Auto Draft

US Army-Libya Army try to advance relations

[caption id="" align="aligncenter" width="462" caption="TRIPOLI, Libya - Major General William B. Garrett, commanding general, U.S. Army Africa (front row, center), meets with key Libyan military leaders during a trip to Libya to discuss the emerging relationship between U.S. Army and Libyan land forces in early May 2010"][/caption]

The US and Libyan armed forces of both countries are trying to establish new military ties after years of being enemies.

The U.S. Army Africa commanding general made a historic trip to Libya to discuss the emerging relationship between the U.S. Army and Libya's land forces in early May 2010.

Major General William B. Garrett III visited Tripoli, where he held talks with key Libyan military leaders. The visit indicates the U.S. Army's commitment toward building a cooperative relationship with Libya's land forces and increasing regional security.

Garrett's visit was coordinated through the U.S. Embassy Tripoli, and U.S. Ambassador Gene Cretz greeted Garrett at Mitiga International Airport.

"We are gradually opening a dialog that has not existed between our land forces in a long time," Garrett said. "Times have changed and relationships must change too."

The general's first stop was the headquarters of the North African Regional Capability (NARC) to meet Major General Ahmid Auwn, Libya's chief of staff for Army Mechanized Units and Executive Director of the NARC. The NARC is part of the African Standby Force, which consists of five regional brigade-size commands that can support the African Union during times of crisis. Libyan willingness to open a dialogue with the U.S. Army is in an important part of increasing regional cooperation.

"We will look to the NARC leadership to work together on future events that are mutually beneficial," Garrett said.

The general also toured the Libyan Bureau of Technical Cooperation and National Committees and the Libyan Military Staff College, where he met with the director, Major General Ahmid Mahmud Azwai. These visits emphasized the importance of material standardization, training and education in developing future leaders.

Garrett's visit follows a military cooperation committee meeting held in Tripoli in late-February, where delegations of Libyan and U.S. military officers discussed areas of common interest and planned future partnership events, said Major Philip Archer, U.S. Army Africa's North African Regional Desk Officer. "Proposed events include inviting Libyan officers to visit Army schools in the United States, holding discussion on border security, conducting medical exchanges and sharing helicopter procedures," Archer said.

One of U.S. Army Africa's goals is to help Libya and other members of the NARC build the brigade into a capable force that is interoperable with other regional standby forces and can be used for peace support operations.

"U.S. Army Africa's discussions in Tripoli are a positive step toward working together with Libya's military," Garrett said. "We now have a better understanding of each other's goals and can work together to achieve increased security, stability and peace in North Africa."

Garrett concluded his trip to Libya with a wreath laying ceremony at the tomb of fallen American sailors, who perished when their ship exploded in Tripoli harbor in 1804.

This is a continuation of Africa's new importance to the US. The US lifted the embargo that was in place while Libya was developing its Nuclear program uptill 2004.

Sept. 20, 2004 - President Bush revoked the United States trade embargo on Libya on Monday and took other steps aimed at eventually establishing normal relations with the government of Col. Muammar el-Qaddafi in return for its keeping a promise to give up nuclear, chemical and biological weapons.....

Among the steps taken by Mr. Bush were the removal of economic restrictions on aviation services, permitting direct flights between the United States and Libya; unfreezing $1.3 billion in assets; and providing what Mr. McClellan said would be "a level playing field for U.S. businesses in Libya" by allowing them to secure American economic benefits for foreign investment.....

With the lifting of most economic sanctions, the way is clear for American oil companies to try to secure contracts or to revive previous contracts for Libya's vast oil reserves.

US companies were the big winners in lifting of the sanctions. They won most of the new contract bids.

US oil companies have been awarded most of the contracts on offer at the first open licence auction in Libya.

More data in us oil imports from Libya.

Investments in Africa starting to pay off for Bric countries.

Buy low, sell high as they say.  It seems the BRIC nations ( Brazil, Russia, India, China) have taken that advice to heart. There early investments in Africa are showing results.

Africa has garnered attention as the next hot spot for foreign investors—and it's not just the West that's looking to the continent. Despite the recession, direct investment by the BRICs has soared, and at a much faster pace than those of Europe and the U.S.

