Re: USA Africa Dialogue Series - mali, france, and resources

"This presents the anti-war movement with new challenges: How do we build public consciousness about U.S. military agendas in Africa and the existence of operations across the African continent? How do we fight U.S. military expansion when bases appear and disappear overnight? How do we build resistance to the neoliberal and militarist policies that are at the root of the violence and humanitarian crisis going on now in Mali, funded by billions of U.S. tax-payer dollars?"


Superb and logical analysis. I consider that the above questions are directed at the American public. However, I am concerned about their implication for Africa. This is because the questions highlight the powerlessness of African leaders to initiate any significant foreign policy that would effectively contain neocolonial interventions.

Whether or not France is pursuing neocolonial agenda is not the concern here. This is because either way, Africa does not have an answer. We are already overwhelmed by the albatross of assistance of all forms.

What choice does Mali have? Debilitated by debts, undermined by poor, underperforming leadership, harassed by ethnic frustrations. The initiatives are already extroverted! And that is beyond raising awareness.

I'm even wondering now what Nkrumah's reaction would have been, beyond all rhetoric of emancipation.



Adeshina Afolayan

Sent from my BlackBerry wireless device from MTN

---

From: "Emeagwali, Gloria (History)" <emeagwali@mail.ccsu.edu>

Sender: usaafricadialogue@googlegroups.com

Date: Thu, 31 Jan 2013 20:56:59 -0500

To: usaafricadialogue@googlegroups.com<usaafricadialogue@googlegroups.com>

ReplyTo: usaafricadialogue@googlegroups.com

Subject: RE: USA Africa Dialogue Series - mali, france, and resources

Washington's Wars and Occupations: Month in Review #93/January 31, 2013   PERPETUAL WAR   Sasha Wright lays bare the underlying dynamics of the U.S.-supported French intervention in Mali, spotlighting the role of AFRICOM and Western-imposed "structural adjustment" policies. She follows up by assessing the results of Israel's "let's debate-everything-except-settlements-and-occupation" elections.    This month in his inauguration speech President Obama declared that "a decade of war is now ending," and "enduring security and lasting peace do not require perpetual war." But the only wars Obama is ending (and even those not 100%) are the big ones, involving large-scale deployment of ground troops, substantial U.S. casualties and direct naked occupations.   As important as it is that the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan are winding down - to the fury of the Neocons - U.S. militarism continues to spread in new forms. Out of the public eye this administration has killed thousands of civilians in CIA and covert operations drone strikes in Pakistan, Yemen and Somalia, has expanded the U.S. network of small bases around the world, and provided training and military aid to support proxy wars. These new perpetual wars are the elite's "Plan B" for securing oil and maintaining U.S. economic and military hegemony in a climate of increased global inequality and the instability created by climate change.   This style of U.S. military involvement and intervention is growing in Africa. Washington's role burst into the headlines this month with the French deployment of troops to Mali backed by U.S. logistical support. The intervention and the Malian crisis overall casts a spotlight on the legacy of colonialism and the current maneuvers of the U.S. via AFRICOM.   WAR IN MALI   Longstanding tensions and conflict in Mali took a dramatic turn this month when French troops invaded to stop the potential advance of rebel group Ansar Dine on Bamako, Mali's capital. The French moved up a potential intervention by the Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS) which was not going to be logistically possible until September 2013. The French, with logistical support from the U.S. and other European countries, bombed rebels in central and northern Mali in advance of Malian and French ground troops. Ansar Dine abandoned most cities, leading to the quick re-establishment of French and Malian control.   The Malian conflict escalated a year ago when the Tuareg National Movement for the Liberation of Azawad (MNLA) rose up in northern cities and declared the north the state of Azawad, using arms that flooded into the region from the war in Libya. Tuareg communities live and travel across the Sahara and the French-imposed borders of Mali, Mauritania, Algeria, Niger and Chad. The Tuareg faced repression for their nomadic lifestyle under French colonialism and later under the Malian government, and have risen up for increased autonomy and economic development in the north three previous times since independence in 1960.   Last March a group of junior officers angered by the government's management of the fighting led a coup against President Amadou Toumani Toure. In the disarray that followed MNLA forces drove the Malian military out of the northern cities of Timbuktu, Gao and Kidal. ECOWAS imposed an embargo and immediately began talks on forming a West African force to reestablish Mali's territorial integrity.   