Cote d`Ivoire: French Defense Report Views Pan-Africanism As Threat to West

Cote d`Ivoire: French Defense Report Views Pan-Africanism As Threat to West.

But they have the EU! Why should Africa not unite?

Le Nouveau Courrier Online
Thursday, October 18, 2012

 http://www.biyokulule.com/view_content.php?articleid=5301

 

Article by Theophile Kouamouo: “Chilling report by the French Ministry of Defense: Nationalism and Pan-Africanism presented as “threats” to Western countries”

What if the reports of experts in strategic issues, in all their aridity, could shed light on the real stakes of our world, far from the storytelling dominant Western media dripping in manipulative “good sentiments”? In fact, the latest report published by the French Ministry of Defense, which is more than ever “fashionable” while the French-Speaking World summit in Kinshasa is being feverishly prepared, deserves to be read and analyzed.

The 30-year prospective report called “Strategic Horizons” describes the trend full of French foreign and defense policies in the long term. This means that it is more or less endorsed by the two main parties of government which alternately govern France - and which protect themselves with exemplary solidarity against any threat that would disturb their comfortable game of ping-pong. Bertrand Badie, one of the most prominent scholars of international relations in France, who heads “The State of the World”, a geopolitical encyclopedia of reference and who teaches political science in Paris, was not mistaken: “Hollande is in continuity with Sarkozy, not so much in form and style, because the two men do not have the same temperament, but thematically and politically, Francois Hollande did not show any strong desire to make any change. Foreign policy was largely absent during the election campaign; no subject was submitted for public debate. It is therefore not surprising that Hollande has announced no new proposal or spectacular initiative or any political shift.

(...) Since the beginning of the Fifth Republic, the left has never made any effort to define a leftist foreign policy. Francois Mitterrand who had reviled the foreign policy of General de Gaulle finally toed the same line when he acceded to power in 1981. And his successors were not much interested in foreign policy. Here, there is a vacuum. The work of criticism and in-depth reflection was not done. Moreover, the foreign policy of Nicolas Sarkozy was very little criticized by the left. There was no debate on the intervention in Libya; the reintegration of France into NATO was extraordinarily discreet,” he said in the 27 September edition of Le Journal du Dimanche. The style changes, but the essential remains the same. So, the strategic document of the Ministry of Defense, visibly finalized late April this year - before the fall of Nicolas Sarkozy - remains valid.

What does this document say on the world, France and Africa? Concerning the anticipated decline of the West ... and feared, the document indicates that among “leading forces” in the coming decades is “the end of Western domination.” Obviously we are moving towards a “post-American world.” There is “a risk of downgrading of Europe” and “the rise of new great powers with nonetheless uncertain paths” (Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa), continued the report. “The acceleration of globalization” is also a leading force in a context of “geopolitical transition marked by instability and growing volatility.” All these things that we least suspected...

What does the French strategic document anticipate regarding sub-Saharan Africa? “Twenty years after the end of the Cold War, the continent could continue to see its geopolitical importance increase as a result of economic competition between emerging powers “of the South” (China, India, Brazil) and powers in relative decline (United States, France, United Kingdom, Russia). However, the sub-regions of Africa may evolve separately according to their external environment (Horn of Africa /Arabian Peninsula), Sahel/ Maghreb / Europe, East Africa / Indian sub-continent.” Does this mean that, by geographical proximity, Europe has a much more important “role to play” in West Africa and in North Africa than elsewhere? No doubt. The question that arises is: through what means in these specific areas will the declining West wage their “economic war” against their new emerging competitors? Current events provide some tentative answers to this question, and they seem frightening. Is it going to be the “Arab Spring” in Africa? No thanks.

