U.S. Defense Spending and the Battle of Ideas

"History has shown that where the Great Powers cannot colonize, they balkanize. This is what they did to the Austro-Hungarian Empire and this is what they have done and are doing in Africa. If we allow ourselves to be balkanized, we shall be re-colonized and be picked off one after the other...."-Kwame Nkrumah

My mother says in a verbal debate the one who throws the first punch has conceded the argument to the other side. At the bequest of the "invisible government", the Obama administration wants to increase war spending to record highs and has made clear that America has given up trying to persuade the world to accept its role as the supreme hegemon and instead has chosen to impose its self.

The overwhelming reliance on violence by the American government is obviously a response to declining ideological legitimacy around the world. The recession has eroded the mythology of neo-liberal economics. The attempts by the U.S. to impose its version of liberal democracy in Iraq and Afghanistan are extremely unpopular and along with the Israeli occupation of Palestine are radicalizing millions of young muslims in opposition. In Latin America a legion of left-wing political and social movements are directly challenging the historical dominance of the U.S. The American government finds its self increasingly marginalized, supporting a right-wing coup regime in Honduras and ignoring human rights violations against the poor in Colombia. Accordingly, the U.S.-lead "War on Drugs" in Latin America has been almost as tragic a failure there as in the ghettos of the U.S.

The waning influence of American ideological hegemony is being overcome by an anti-democratic attempt to force our "national interests" on the third world. This is the reason why in the first month of 2010, the U.S. has sold millions of dollars in weapons to Taiwan to threaten China, to authoritarian proxies in the middle-east and why the latest budget request from the Obama administration asked Congress to approve a record $708bn in defense spending for fiscal year 2011. The budget calls for a 3.4 per cent increase in the Pentagon's base budget to $549bn not including the occupations in Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan.

The "national interests" the U.S. is seeking to achieve around the world clearly do not include the interests of poor and working-class families in America. At the same time the Obama administration spends a greater amount of money on so called defense than ever before, it has announced a spending freeze on all Federal social programs. The recession has hit many American states hard and massive budget cuts have eroded the minimal safety-nets which existed before the financial crisis. Meanwhile, the American people who need help the most are being forced to pay for endless war and occupation in foreign lands.

The U.S. is clearly loosing the battle of ideas on environmental protection, socio-economic justice, and committment to a multi-polar world. The only way to stop their irrational rampage for market access and influence is for a united global justice movement to challenge the militarization of social problems and propose real solutions to the crises which affect us all.

Combating Africa's Anti-Gay 'Movement'

There is a widespread but unsubstantiated paranoia that the West is trying to spread homosexuality here in Africa. In the African political culture of the 21st century the enemy of African self-determination is not the mindless consumerism, exploitation of natural resources or military intrusion but 'the gays'. Ironically, homophobia is about the closest thing to an anti-imperialist movement in existence here today. This is the sick reality in a continent that has long-buried the progressive memories of Kwame Nkrumah, Samora Machel and Thomas Sankara.

Senegal is one of at least 38 African countries, which sentences homosexuals and their heterosexual allies to long-term prison sentences. The most infamous case has come as the Ugandan legislature moved to pass a strict bill that would detain and execute homosexual violators. There are several reasons to oppose this bill in particular for the social justice movement. For starters this legislation would be a huge setback for the fight against HIV and AIDS in Uganda; a country that has shown significant progress in fighting the disease in recent years. The stigma, criminalization and discrimination of men who have sex with men is likely to deter them from pursuing HIV prevention and treatment services from the government. This would no doubt be of minor consequence to an evangelical Christian, as many have come to Africa preaching Jesus' salvation as the cure for AIDS.

The Ugandan anti-gay legislation is yet another example of the impact ultra-conservative Christian missionaries have in Africa. The New York Times reported how in the lead up to the legislation, thousands of Ugandans, including police officers, teachers and national politicians, listened raptly to the Americans, who were presented as experts on homosexuality. Furthermore, although the Ugandan legislation has been the subject of bi-partisan rebuke in the U.S., there is a prominent right-wing movement there that uses similar hate-filled rhetoric freely on cable television and the pulpit with little criticism.

Of course, Western Christians are not the only source of homophobia in the continent. My predominantly Muslim 11th grade American Government class recently remarked to me their fears of a vast American conspiracy to spread homosexuality throughout Africa. To resolve the problem, half of the students recommended the punishment of death by a show of hands. A few discussed in great detail how to carry such executions out and quoted specific passages from the Islamic Hadith to justify the actions.

Homophobia is only one of several fruits born from the destruction of the African left. Throughout the continent there is routine violence against poor immigrants coming from neighboring countries. South Africa is one of the most extreme examples of reactionary violence toward other Africans who share virtually the same histories, and class struggles against neo-liberal globalization. Today, as Africa fights poverty, disease and external exploitation it must also face a growing and usually unchallenged right-wing political culture that pervades much of the continent's government's and civil society. When caught between the choice of cultural relativism and social justice, we should always choose the latter.