Just a month later the MNLA was pushed aside by former allies in the uprising - the Islamist organizations of Ansar Dine, the Movement for Unity and Jihad in West Africa (MUJAO) and Al Qaida in the Islamic Maghreb (AQIM). Both AQIM and MUJAO had previously operated in Algeria and Mauritania and included fighters from neighboring countries. Ansar Dine is a newer organization led by Iyad Ag Ghaly, a former high-profile Tuareg nationalist and fighter for the Qaddafi regime who converted to fundamentalist Islam. All these organizations had gained funds and arms through hostage trades and cocaine smuggling and were better equipped than the MNLA. Ansar Dine's goal was not to establish a separate Tuareg state but to impose a form of Sharia law, which they did, using extra-judicial punishments like whippings and amputations as well as destroying Sufi tombs and historic sites. Many locals protested these brutal policies but were usually overwhelmed by the militia's superior military force. COLONIALISM AND NEOLIBERALISM AT THE ROOTS   At the core of Mali's conflict is severe poverty rooted in 60 years of French colonial rule. Historically the center of three thriving empires, Mali is now one of the ten poorest countries in the world, with the north its most underdeveloped region. The French invested almost nothing in infrastructure or industry. Mali was cultivated as a source of cotton which remains their primary export and gets a low price on international markets due to French and U.S. market manipulation. Harsh structural adjustment policies and the burden of over $3 billion in foreign debt accrued largely under a long military dictatorship continue to block development. In 1992 Alpha Oumar Konaré, the first democratically elected president in 20 years, appealed to the U.S. and Europe for debt relief but was refused.   The economic situation hit hardest in the north. Besides getting little or no government attention, this region suffers from increasingly long and severe droughts that impact the livestock of nomadic Tuareg groups. The Tuareg rose up for greater autonomy and economic opportunity in 1962, in 1991 after a devastating drought, and again 1997. These conflicts all ended in peace agreements that included promises of development and economic investment, but these were never fulfilled.   U.S. AIMS FOR DEEP CONTROL   After 9/11 the Bush administration sought to increase U.S. influence in the Sahara, using the pretext of fighting terror in the region despite the minimal presence of any terrorist activities. In 2005 Washington set up the Trans-Sahara Counter-terrorism Initiative to provide military aid to Mali, Mauritania, Algeria, Niger, Burkina Faso, Libya, Morocco, Tunisia, Chad, Nigeria and Senegal. Under the program U.S. Special Forces led yearly military exercises with these countries in the Sahara called Operation Flintlock.   These initiatives were later incorporated into the U.S. Africa Command (AFRICOM), launched in 2008. AFRICOM combines many previous programs of military training, aid and counter-terrorism, working in conjunction with African militaries all over the continent including governments with questionable human rights records. AFRICOM is growing all the time, with massive construction at their existing base in Djibouti, and other infrastructure projects that will facilitate U.S. planes and drones across the continent. The U.S. military continually expands its reach by creating "access agreements," that will allow them to use existing bases in strategic locations across Africa without drawing a backlash from establishing many permanent bases.   AFRICOM put on a humanitarian face by promoting aid and development projects carried out by the U.S. military. Many have questioned why these programs should be implemented by AFRICOM when there are far more qualified vehicles. Emira Woods,   director of Foreign Policy in Focus, explains in the video Resist AFRICOM: "What we see now is the repeat of that cold war experience with the U.S. arming and equipping militaries, essentially putting forward a military fist but covering it up with the velvet glove of humanitarianism and development."   AFRICOM's key goals are to secure African oil and contain China - both of which are crucial to maintaining the U.S. as a superpower. Oil from Africa now accounts for more than 10% of U.S. oil imports, the second largest percentage after Canada and Latin America and more than all oil imported from the Middle East. Meanwhile, China has major investments in exploration and industry across the continent and has surpassed the U.S. as Africa's largest trading partner.   AFRICOM has played a huge role in shaping the Malian military. Over the last decade the U.S. provided millions in military equipment and training to the administration of ousted President Toure. While the assistance was supposedly to the increase security and the country's ability to control their borders, human rights advocates feared it might be used against the Tuareg population in the north.   IMPACTS OF INTERVENTION   The war has resulted in a humanitarian crisis, with an estimated 230,000 internally displaced refugees within Mali and over a 144,000 fleeing to camps in neighboring Mauritania, Niger, Algeria or Burkina Faso. Many refugees used all their money for transport to safety and aid agencies are struggling to provide basic services in the camps.   