The Lofty Lantern

Four centuries after European countries realized that slavery pays, the world is again interested in the economic potential of Africa.

The obsession du jour is about China; just how much are they investing in Africa, and what does this mean for world efforts to isolate dictatorships in countries like Zimbabwe and Rwanda?

But investment in Africa is anything but a Chinese phenomenon. In fact, it seems like everybody is jumping into the continent, head first.

A new buy-out fund with a focus on sub-Saharan Africa raised 325 million dollars, largely from members of the Saudi monarchy. Run by Zephyr Management, a group that has decided to avoid Russia and China, feeling that they are already over-invested in. A British cellphone company recently spent 900 million dollars to get a 70% stake of Ghana Telecom.

But like it was during the race for colonies, money and power are interlinked. Countries from China to India, to France and the US, are seeking both economic gain for their companies, and influence for their governments.

Though India has been notably slower to capitalize on the region than China or even some Western countries, they are trying to catch up. A few weeks ago, business papers were abuzz with the possible purchase of MTN, the major South African cell phone company by the Indian Reliance Communications that could have been a behemoth in the developing worlds.

For India, the sub-Saharan African countries have a triple value: they possess immense resources needed by developing and developed economies, they could become a significant market, and they wield more than a quarter of the votes in the UN, which could be crucial in getting them the permanent seat on the UN Security Council that they covet.

Though the chase for resources in Africa is reminiscent of the Great Game of colonialism in the 19th century, there are some who argue that the influx of capital is a generally positive addition to the continent. Then again, there were those who made - and make - similar arguments about colonialism.

India is trying to appear as a nicer China, offering also large amounts of money but not to genocidal dictators. They want to “add value” to the region.

Generally, though, there are some sub-Saharan African countries which seem to be naturally rising. After a nearly three decade civil war, Angola, for example, seems to be on the road to a profitable peace. The Council for Foreign Relations published an influential memo arguing that Angola could be an oasis of stablity in the region, and a potentially useful US ally. This doesn’t mean that there are no issues, but there certainly seems to be the increasing sense that Africa is open for business for everybody.

France is becoming particularly active, stepping up its economic interests in Africa. Recently, they signed a deal to build nuclear reactors with the possibility of the deal expanding to military equipment like helicopters in their former colony, Algeria. Sarkozy has promised a “rupture” in Franco-African relations; On their agenda is an increase of 1 billion Euros to Africa through the French Development Agency with a particular focus on African entrepreneurs. A rupture may be exactly what is needed as French Ambassadors in Africa reported that the French reputation in the continent is still afflicted by its history of colonialism. More recently, French actions in Rwanda and other countries have done little to impress the region. Now, however, France has been a strong backer of Chad whose position is being weakened by aggressive action on the part of Sudan.

The impact of all these moves is uncertain. Notably, in Goldman Sachs’ recent report declaring the most economically important developing countries, none of the top four (Brazil, Russia, India and China i.e. BRIC), were found in sub-Saharan Africa. Still, a country like Kenya, which had been percieved as being a highly successful state, almost collapsed under the weight of ethnic hatred and a disputed election. But the increased attention, however, being paid by big companies and big governments alike, may have an impact. Eventually.

Posted under Uncategorized | No Comments »

This blog was begun as a project to see if somewhat smart recent college graduates could produce coherent work. We planned on doing anything and everything we could on any topic that interested us in order to produce something interesting. Some have asked why we haven’t made any official statement of purpose; frankly, it seemed rather presumptuous. And we didn’t know if our plan would actually be implemented, or if we would change it.

Like now.

This piece won’t be coherent. There isn’t a point to this post. It’s a toy, if you will. I want to posit a phenomenon which may or may not exist, and may or may not be of interest. I call it ideological reading; it refers to people who (unintentionally) mis-read articles or books in away that fits in with their ideological leanings. I imagine we all do this, but I’m going to note some interesting times where this occurs. I’m sure others could do this with how I read - frankly, I hope they do. It’s helpful to know our own biases.

Martin Peretz, the former publisher of the New Republic, wrote an article commenting on Nicholas Kristof’s op-ed piece in the New York Times on the Iraqi refugees that are flooding the rest of the Middle East. Peretz’s comments have some significant flaws, of course - there’s this strange (and frankly vaguely racist) blending of Baathist Sunnis with all Sunnis or even all Iraqi Sunnis or the specific Iraqi Sunni refugees, and an unclear aside at the end against Kristof’s phrase “the new Palistineans.”