A look at foreign direct investment from 2007-08 (the latest year available):

Percentage increase in EU investment in Africa, to $27.3 billion

Percentage increase in Brazilian, Russian, and Indian investment in Africa, to $2.35 billion

Percentage increase in Chinese investment in Africa, to $5.5 billion

Percentage decrease in American investment in Africa, to $3.3 billion

Source: Overseas Development Institute

Auto Draft

The West must approach Africa in a new light

French President Nicholas Sarkozy said it well this past week at the France-Africa summit when he said this about Africa in today's world: “Africa’s formidable demographics and its considerable resources make it the main reservoir for world economic growth in the decades to come.”

Chatham House has a new report that states the relationship between the West and Africa should be looked at in a new prism. Asian countries seemed to have caught the changing winds especially countries like China, Japan, India but many western countries have yet to fully adjust to the changing reality. Russia has a renewed interest, Brazil as well.  France due to historical reasons will always have interest in Africa and the lastest summit hosted by French President seems try and a new course with Africa.  Reuters has a similar take:

For the past ten years, fundamental change has been taking place across large parts of Africa. Growth rates and stability have increased. Political, regulatory and security reform have deepened. Increasing investment from China, but also Brazil, India, Turkey, South Korea, Argentina and other ambitious emerging powers has acted for the most part as an accelerant.

Even the global financial crisis has in some ways hastened this process, for while in the short and medium term it had a devastating impact on millions across Africa, it has also revealed the true ebb of power from East to West, and encouraged the new economic actors of the G20 to chase access to the 40 percent of the world’s mineral resources, and 1 billion consumers gathered in Africa. Almost as important is the 25 percent of UN General Assembly votes that are represented by the continent’s 53 countries.

Meanwhile, many Western countries seem trapped in a humanitarian conception of Africa.

Popular media coverage and policy judgement is overwhelmed with a perception that Africa is simply a problem continent with little strategic value, except as a space where largess is shown and good things done to make up in some small way for the messy reality of international diplomacy.

This is not only delusional and self indulgent, but damaging. For emerging power interest is showing that Africa is not a space distinct from the rest of the world. Many of their investments are valuable and welcome, but others are as exploitative and damaging as anything under colonialism.

Without a Western strategic and business engagement – bringing with it a focus on sustainability, regulation and transparency, the progress of the past 10 years is unlikely to be sustained. For the truth is that China’s development policy is first and foremost about China’s development, not Africa’s, and as yet the governments of many emerging powers are not focusing enough on ensuring their investments in Africa are sustainable, and therefore equitable.

African leaders have never faced so much choice, but they need to show more foresight as well, for it is only by combining the energy of the emerging East, with the regulation of the West, that Africa’s, and the world’s interests will be served. That needs Western strategic engagement, but more fundamentally it requires more effective leadership from within Africa itself. Post financial crisis, the opportunities for Africa and the world economy, but also the risks, have never been higher.

These are the main highlights of the report by Chatham House:

• African countries are playing a more strategic role in international affairs. Global players that understand this and develop greater diplomatic and trade relations with African states will be greatly advantaged.


• For many countries, particularly those that have framed their relations with Africa largely in humanitarian terms, this will require an uncomfortable shift in public and policy perceptions. Without this shift, many of Africa's traditional partners, especially in Europe and North America, will lose global influence and trade advantages to the emerging powers in Asia, Africa and South America.


• China's re-engagement is for the most part welcome, as is that of the increasing numbers of emerging powers such as Turkey, South Korea and Brazil that see Africa in terms of opportunities - as a place in which to invest, gain market share and win access to resources.


• Economic fortunes across Africa are now diverging, making it less meaningful to treat Africa as a single entity in international economic negotiations. Despite this, it is in the global interest that the African Union should be granted a permanent place at the G20. In turn, a more focused, sophisticated and strategic African leadership is needed.

Nothing to disagree with, as a matter of fact these are the points that we at Stratsis Incite have been emphasizing all along.

Will having the World in Africa increase investment?