In the initial weeks of foreign involvement there appears to be surprisingly high support for the French intervention considering the legacy of French rule. Residents of Bamako and southern Mali showed signs of relief that the deeply unpopular Ansar Dine and their allies were stopped in their push southward. Many progressives in Mali and West Africa have expressed their frustration and anger about the legacy of French and U.S. policies that led to both these unsavory occupations - one by Ansar Dine and the other by foreign powers. Though some on the African left have backed the French intervention, the dominant view was expressed by Emira Woods in an interview on the Real News. Woods pointed out that not only will intervention not address the root issues of economic inequality and political marginalization in the north but that the use of political solutions such as negotiations have not been exhausted.   While the northern cities have fallen quickly to French and Malian control, the war is likely to become more complicated in coming weeks. Ansar Dine fled into hiding in the Sahara and fighting will continue as French forces seek them out. The full impact of the French air bombings and ground fighting on civilians remains to be seen; journalists attempting to cover the war are limited to traveling in French convoys and humanitarian agencies have complained that they have not been allowed access to war zones. The Malian army has been accused of executing suspected rebel prisoners on several occasions and the Malian government is still dominated by military officials that participated in the 2012 coup. While some refugees may now be able to return home, a new wave of Tuaregs crossing into Mauritania told Aljazeera that they fear being targeted for revenge based on their ethnicity.   As in the case of Libya, foreign intervention is likely to have consequences that catalyze further instability and in turn provide the excuse for expanding the U.S. and European military presence. Already the U.S. is planning to establishment of a new base in Niger to fly surveillance drones over Mali and neighboring countries.   The pattern of increased U.S. militarization, exploitation of resources with no development of local economies, drought, and extreme weather from climate change is widespread. It means that wars such as the one underway in Mali may become increasingly common in Africa and beyond.   This presents the anti-war movement with new challenges: How do we build public consciousness about U.S. military agendas in Africa and the existence of operations across the African continent? How do we fight U.S. military expansion when bases appear and disappear overnight? How do we build resistance to the neoliberal and militarist policies that are at the root of the violence and humanitarian crisis going on now in Mali, funded by billions of U.S. tax-payer dollars?   ISRAELI ELECTIONS: PEACE NOT ON THE AGENDA   Another big challenge involves intensifying the fight against U.S. support for an Israeli state that is increasingly blatant in its land-grab policies and racism toward Palestinians. Less than two months after bombing Gaza and threatening a full scale ground invasion, Israelis went to the polls to elect a new Knesset in an election where the issues of war, peace, settlements and occupation were not part of the Israeli Jewish political debate.   Netanyahu won another term as Prime Minister but not without his Likud/Yisrael Beiteinu party losing seats to several far-right settler parties who have worked their way from the margins into leadership in all the most important institutions of Israeli society. Most notable among the new parties was Jewish Home led by the Naftali Bennet, who stated in a Guardian interview that there would never be a Palestinian state and that he supports the annexation of the majority of land in the West Bank. Leaders of other far right parties openly advocated policies such as stripping Palestinians within Israel of their citizenship rights and imposing loyalty tests.   While the "center left" party Yesh Atid led by former journalist Yair Lapid came in a surprising second place after Likud, this is no victory for peace much less Palestinian national rights. Lapid campaigned solely on the high cost of living and economic issues while on record as stating that "What I want is not a new Middle East, but to be rid of them and put a tall fence between us and them." The important thing, he added, is "to maintain a Jewish majority in the Land of Israel."   The participation of Palestinians living within Israel's pre-1967 borders had declined in recent elections, but this time they turned out to the polls in higher numbers than expected. The majority vote for one of three Arab-led parties, which although marginalized, use their platform in the Knesset to speak for equal rights for all within Israel. Each election even this minimal participation of Arabs is threatened. This time far right parties came close to banning the participation of Palestinian Knesset member Hanin Zoabi, a charismatic leader who argues that Israel should guarantee equal rights for all citizens rather than protect special privileges for Jews.   But the racism and resource grabs at the heart of Israel's settler colonial project are a recipe for permanent war, not equality and peace.   Thanks to Walter Turner for assistance in researching this article. For more on Mali, AFRICOM, and news on Africa and the African Diaspora, check out his program "Africa Today" which airs weekly on KPFA, Mondays at 7pm Pacific Time.