Why is Obama Recycling Africa's "Good Governance" Myth?

I was originally excited to watch President Obama's first speech in sub-Saharan Africa but after a few sentences of the written transcript I realized any hope of equal partnerships between the administration and African governments on development issues is highly unlikely. In addition to many others, one particular passage caught my eye and I think it summarizes the general attitude and tone of his message. Speaking in regards to his brand of "transformational change" in Africa he commented,

"This progress may lack the drama of 20th century liberation struggles, but make no mistake: It will ultimately be more significant. For just as it is important to emerge from the control of other nations, it is even more important to build one's own nation...This is a new moment of great promise. Only this time, we've learned that it will not be giants like Nkrumah and Kenyatta who will determine Africa's future. Instead, it will be you — the men and women in Ghana's parliament — the people you represent."

Obama's speech to the Ghanaian parliament was clearly designed to counter the growing influence of Chinese investment in Africa via defining America's leadership role in the continent as a mentor for its allied countries around the concept of "good governance". There are several issues surrounding the use of the ambiguous term "good governance", as often thrown around by western governments and NGO's (Tanzanian scholar Issa G. Shivji gives one of the most damaging critiques of the paternalism lying underneath the phrase here) but the elusive definition of the phrase is not the focus of this post.

President Obama's insistence on "good governance" and persistent criticisms of "strongmen" in Africa was sadly misplaced. The reality is sustainable economic growth in the continent is actually stymied by weak leadership, not the inverse. Historical weaknesses of African leadership (and institutions) is one of the lasting legacies of European colonialism in the continent. As discussed in a paper sponsored by the World Bank Commission on Growth and Development, it is the lack of effective, consistent, and visionary leadership in Africa that prevents it from moving beyond its current state in the political economy. Author Benjamin Mkapa laments the political and economic reality that African leaders have often lacked preparation, and financial resources to bring their visions to life, leaving governments weak and incapable of responding to crises.

"I believe that Africa’s trajectory of development would have been very different
and much more positive had the departing colonial powers behaved differently,
including treating Africans with greater respect; helping them to train and build
capacity of independence leaders and administrators; helping to build strong
institutions to deal with the challenges that the new countries faced rather than
trying to perpetuate institutions intended to promote, sustain, and defend
Western economic and political interests; and giving the new governments space
and the wherewithal to realize the vision and dreams they had for their newly
independent countries."

Mkapa also lists 10 issues he believes are essential for leadership in Africa "if the continent is to make greater headway in growth, development, and poverty reduction". There are even some lessons that can be learned from some of Africa's emergent post-colonial leaders like Julius Nyere of Tanzania.

President Obama was quite dismissive of the fact that the colonial legacy in Africa is in fact enduring, as newly independent countries like Ghana inherited the political and economic institutions of their former colonizers. For all of their faults, former leaders like Kwame Nkrumah and Julius Nyere can not be blamed for Africa's lack of growth and poverty reduction today--nor for that matter even corrupt autocrats in 2009.

As in any other continent, democracy is an important goal for every African government to ascribe. However, the rhetoric about democratic governance in Africa overlooks the fact that many of the most authoritarian regimes around the world today post the highest growth- rates and have been more effective in eradicating poverty than so called democratic ones i.e. China. Maybe objective observers should be less concerned about whether they are "good" in some abstract normative sense, so much as they are effective. If the Obama administration's foreign policy resembles anything close to the lecture he gave the government of Ghana you can expect to see more of this.

Muammar Al-Gaddafi, Italy, and the United States of Africa

All eyes have been on Libyan leader Muammar Al-Gaddafi during his first official visit to Libya's former colonial master, Italy. Per his usual eccentric style, there has been no shortage of controversy during his trip. Al-Gaddafi blasted the U.S. for hypocrisy in its war against terrorism, gave a well received speech to hundreds of well-clad Italian women, and suggested that Europe substitute representative democracy for a more direct democratic system along the lines of the Great Socialist People's Libyan Arab Jamahiriya.



When Gaddafi was elected in February as leader of the African Union, the drums began beating again for a United States of Africa. While discussion of such a Pan-African dream has taken place for decades, no concrete steps have been taken to make it reality.

Today, Africa yet remains fragmented into both large and small countries carved by former colonial powers. The artificial divisions have lead to an untold number of ethnic conflicts, resource wars and an inability for many small countries to compete in the global economy. My hope is that a United States of Africa like the ideal being pushed by Al- Gaddafi, can finally bring an era of peace and development to a continent that has been riddled with internal divisions and extreme poverty.

Of course, there are many skeptics who doubt the feasability of continental unity in our lifetimes. They say a slower unification plan is more likely. The first leader of Ghana, Kwame Nkrumah, is perhaps the most remembered for his unrivaled advocacy for a politically unified continent. His warning that a gradualist, regional approach to continental unification was impossible, has been adopted by Colonel Gadaffi as he makes his case before the African Union.

Kwame Nkrumah's vision was ahead of its time, but how far? Is the U.S.A. possible in my life time? For now, it remains a dream.