Why is the French media passionate about the process of the change of regimes in the Middle East but does not show any anger against the denial of democracy in Francophone Africa, where Paris nonetheless has the means to get things done in the proper way through a friendly pressure far from the “democracy of bombs” to which Cote d`Ivoire, for example, has paid a heavy price? Why right in the middle of the Arab Spring did Segolene Royal arrive in Ouagadougou to give unequivocal support to Blaise Compaore who wanted to amend the Constitution and was facing the wrath of his people? Perhaps it is because the French “policy-makers” do not believe in the advent of a democratic emancipation in Africa south of the Sahara. Poverty and tribalism could be the blocking factors. “A widespread extension of the Arab Spring democratic push seems unlikely in sub-Saharan Africa. If certain structural elements like (blocked change of government, youth graduate unemployment, marginalization of a part of the Army) can be a fertile breeding ground for a popular uprising, several features, in fact, limit political developments in Africa in the short and medium term: the absence of a middle class, tribal divisions including weak state institutions. Only few countries in which a strong civil society, the outcome of local history (unions, churches, traditional leaders), challenging a strong state or a stuck up regime, are likely to follow the Arab trend, if certain circumstances are met (economic crisis, a ridiculously rigged election ...),” says the document.

The analysis is not entirely unfounded, but the obsessively ethnographic references of the French government whenever it concerns Africa, for example, indicate in some way that it is not in a hurry to make the situation change. The regimes that it generally supports do not encourage a greater establishment of state institutions. Does it not enthusiastically support the Ouattara regime that has replaced a national Army with tribal militiamen and did it not for a long time support a rebellion which destroyed the Ivorian government to replace it with feudal barons among whom the “zone commanders” are emblematic? Secessions and migrations, the “questioning of current borders could lead to the creation of new states or a more or less violent redrawing of frontiers like the case in (Southern Sudan, Somalia ...). Breaking the taboo of the inviolability of borders could have cascading effects on the entire continent, and even beyond,” says the report. We vividly recall that in Paris, the prospect of secession of northern Mali, as long as it is not admitted and it is embodied by the National Movement for the Liberation of Azawad (MNLA), was a serious option. Support for separatism or irredentism will more than ever become in the future a means of influencing geopolitical situations or “spreading terror” among African nations seeking to be independent or to overcome certain forms of disobedience? “Major environmental disasters related to the first effects of climate change, particularly in the most vulnerable areas, could lead to large movements of populations within and between continents and become major sources of destabilization,” says the report.

Is what happening in western Cote d`Ivoire, militarily conquered by men confronted in their country by the advance of the desert, a foreshadow of such type of “disaster”? Would major cities of the West African coast, exhausted by the rural exodus and the “abandonment” of a part of the Sahel be partially drowned in the waters caused by coastal erosion? These questions are challenges to the governments and the intelligentsia of the continent. African nationalism ... a threat to the West! What is strange in this report produced by experts from the French Ministry of Defense is that it now ranks sovereign African states as potential enemies. So-called “Identity Crises”, the result of manipulation by certain categories of community by some political and economic players (sharing of power and wealth) may still occur. Religious fundamentalism or radicalism among Muslims as well as Christians could increase in the absence of prospects for economic and political integration of the poorest people, especially young people.

Meanwhile - and paradoxically - nationalist and/or Pan-African sentiments could develop, sometimes at the expense of Western interests.” You get that right! Those who want a strong, independent Africa free to make its own choice, including economic choice, are a threat to the West! And this is said in an “uninhibited” manner in a country where the prevailing discourse, certainly often at odds with the acts and practices, have considered, from Charles de Gaulle to Dominique de Villepin, the independence of nations as something absolute! As if that was not clear enough, the journalist Adrian Hart, in an article published by Slate Africa, makes specific the thought of those who wrote the report: “Everyone has in mind the violent anti-French calls of the pro-Gbagbo leaders during the post-election crisis in Cote d`Ivoire.

Will the future in Africa see the multiplication of clones and populist leaders like Charles Ble Goude or Julius Malema? This is not our wish. “What if this structural background is the key to understanding the mindset of those who made the ridiculous alliance of the Islamist group Ansar Dine with the Ivorian opposition in exile? Was it not a question of ultimately equating two types of players that represent absolute threats? What if, in fact, the French government “preferred” somehow the Salafists, whose dangerousness is easy to “sell” to African nationalists against whom European public opinion would not accept waging war? This debate is not superficial. When one is convinced that the main threat identified by the official strategist in France is the awakening of what we happily call “the dignified Africa”, it becomes clear that the alliance with forces representing tribal feudalism or religious fanaticism could be considered against the separatist-minded Africans. Of course civil wars and secessions in this context become “problems” that justify a military presence that is strategic, complete and presented as virtuous since it serves to save Africa against itself by “preventing massacres.” Fifteen years ago, France had wanted to continue to occupy Africa militarily. The strategy consisted of highlighting the concepts of a gradual withdrawal of the French Army on the continent for the benefit of African peacekeeping forces. This is no longer the case. So, the “Strategic Horizons” report highlights two anticipated trends: the economic decline of Europe and the maintaining of French military presence.