 

 

 

From: usaafricadialogue@googlegroups.com [mailto:usaafricadialogue@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Edward Mensah
Sent: Thursday, January 31, 2013 7:59 PM
To: usaafricadialogue@googlegroups.com
Subject: RE: USA Africa Dialogue Series - mali, france, and resources

 

 

Osagyefo Bangura,

 

I just read from a posting from this forum that African Diaspora remitted $530 billion to the mother land in 2012, more than 10 times the value of foreign direct aid, implying that well managed remittances can easily substitute for foreign aid. In essence, Africa does not need aid. But we keep borrowing and living on grants.  Once you take their money they ( the west) will keep having 'interest' in your domestic affairs.  For all you may care to know that uranium in the ground may only reside on Malian soil. The government in Bamako probably owes France and the west more than the value of the uranium. And that goes for most of the African resources.  On that basis, the only reason I can find for France coming to Mali to defend uranium mines is probably to make sure that there are resources to pay the loans. I  would do same if I were France.  AFRICANS SHOULD STOP TAKING DUBIOUS LOANS FOR PRESENT CONSUMPTION AT THE EXPENSE OF FUTURE GENERATIONS!!   The Diaspora should come out with novel ideas to securitize the remittance, create remittance-supported bonds tradable on capital markets to create wealth for the continent. We need good ideas not teary-eyed nostalgia for Kwame Nkrumah's ideas.  Let the Great Man rest in peace!  Ammi

 

Edward Mensah

 

Chicago

 

 

From: usaafricadialogue@googlegroups.com [mailto:usaafricadialogue@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Abdul Bangura
Sent: Thursday, January 31, 2013 2:25 PM
To: usaafricadialogue@googlegroups.com; usaafricadialogue
Subject: RE: USA Africa Dialogue Series - mali, france, and resources

 

Thank you, thank you, thank you, Mwalimu Kenneth Harrow, for your graceful concession. In fact, some high-level folks in Mali informed us this morning that France's plan is to divide the country and make a separate deal with the Tuareg, as they have demanded, so that France can loot the uranium. France is also eyeing the oil while stealing the gold through a French company that operates from Canada.

 

If anyone tells me that this is not the continuous steps to recolonize Africa, with Obama's drones bases to support the machinations, then I have TEN bridges in Washington to sell.

 

If our people on the Motherland and those of us in the Diaspora do not push vigorously and quickly for a Union of Afrikan States, for which Osagyefo Kwame Nkrumah and other Afrikan stalwarts lost their lives, to fight these Satanic imperialists, all of us are doomed!

 

 

 

----- Original Message -----

From: kenneth harrow

To: usaafricadialogue

Sent: 1/31/2013 12:01:47 PM

Subject: USA Africa Dialogue Series - mali, france, and resources

 

here is an argument in Le Monde to the effect that france's interest in  sending troops to mali were to assure regional security, especially in relation to the uranium mines in niger. this bolsters abdul's argument. at the same time hollande states france has no interest in the resources in mali. sorry if you don't read french, but that's the gist of the piece below
ken

Mines d'uranium : "la France n'a pas intérêt à ce que le conflit malien s'étende au Niger"

Le Monde.fr | 30.01.2013 à 20h37 • Mis à jour le 31.01.2013 à 13h41 Propos recueillis par Angela Bolis

Abonnez-vous
à partir de 1 €RéagirClasserImprimerEnvoyer

Partagerfacebooktwittergoogle +linkedin

La France a-t-elle, derrière son intervention au Mali, des intérêts économiques à protéger dans la région ? C'est ce qu'affirme Stéphane Lhomme, directeur de l'Observatoire du nucléaire, selon qui l'entrée en guerre de Paris vise directement à "sécuriser l'approvisionnement des centrales françaises en uranium : ce dernier est extrait dans les mines du nord du Niger, zone désertique seulement séparée du Mali... par une ligne sur les cartes géographiques".

C'est aussi ce qui est avancé dans certains titres de presse, comme le quotidien algérien El Watan, qui explique que "la proximité du Mali par rapport au Niger (4^e producteur mondial d'uranium), son appartenance à la région du Sahel considérée par les experts comme 'espace charnière pour le transport du pétrole et du gaz', et plus globalement au continent africain, théâtre de luttes d'influence entre les puissances économiques mondiales, sont autant de facteurs pouvant expliquer l'intervention française au Mali". Sur le site Atlantico enfin, le journaliste Florent Detroy, spécialiste des matières premières, est du même avis, estimant que "l'arrêt des mines du Niger serait catastrophique pour le groupe [Areva] et pour les Français", et que "le risque d'un 'choc uranium' du fait d'une internationalisation du conflit actuel au Mali n'est pas impossible". 

