aware of the organization, mainly because I was already employed for an Intelligence Agency, and I was working in a counter-terrorist branch at the time. Having spent some time in Kenya and Tanzania, I was immediately useful, as street maps were spread out over desks and rolled-up, dusty maps were pulled out from behind cabinets. Interestingly enough, I can't remember a time when the group Al-Qaeda was not synonymous with Osama bin-Laden. Even then in the early years pre-9/11, everyone was already referring to the two as inseparable evils, and with good reason. Bin-Laden carried his organization on his back, figuratively and literally. He had spent some time in Afghanistan and trained in the Sudan and Yemen. I can't be sure but I believe the planning for 9/11 was already in place when the embassy bombings occurred. I believe another attack was intended, one involving multiple airliners that were to be hijacked out of Manila, and these three attacks (Kenya, NYC, Manila) were going to deliver a message to the West. The third operation never got off the ground, thank goodness.
Since the 1980s, Al-Qaeda has been active in Africa. When Somalia descended into post Siad-Barre hell, Al-Qaeda positioned itself to become an integral part of the conservative and extremist Islamic Courts Union, which was the de facto government in Moqdishu for a while. Once the African Union and the Ethiopian Army removed the Courts from Somalia, they found a comfy exile in Eritrea. I just don't understand the government of Eritrea, why they would want to announce to the world that they are friendly with Al-Qaeda. Obviously this is just another case of, "the enemy of my enemy is my friend", and the Eritreans despise the Ethiopians with a venom that is hard to match. Presently, with Puntland trying to sort itself out, and the Somali government in Moqdishu just trying to get the power back on, the bad guys, who have morphed from the "Islamic Courts Union", to "Al-Shabaab", are doing what they can to cause trouble in Kenya. Don't be fooled; Al-Shabaab is an unpolished, illiterate, ill-trained version of Al-Qaeda, and they understand the importance of establishing a presence in Kenya. The unemployment rate in Kenya is so high, I don't think the Kenyan government bothers to log it anymore. Most young men, at an age when they are supposed to be the most physically productive, are playing soccer in the townships and smoking hash behind the shabeen. The first time I ever saw someone wearing an Osama bin-Laden t-shirt was in Kibera, the huge township that feeds and feeds off of Nairobi. They are hungry in Mombasa as well, and in Nakuru and Kisumu. Al-Qaeda has always intended on taking advantage of the squalor and hopelessness of the third world, to recruit and spread its anti-west, anti-glutton message. But for some reason they have never really succeeded in appealing to the masses. But Africa, and Kenya in particular, give them an ideal opportunity. For Al-Qaeda, Somalia is over. The question is, to relocate the operatives and resources to Sudan and Yemen (and Eritrea), or to make a real push in Kenya.
In west Africa, Al-Qaeda in the Maghreb (AQIM) has caused quite a bit of heartburn. A few years back in Mali, the Tuaregs attempted a bit of a revolution. These usually non-confrontational, private nomads were having their traditional way of life negatively impacted by the activities of various French oil and mineral exploratory operations. They complained to the government in Bamako, but the Euro talks, and the Camel walks, so to speak. So the Tuaregs started a bit of a rebellion. Almost from the start it was hijacked by AQIM, and before long, the Tuaregs had been basically muscled out of the conflict altogether. AQIM proved too much for the Malian Army, so Mother France was called, and to make a boring story short, the French military sorted out AQIM in short-order. In the summer of 2014, when all of west Africa was focused on the anti-Ebola campaign, AQIM popped up again, and this time began attacking targets in Niger. Fortunately the French military always seems to be available, and it is yet to be determined if AQIM will acquit itself in a more positive way this time around. Unfortunately, the French can only be in so many places at one time, and AQIM has a habit of attacking Malian military targets, separate from a French military presence.
Boko Haram has been described as "Al-Qaeda in Nigeria", which is not far from the truth. Originally, Boko Haram was created as a method of educating and providing security for Muslim communities in northern Nigeria. A change in leadership was instrumental in Boko Haram's evolution into an Islamic extremist group, and they have quickly silenced the Islamic opposition (what there was of it). I have never considered Al-Qaeda to be overly religiously motivated, but they won't pass an opportunity to hijack a conservative Islamic movement, as they have demonstrated many times. In reality, I don't think Al-Qaeda has any input into the actions of Boko Haram. They make a bunch of noise and get a good deal of press, but until Boko Haram takes control of the Nigerian Oil Industry and starts pumping that oil to fill Al-Qaeda's coffers, I don't see the possibility of an Al-Qaeda initiative here (unless the U.S. and Nigerian security is lax and the embassy becomes a target of opportunity).
Africa can be a dangerous place for Americans. Because of the ease in which a person can cross one border after another, the U.S. Diplomatic Security folks have to always be on their game. Africa is useful to Al-Qaeda for three reasons: targets of opportunity, training, and recruitment. We know about the first two, but just how much success have the bad guys had at recruiting operatives in Africa? Up to now, I think it has been negligible. But that could change this year. Keep your eye on Kenya.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)