Thoughtful article. You only have to look at the US airline carriers (delta and united) growth in routes this year direct to Africa. . To underscore this shift in thinking about the continent. As well as it’s historic underinvestment.

With the sporting world about to shift its attention to South Africa for the next month, it could be a good time for countries to reassess their relations with the continent as a whole.

Two reports this week, one from U.K.-based think tankChatham House and one from consultancy McKinsey & Co, do just that.

McKinsey’s forecasts says sub-Sahara Africa is well-positioned to become the developing world’s “next great success story” and an investment target for those seeking new markets. [Read the report here.]

Meanwhile, Chatham House said that many Western nations are still weighed down by perceptions of Africa as an aid recipient rather than a strategic trading partner and risk missing opportunities that China and Brazil are already tapping into. [Read the report here.]

Why does it matter?

As Chatham House points out, Africa accounts for 40% of the world’s basic mineral resources, 10% of freshwater supplies and 15% of agriculture land. It’s also about to become a larger player in the world’s oil production.

The rise in prices for minerals such as gold and copper since 2000 has helped lift the continent’s GDP. McKinsey says its collective GDP as of 2008 was $1.6 trillion, roughly equal to that of Brazil’s or Russia’s, and that real GDP growth rose by 4.9% between 2000 and 2008, more than twice its pace of the 1980s and 1990s.

While the financial crisis in the past two years seriously cut African trade and reduced foreign investment, it’s picking up again.

In the iron ore sector alone — important as iron ore is used to make steel — some of the world’s biggest mining groups have struck important investment deals in West Africa this year.

Developing nations have latched onto Africa’s economic potential and have increased their share in Africa’s total exports and imports in 2009, Standard Chartered research shows — emerging economies increased their share of Africa’s total exports in 2009 to 40% from 33% in 2008 and for imports to 47% from 46%.

Chatham House compiled data for export and import values between different countries and the African continent, showing export values to Africa grew between 2006 and 2008 by about 50% for the U.S. to $29 billion and 87% for China to $50 billion.

Africa is also becoming a good destination for goods — Africa is urbanizing and has as many cities with populations of at least one million, just as Europe does, McKinsey says.

There are risks to growth and investment, however. The individual countries in Africa face serious challenges such as poverty and disease. Political uncertainty and corruption are also still strong in many countries.

“Wars, natural disasters or poor government policies could halt or even reverse these gains in any individual country,” research from McKinsey Global Institute said. “But in the long term, internal and external trends indicate that Africa’s economic prospects are strong.”

Recent posts on the World Cup here and here.

Graph of the day

Engrossing graph encountered while researching the effect of Chinese investment in Africa (click on it for the full size version):



From the excellent World Bank report, Africa’s Silk Road.

American Peace keepers in the Congo?

Analyst Michael O’Hanlon’s proposes that the U.S. send forces to Democratic Republic of Congo to kick-start a new peacekeeping organization that might help rescue the country from scores of overlapping conflicts. The existing U.N. force just isn’t working — and the DRC government wants those peacekeepers to leave.

The UN has had peacekeepers in the Democratic Republic of Congo for a decade. Congolese President Joseph Kabila, hoping to show he’s not reliant on the blue helmets, wants the force to go in 2011.  Almost every outside analyst thinks that this could precipitate a disaster, with militias running rampant, the hopeless Congolese army unable to cope and the country’s neighbors moving in to gobble up territory.

The UN hopes that it will be able to keep at least some troops – maybe about 6,000, compared to the current 20,000 – to protect civilians in the especially vulnerable eastern Congo. This would do some good, but how much? The peacekeepers were thoroughly outmaneuvered by militias in the east in 2008, and I’m not sure that a reduced presence could do more than stifle low-level violence. What is to be done?

O’Hanlon had pleaded his case in an interview for World Politics Review column last week:

Ideally, we’d see an entire American brigade, but that’s not realistic. Barring that, how about a battalion doing a mission along the lines of Special Forces, doing intelligence-gathering and planning? … That would enable a country like France, which is not as globally committed but is afraid to stick its neck out [to deploy troops]. We need more Western forces.