Dans un entretien au Monde.fr, Emmanuel Grégoire, directeur de recherche à l'Institut de recherche pour le développement (IRD), avance que, s'il n'y a pas de lien direct entre l'intervention de la France au Mali et ses mines d'uranium au Niger, il est clair que la France n'a pas intérêt à ce que le conflit s'étende à ce pays, qui assure un tiers des approvisionnements en uranium de son parc nucléaire.

 

• La France n'a-t-elle aucun intérêt, en termes de ressources naturelles, à protéger au Mali ?

François Hollande a assuré que la France n'avait pas de véritables intérêts actuellement au Mali. C'est vrai. Elle ne participe pas à l'extraction d'or, principale ressource d'exportation du pays. Mais à l'avenir, elle pourrait en avoir : dans le bassin de Taoudeni, du nom d'une oasis à cheval entre le nord du Mali et la Mauritanie, des permis de prospection ont été accordés à des compagnies algérienne, canadienne, angolaise et française (Total) pour trouver du pétrole.

Total a fait un premier forage (côté mauritanien), en 2010, qui a été estimé décevant. Elle avait prévu d'en faire un second, qui a été gelé en raison du conflit. Cette région malienne est, certes, très enclavée, mais elle pourrait s'avérer rentable avec la hausse du cours du pétrole, surtout si les gisements sont abondants et de qualité.

• Quels sont les intérêts de la France dans le pays voisin du Niger ?

Au Niger, la France n'exploite pas de pétrole : c'est la Chine qui est sur le marché, dans la région d'Agadem, et compte, à long terme, en exporter. Toutefois, c'est dans l'uranium que la France possède d'importants intérêts. Le Niger pèse en effet pour 30 % de l'approvisionnement des centrales nucléaires françaises.

Areva y possède deux mines, celle d'Arlit et celle d'Akokan. Et une troisième est en construction, à Imouraren. A l'horizon 2020, elle devrait produire 5 000 tonnes de minerai, et devenir la première mine d'uranium d'Afrique. Le Niger, propulsé au second rang des pays producteurs d'uranium, pèserait alors pour la moitié des approvisionnements de la France.

Après la prise d'otage meurtrière à In Amenas en Algérie, la France a décidé de sécuriser ses mines au Niger. Il y a eu des prises d'otage par le passé, or, avec la nouvelle mine d'Imouraren, le nombre d'employés dans les sites français devrait atteindre plus de 300 expatriés. Le président nigérien, Mahamadou Issoufou, a accepté la présence de forces françaises sur son territoire, alors que son prédécesseur s'y opposait. L'arrivée au pouvoir de François Hollande et de M. Issoufou, qui est membre de l'Internationale socialiste, a changé les relations entre les deux pays. Il a aussi prôné une intervention militaire au Mali, et a envoyé des troupes sur place, à Gao notamment.

 

 

-- 

kenneth w. harrow 

faculty excellence advocate

distinguished professor of english

michigan state university

department of english

619 red cedar road

room C-614 wells hall

east lansing, mi 48824

ph. 517 803 8839

harrow@msu.edu

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the "USA-Africa Dialogue Series" moderated by Toyin Falola, University of Texas at Austin.
For current archives, visit http://groups.google.com/group/USAAfricaDialogue
For previous archives, visit http://www.utexas.edu/conferences/africa/ads/index.html
To post to this group, send an email to USAAfricaDialogue@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to USAAfricaDialogue-
unsubscribe@googlegroups.com
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "USA Africa Dialogue Series" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to usaafricadialogue+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
 
 

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the "USA-Africa Dialogue Series" moderated by Toyin Falola, University of Texas at Austin.
For current archives, visit http://groups.google.com/group/USAAfricaDialogue
For previous archives, visit http://www.utexas.edu/conferences/africa/ads/index.html
To post to this group, send an email to USAAfricaDialogue@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to USAAfricaDialogue-
unsubscribe@googlegroups.com
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "USA Africa Dialogue Series" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to usaafricadialogue+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
 
 

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the "USA-Africa Dialogue Series" moderated by Toyin Falola, University of Texas at Austin.
For current archives, visit http://groups.google.com/group/USAAfricaDialogue
For previous archives, visit http://www.utexas.edu/conferences/africa/ads/index.html
To post to this group, send an email to USAAfricaDialogue@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to USAAfricaDialogue-
unsubscribe@googlegroups.com
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "USA Africa Dialogue Series" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to usaafricadialogue+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.