The reduction of the relative share of Europe as a leading provider of official development assistance is likely to affect European tropism in sub-Saharan Africa for the benefit of major emerging powers,” says the report. “As a result of the inability of states to control their territory, the multiplication and extension of” dangerous zones “, harboring organized criminal groups (smugglers, terrorists) and rebel groups may require interventions in which Western European countries, and France in particular, may need to participate,” the report said. France has the intention to occupy more than ever Africa,” which will remain an area of lust and potential confrontation over the coming decades, and an area of strategic priority for France”. The report outlines the nature of a mode of action which does not intend to change in Africa, including the heart of major cities.” The renewal of defense agreements with several African countries gives France special responsibilities for assistance, which is likely to last in time. The presence of many French citizens in cities, within a context of high uncertainty, should strengthen the need for appropriate evacuation capacity. They will increasingly be coordinated at the international level and with local players, including private,” wrote those who prepared the report who prefer to feed the perplexity around the capacity of the African Union. This has become more than ever a question of bypassing even making it illegitimate in preference for probably vassal institutions (such as ECOWAS) or institutions partly controlled by Paris: European Union, UN, etc ... “France will continue to support continental and sub-regional organizations in the development of collective security bodies, by focusing on multilateral frameworks (EU, UN, etc.).. the probably persistent inadequacy of collective security bodies under the auspices of the African Union, whatever the progress in capability, will reinforce the need for comprehensive policies combining security, development and governance along with bilateral and multilateral ad hoc commissions and the establishment of effective regional partnerships,” says the report. That is clear. It is now up to non-aligned African leadership to coolly reflect on all the consequences.

(Description of Source: Abidjan Le Nouveau Courrier Online in French -- Daily supportive of former President Gbagbo and highly critical of President Ouattara, France, and the United Nations)

© Compiled and distributed by NTIS, US Dept. of Commerce. All rights reserved.

Observers Say Neo-Imperialism Threat To Pan-African Nationalist Parties
The Herald Online (Zimbabwe)
Friday, December 16, 2011

Commentaries by Bowden Mbanje and Darlington Mahuku: “We Should Resist Neo-Colonialism”

Liberation movements in Southern Africa face a real regime change threat from powerful Western countries which are bent on reversing the liberation gains achieved by nationalist parties. This neo-Western onslaught or neo-imperialism which is targeted on indigenous pan-African nationalist parties is being championed by the USA, Britain and their other Western acolytes.

The Western offensive geared on dismantling and even destroying liberation movements/nationalist parties actually has the full co-operation of some of the African leaders, civil society groups, misguided Africans in the Diaspora, donor funded boot licking media houses, pseudo-democratic parties and a litany of other Western sponsored African surrogates found in Africa as well as outside the continent.

This 21st century scramble for the ownership of sub-Saharan Africa`s abundant resources is characterised by betrayal, back biting and stabbing of African leaders by political parties within their own governments as well as by other African leaders. It is also typified by lies peddled against certain leaders as well as divisive tactics centred on isolation and persecution of perceived hardliners and rewarding of those puppets that toe the neo-liberal line. This double-crossing group of African leaders is given dubious democratic awards for their treachery by their Western handlers.

Laurent Gbagbo was brought before the International Criminal Court (ICC) to answer for his purported crimes against humanity which include murder and rape charges. Whatever Gbagbo did can never be compared to the atrocities committed by Bush and Blair. George W Bush and his partner in crime Tony Blair committed worse crimes against humanity in Iraq and Afghanistan ranging from cold blooded murder of more than a million innocent civilians to the raping of hundreds of Iraqi and Afghan women by their troops. The new Western sponsored kid on the bloc, Alassane Ouattara to prove himself a “good African leader” actually handed Gbagbo to the rabid racist ICC to stand trial for these questionable and debatable crimes.