I’m afraid that’s not going to happen, although I applaud O’Hanlon’s advocating an idealistic but unpopular line.

France is trying to cut back its presence in Africa, and there are huge obstacles to it playing a role in the Great Lakes region — the locals haven’t forgotten the questionable French part in the Rwandan genocide.

But I think that there may be a broader fallacy here: the idea that getting new combat forces into the Congo is what’s needed in the first place. Yes, the U.N. has struggled with 20,000 troops — but as I think O’Hanlon himself once noted, you might need up to 200,000 to stabilize somewhere on the scale of Congo. Rather than focus on numbers, I’d try to see if there are any light-weight ways the U.S. can affect the  political decision-making of [DRC President] Kabila and his neighbors (especially the hawkish Rwandans).

Here’s one possible formula. While the U.N. should maintain the 6,000 troops on active protection duties, the U.S. should deploy around 100 military observers to operate in the U.N. framework. Why? The U.N. already has a bunch of observers in Congo, and the U.S. is said to have spooks and special forces in the east. But American colonels and captains publicly monitoring the situation would send a clear message to the Congolese and their neighbors that Washington wants calm. This American mini-presence would also play a tripwire role: it’s one thing to outflank and embarrass standard U.N. infantry, but quite another to play games in front of U.S. observers.

What makes this option half-credible is that the Obama administration has already thought about sending more military staff officers on UN missions – the President said so himself last year – so this idea is not too far from current policy.  That said, the U.S. has just 10 military experts in UN operations at present (the figures are here).  2 of them are in the Congo.  The Pentagon is rumored to be unenthusiastic about  helping the UN – but 100 personnel is not beyond the realms of the possible.  They don’t need to be O’Hanlon’s green berets… though that would be nice.

I don’t think that 100 Europeans would have the same effect.  China, which has invested a lot in the Congo, could send more observers or regular troops and reinforce the American message.  I can see this proposal running into lots of quibbles, but it might be just the low-cost, high-profile help the UN needs in Congo now.

The U.S. Congress has also recently passed a law requiring the U.S. military to craft a strategy for defeating one of Congo’s most dangerous rebel groups.

World Cup and Economics

Goldman Sachs may have taken a lot of heat lately, but they may have done themselves a great favor by releasing their 2010 World Cup Research Report earlier this month. Running a little over 70 pages, it's a remarkably in-depth summary of each country in this year's finals, including football prowess, economic state, and political situation. Furthermore, it provides a primer on the potential hosts of the 2018 and 2022 World Cups, and, unsurprisingly but more than interesting, an examination of economic growth and decline vis-a-vis the international football teams of respective countries.

Some of the most noteworthy things to take away: like most of the speculation has focused on, the report predicts a European-hosted cup in 2018, and a return to the U.S. in 2022. (Also included are bid pitches from Russia, England, and the U.S.) Interestingly, this is what it says about the U.S. bid:

The sport has taken roots in the USA and the market is quickly becoming one of FIFA’s most important. They already pay one of the largest television rights fees to FIFA of any country. However, the perception is still otherwise.

For U.S. soccer fans, that perception is extremely frustrating. It is somewhat accurate: for a team that has qualified for the last six World Cups (granted, a Foreign Policy* staff team could probably qualify for the finals out of the Confederation of North, Central American, and Caribbean Association Football -- CONCACAF), interest would appear to be lower than warranted. (Six out of six is, by the way, quite impressive: England, France, and the Netherlands can't claim that streak.)

But that's changing. Go to many bars in the District on Saturday or Sunday morning, and you'll see European football -- usually the English Premier League -- on the TV. From my own observations (be wary of perception bias), the sport with the most jerseys worn on the streets of Northern Virginia and D.C. is soccer, by far. Moreover, 24.5 million Americans play football, the second most  (behind China's 26.2 million) in the world. Since 1994, there has been a dramatic increase in the number of U.S. soccer fans, but among casual or non-fans, there still remains an idea that soccer is not an "American" sport. (It should also be noted that the U.S. Women's team is the dominant global powerhouse.)

