New Cold War? U.S. Shifts Geographical Focus

To start, I want to make it clear that the true geographical focus of the U.S., as a world imperial power, is nothing less than the entire world. In this post I am referring specifically to its more overt military operations, as opposed to CIA actions and other things more “under the radar.” For the past decade or more, U.S. military focus has concentrated overwhelmingly on the Middle East, particularly at the sites of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Not that I see a complete abandonment of these regions anytime soon, but it appears that the center of gravity of military strategy is spreading in two different directions.

First, there is Africa. The ‘Arab Spring’ in its historic import is coming to symbolize not so much some real transformative movement, but more the moment when the U.S. military started bringing in “the big guns” to Africa. Obviously the U.S. has diligently been helping to overthrow governments and support brutal dictators and ethnic conflict in Africa for the duration of the decolonization/post-WW2 era. Yet, they never thought The Dark Continent deserved the best of its military resources. Not until they finally got their opportunity to overthrow Gaddafi.

Side note. Although I am restricting my discussion to the U.S., clearly, as always, the interests and actions of other Western powers are intertwined with those of the U.S. In that vein, the shift toward Africa has coincided with the re-emergence of French imperialism. The French, of course, were at the forefront of the decision to invade Libya, and are pretty much going solo right now in Mali.

Back to the U.S. Now that the U.S. has been getting weapons into the hands of militant groups, and Islamist movements are re-branding themselves as Al Qaeda syndicates, it is possible for the U.S. to argue that Africa is an important front in the War on Terror. As such, the military is very visibly upgrading its African operations, including more advanced surveillance and killing technology – complete with a brand new drone base in Niger! Some analysts are even predicting that Mali will become the next Afghanistan.

But that’s not all. The U.S. is also stepping up its military presence in the Pacific. The move was never designed to be secret and has been trumpeted by the Obama administration as a means of countering Chinese regional hegemony. Less well-known is the way in which the U.S. has been covertly trying to provoke conflict among various Asian states and China. For example, goading the Philippines (an important U.S. ally) into disputing the Chinese occupation of the Spratly Islands.

In fact, China may be a common denominator in both of these geographical shifts. True, Africa is rich with resources, including gold, oil, and uranium – all coveted by Western powers (and this may largely explain France’s interests). But the U.S. (and its Western allies) is concerned about the Chinese encroaching on its African investment opportunities. Many Africans are optimistic about the possible benefits of Chinese investment for “rising Africa,” and China, seeing limitless potential for exploitation, is pouring in the capital. The thing about capitalism, though, is that it is characterized by a centrifugal inertia which demands ever larger markets, resource-rich peripheries, and more opportunities for investment. Western economic hegemony cannot abide a competitor. Witness what happened to the Soviet Union! In this way, the characterization of relations between the U.S. and China as “the new Cold War” is quite apt. The differences in Cold War Part 2 are that 1) the ideological divisions have somewhat lost their significance, such that the Chinese can barely manage to still call themselves “Communist” and are in no way pursuing systematic support of socialist or communist regimes (although China is perceived by many in the Third World as more “anti-colonial” and friendly);  2) "Terrorism" has superseded "Communism" as The Great Evil;  3) far from having entered a period of great economic expansion, the world is languishing in the midst of the latest manifestation of a decades-long economic contraction, which has the power to create enormous global instability; and 4) U.S. hegemony may be teetering on the brink.

It’s hard to know how all of this will play out. At the very least, I am expecting to see Africa play a more significant role in U.S. foreign policy.

French Neo-Colonialism

I have discussed at length the superficiality of national independence for most countries in the Third World.  Colonialism has preserved, only in a slightly altered form.  I just read this interesting account of neo-colonialism in Francophone Africa.

Colonial Legacies in East Africa

East Africa has been getting some attention in the news the past week. First, there was the establishment of South Sudanese independence. Then there has also been the severe regional drought. If there is a pattern to my blog posts about global current events, it is the my constant irritation by the way in which colonialism is bracketed in the reporting of these issues. The East African stories are no exception! In fact, two seemingly unrelated stories like drought and ethnic/religious conflict are actually connected by colonialism - the tie that binds everything.

Drought
I have already mentioned, briefly, that the global poverty that exists today is a result of colonialism (when Europeans forcefully rearranged the relations of production in such a way that the colonized oriented all productivity toward the satisfaction of European demand, rather than to meet local needs.... a situation which persists today). Many people in the U.S. (and I would venture to guess in western Europe as well?) believe that poverty is caused primarily by environmental factors, and a situation like the current East African drought only serves to strengthen those convictions.

Yet, when Europeans reorganized production in the colonies, not only did they prevent the colonized from directing production toward their own local needs, it also hindered their ability to adapt to climactic fluctuations and respond to environmental hardships. East Africa, at the time of colonization, was a primarily pastoral region, whose economy focused on the very mobile practice of cattle herding. This has been very common among people who live in dry zones, as pastoralism is particularly well suited to such a climate. The communities in East Africa were nomadic and, in the case of drought, were easily able to move to new locales. They could adapt!

Colonization and the subsequent erection of nation-states with very static boundaries has been ruinous to the lives of many East Africans. For instance, in the current drought, those who try to move to better areas (and generally these are people who are more advantaged than the rest of the population) find that they have to cross national borders and, in the world of nation-states, are now considered "refugees":   the only people in the world whose human rights cannot be protected.

Drought is only a problem because people no longer have the ability to move at will. Drought is not just an environmental issue. It is a social and political issue.

Sudan
In some of my posts on MENA and colonalism, I wrote about how religious, ethnic, and sectarian differences were created and/or exaggerated by the colonial powers in order to disunite the population and diffuse the strength of forces of resistance. Such is the case in Egypt and Sudan as well. In this region, England's tactic was to create religious segregation, and hence tension, between Christians and Muslims to prevent them from acting as a single force. In Sudan, a distinct barrier was created between the predominantly non-Muslim (Christian and other religions) south and the Muslim north in order to isolate the two different groups (as well as allow Christians more exclusive access to the indigenous religious groups for ease of conversion).

That worked out nicely, didn't it?