The handing in of Gbagbo to stand trial at the Hague is a well-orchestrated and calculated move. First of all, a free Gbagbo would have remained a big threat to Ouattara`s power and credibility as the new Ivorian president. It would have also been a great menace to French imperial interests in the country which Gbagbo stood to challenge in its entirety.

Second on the agenda was to completely destroy the former Ivorian leader`s political career as well as weakening his political party, leaving it vulnerable and leaderless. Thirdly, the whole regime change agenda is centred on eradicating African nationalist hardliners replacing them with puppets that toe the Western liberal line.

Lastly, being handed to the International Court actually means that you are a tyrant, a monster and a very dangerous criminal. No one in his right senses would want to be associated with such a leader as well as political party and whatever support that still remains for Gbagbo will soon be history. Ouattara and his French handlers have actually succeeded in wiping out any credible political opposition in the country which is actually a complete negation of a people`s democratic right to belong to a political party of their choice.

If all fairness is to be said Ouattara like his friend, Raila Odinga (in the aftermaths of the Kenyan elections) also had a lot to answer for the many civilian deaths. This holier than thou attitude is hypocritical in every sense. The major culprits in this case are also Ouattara`s militia and this is the truth which every Ivorian is aware of. It`s as if incidents leading to Gbagbo`s dubious arrest were done in a non-violent way.

These events were bloody and were also characterised by use of brute force on combatants and civilians alike by Ouattara`s men, the UN peacekeepers and French forces. When clashes between Gbagbo and Ouattara`s men occurred there were many atrocities committed by both camps. What`s worryin g is that the facts on the ground actually point to Ouattara`s men as the major culprits in these murders and rape cases. Every Ivorian is aware of what crimes Ouattara`s militia committed in the North. These people really take Africans as fools.

Gbagbo like a clown is brought before a Euro-centric circus where he is mocked and ridiculed at the amusement of the pro-Western judges and their African sponsored and donor funded human rights groups. This ICC circus which is selective in word and deed punishes Africans for very trivial crimes while the Bushes, Blairs, Camerons, Sarkozys and Obamas of this world are on the loose.

Bush and Blair`s hands dripping with the blood of innocent Iraqi and Afghan citizens are not made to stand trial by the same court.

Obama, Sarkozy and Cameron still smelling of the fresh blood of thousands of massacred innocent Libyan civilians are very free men. Africans are taken as people devoid of a memory and as such they should be lied to until they accept the lie as the absolute truth.

The powerful Western countries under the leadership of France and backed by the Western controlled United Nations as well as Western sponsored African marionettes dotted all over West Africa helped to remove Gbagbo from power.

The 16 member Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS) were accomplices of the North in bringing down the Gbagbo regime. Ghana refused to take part in this well planned white man`s regime change agenda since the pure revolutionary blood of Nkrumah still drives Ghanaian political and economic thought.

The same pattern of treasonous African leaders is also found in the East African grouping the Intergovernmental Authority on Development (IGAD) which has helped the Americans in fighting against the al Shabab Islamic group in Somalia.

Facts on the ground clearly show that the Islamists had actually brought stability in a country that had gone for years under the control of various warlords. That stability did not last long before the Americans accused the new Islamist establishment in Somalia of harbouring terrorists like the late Osama bin Laden and other so called dangerous fugitives on the USA most wanted list. ECOWAS needs the leadership of a Chavez type figure while IGAD also needs the guidance of a leader with an Ahmadinejad stature to free the grouping from its shackles of colonialism and mental slavery.

In the Sadc region such treacherous acts have been quickly repelled by revolutionary parties which now know the enemy and its dirty ways. The grouping now believes in a unity of purpose as evidenced in the case of the now discredited Sadc tribunal. However, despite this facade or smokescreen of unity within the organisation there is a lot of treachery and back stabbing taking place. It is no hidden secret nor does it need a rocket scientist to tell that there are some fissures within the Sadc grouping.