UEFA's (Union of European Football Associations) selection of the 2012 Euro Cup host proved prescient, as well. Picking in 2007, Poland won the rights to host the tournament (OK, co-host with Ukraine, but since then UEFA has suggested Poland be the sole host, which the Poles have graciously declined to accept). Poland, however, was the only bid country that hasn't suffered economic decline since -- and yes, Greece was the first bid country eliminated.

Other notable findings: the Growth Environment Scores (a Goldman-devised figure of sustainable economic growth and productivity) of respective countries loosely correlate to soccer performance, but a much stronger connection exists between the improvement of economic conditions and national soccer teams. (Algeria, which did not qualify for the 2006 finals in Germany, posted the highest GES improvement among developing countries over the last four years.) The report also argues that success is partially dependent on the number of males aged 18-34 in countries, and provides a UN chart with predictions for 2050. If the claim is accurate, the Nigerian Super Eagles are going to be really, really good in a few decades.

Lastly, Goldman offers their own predictions of the semi-finals (I won't spoil, though I will say it's what my predictions are as well), and lists the probability (with their metrics) that each country will become World Cup champions.

It's lengthy, but an extremely interesting read, and provides the best rundown of the Cup to come that I've seen. Check it out.

African nations seek reform in major world institutions.

[caption id="" align="aligncenter" width="411" caption="French President Nicolas Sarkozy spoke at a press conference with his South African counterpart Jacob Zuma."][/caption]

African nations voiced a need for change in world major institutions like the World Bank, United Nations, & International Monutary Fund.

More than 50 African countries and France called on Tuesday for an urgent reform of the United Nations Security Council and other institutions so the continent can better be represented in global governance.At the close of the 25th Africa-France summit, France announced plans to ensure African nations are better represented at the G-20 when France takes its turn at the helm of the group.

France and the 39 heads of state and government and 12 other national delegations which met for two days in the Riviera city of Nice called for African states to be fully integrated into the global economy.

The summit reviewed issues from peace and security to climate change but added a new dimension by inviting more than 200 business leaders to encourage development through free enterprise. A charter for good business was adopted to encourage transparency among French businesses operating in Africa and, it is hoped, serve as a model for companies from elsewhere.

France agreed to support the African Union in strengthening security on the continent, including the African Standby Force, and pledged ¤300 million ($369.1 million) for 2010 to 2012 and agreed to train 12,000 African troops for peacekeeping by the African Union and U.N.

French President Nicolas Sarkozy stressed that France, once a colonial ruler on the African continent, wants to strengthen its role on all parts of the continent where countries that are traditional outsiders, notably China, are profiting from multibillion dollar projects.

"France doesn't just want to be friends with francophone countries ... What we want is for France to talk to all of Africa," Mr. Sarkozy said at the closing session. The French president did away with the traditional "dinner among friends" featured at Africa-France summits in which only leaders of former colonies are invited. He held a dinner for all attendees Monday night.

"You are all friends, all of you, and we can build together," he said.

France has been pressing for a greater voice for Africa in critical international forums, such as the G-20 and the Security Council, where there are five permanent members with veto rights—and where Africa, which makes up some 25% of U.N. members, wants a voice.

South African President Jacob Zuma called the summit "very useful."

"We believe strongly that times have changed," he said. Climate change was a major issue at the summit, and the leaders linked it to development.

They agreed to support creation of a renewable energy plan for a sustainable electricity system "based on concrete projects and innovative financing." Among such projects would be use of solar power.

France announced creation of the African Agriculture Fund, an investors' fund, for food distribution and other projects, to initially raise $120 million and that could reach $300 million, according to a final statement.

The next summit is to be held in 2013 in Egypt, where the just-ended meeting was initially meant to be held. Because of concern that Sudanese President Omar al-Bashir, sought by the International Criminal Court for allegedly masterminding atrocities in Darfur, would be invited, France persuaded Cairo to allow the gathering to convene in Nice.

Zimbabwe's President Robert Mugabe, facing EU sanctions travel restrictions, also wasn't invited. The nation of Madagascar, the Indian Ocean island where a 2009 coup toppled an elected president, was excluded from the summit.

More background on previous post about the France-Africa summit.