This truth has actually made revolutionary parties within the grouping to come up with various strategies as to counter this neo-Western onslaught which is characterised by enemies from within working in cohorts with enemies from without. The good thing is that revolutionary and nationalist parties in the Sadc region unlike those in the other African groupings have realised that they need to plan with urgency if they are to survive this Western offensive camouflaged as democratisation.

The African puppets controlled by American and European strings rubbish their former African predecessors as a way of gaining credibility not from their people but from Western backers. It was quite disheartening news when Ouattara and his other West African entourage of Western “blue eyed boys” went all the way to America to be praised by Obama as democratic leaders. Such is the disease amongst African leaders that it is the Western leaders who wield the power to label any Third World leader a democrat.

Doesn`t true democracy come from the people who give you legitimate authority to govern them? Does Africa have to wait for a Western leader to tell it that it is democratic or do its leaders have to be given Western funded awards for its people to realise that the leaders are indeed democratic? According to Western democratic standards Mubarak, Ben Ali, Mobutu and Bongo were all labelled as democratic leaders.

The nationalist leaders have actually seen how the Western governments are trying to manipulate these liberation movements` genuine struggles for black empowerment by supporting stooges who fight for nonsensical rights.

Africans cannot continue to be lied to by various Western controlled and donor funded human right groups which propagate civil and political rights all to protect and safeguard their own selfish interests at the expense of Africa`s economic, social and cultural rights.

International Human Rights Day is solely dedicated to the rule of law and the proper contact of democratic, free and fair elections on the African continent by some donor funded lawyers for human rights. These were the rights which a whole bunch of lawyers wanted Africans to embrace in marking International Human Rights Day.

Economic, social and cultural rights are deemed as irrelevant by this group of hypocrites and not therefore as important as free and fair elections and the protection of the so called human rights defenders.

What a humiliation and disgrace for these donor funded lawyers especially when we look at the millions of economically disempowered Africans and culturally alienated groups who also want their rights to be addressed. Rangu Nyamurundira an enlightened black lawyer (The Herald 23 November, 2011) was right in every sense when he argued that political rights take centre stage in the neo-liberal human rights discourse whilst ignoring economic rights which are as equally important as the other rights.

Liberation movements brought the very democratic rights that most Africans were being denied by the very white colonisers whom today through their black acolytes purporting as human rights defenders now come as democratic ambassadors wearing sheep`s skins.

The neo-liberal intellectuals as argued by Panganai Kahuni (The Herald 6 December, 2011) fall in such a category of shameless Africans who are willing to sell their birth right for a few pieces of silver.

The liberation movements which dismantled white rule in Southern Africa should send a clear signal to the neo-colonialists that the revolutionary spirit is very much alive in the region and no matter what strategy the West might use, Southern Africa will show a lot of resistance. Resistance to Western neo-imperialism is a necessary right for every African. African space should be defended at all costs.

The African intellectual community should not be victims of deceit running aimlessly with the misleading doctrine that the West are genuinely interested in the democratisation agenda of Africa. African intellectuals should be the defenders of African social democracy which entails empowerment of the masses.

African academics are lacking the selfless dedication of pan-African intellectuals the likes of Steve Bantu Biko, Amilcar Cabral, and Frantz Fanon, Julius Nyerere, Kwame Nkrumah and many others. Opposition political parties are indispensable in any political system. Divergence and tolerance of political views is good in any democratic set up.

The greatest threat to liberation movements and nationalist parties in the 21st century are foreign funded opposition parties and civil society groups whose major aim is to destroy the pan-Africanist spirit by smuggling in Western democratic principles of individualism which are detrimental to pan-Africanist and nationalist goals centred on redistribution of resources to the masses. However, as long as imperialism is in existence, an independent African state must be a liberation movement/nationalist party in power, or that African state will not be truly independent.

(Description of Source: Harare The Herald Online in English -- Website of state-owned daily that frequently acts as a mouthpiece for ZANU-PF and nominally distributed nationwide; URL: http://www.herald.co.zw)

© Compiled and distributed by NTIS, US Dept. of Commerce. All rights reserved.