But then M.J. Rosenberg comments on it. Rosenberg is a former AIPAC staffer who became an impassioned advocate of the two-state solution in regards to Israel and Palestine in the aftermath of Oslo. Recently, he has started to write frequently for TPMCafe.com about the region and the issue. The entire column is a bit vitriolic, but sufficiently liquid as to be difficult to place and so qualify as being accurate or not. One line, though, is especially strange.

Rosenberg says: “In this column, he pummels columnist Nick Kristof for having called Iraqi refugees “the new Palestinians.” Peretz is troubled by Kristof’s compassion. He even ridicules the Times’ columnist’s role in bringing Darfur to the world’s attention.”

Well, Peretz does talk about Darfur in his piece. This is what he says:
“Actually, [Kristof] was the first to notice Darfur and maybe even the first to move us by it. But he shies away from real solutions, like in Darfur where the only way to stop the killing is the deployment of Western force. Both bombs and bullets.”

That’s called ridicule for bringing Darfur to the world’s attention? Dismantling his line doesn’t seem fair, but one wonders; what would bring somebody to so badly misread a person’s column? Especially one on which one is commenting? Again, I won’t claim to provide any coherent answers or comments; just toys

Posted under Uncategorized | 2 Comments »

You have not lived until you’ve seen an obese 65 year old white guy singing (marginally well) with a largely black Gospel choir on a float going down 5th Avenue for the Gay Pride Parade singing “Jesus is Coming.”

On that note, in the unlikely circumstance that I convert to Christianity (or, for that matter, homosexuality), I’ve gotta say that “Flaming for Christ” is where I’d be.

There are really few things quite as comical as a New York Gay Pride Parade; There were a number of very noticeable differences between the JewGays and the Christian gays. The Christian gays were, by and large, without shirts and singing about Jesus and God. The Jewish gays were the only people there (on the floats, I mean) who wore shirts, couldn’t dance, and were singing “Shalom” over and over again. It looked less like a Gay Pride Parade and more like an afternoon party of the local ACLU chapter; then again, maybe it was.

Or maybe what it resembled was less an ACLU meeting than the Israeli Day Parade. The shirts they wore were invariably draped with the Israeli flag and there were a remarkable amount of kippahs in the audience. The only difference was the aforementioned bad dancing by the guys, and the lack of 14 year old girls screaming incomprehensibly. That is, I suppose, why we need multiple parades for the multiple sets of crazies to reveal themselves

Posted under Uncategorized | No Comments »

The long fight over the 123 Nuclear Agreement may be coming to a head this week.

Friends often bring enemies, in politics at least. The Samjwadi Party’s 36 votes would be crucial for the Congress Party to pass the 123 Agreement, but they come at a price. 17 votes, to put it precisely. Though the Bahujan Samaj Party is declaring its opposition to Prime Minister Manmohan Singh’s government because of his economic issues, the final straw for the independent leftist party is seen to be the closening relationship between Singh and Mulayam Singh’s Samjawdi Party.

The Communist Party of India (Marxist) (CPI(M)) moved closer to implementing their threat of withdrawing their support to Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh’s government over his support of the 123 Nuclear Agreement with the United State. They hope to build an anti-BJP (conservative party) coalition by gaining the support of the Samjwadi Party as well as the other Marxist and independent leftist parties.

Posted under Uncategorized | No Comments »

Samajwadi might mean Socialist in Hindi, but these days it means King in Indian politics. The independent party’s nearly 40 seats in the Indian Parliament constitute a crucial swing bloc in the vote for the 123 Nuclear Agreement with the United States, and the ruling Congress Party is ready to do almost anything to secure their impassioned and continuing support.

Samajwadi Party leader Mulayam Singh Yadav is signalling his willingness to back the centrist Congress Party and their 123 Nuclear Agreement and oppose his old allies on the left but not without a price. One of the things on the Samajwadi Party’s wish list is the tabling of legislation wanted by Congress Party powerhouse, and widow, sister-in-law, daughter-in-law and granddaughter-in-law of Indian Prime Ministers Sonia Gandhi, which would reserve 1/3 of the seats of the legislature to women. Opponents, of which Mulayam is one, believe that this would unnecessarily divide the Indian population, and disproportionately benefit the wealthier women anyway.

He might get this not because of any change of mind on Sonia Gandhi’s side, but because these days, the Congress Party needs every vote it can get, and Mulayam has them in spades.

The Congress Party is preparing for war. It wasn’t that they disputed the Marxist parties’ analysis of the 123 Nuclear Agreement, but how they disputed it, referring to it as “absurd.” The Marxist parties are doing the same, with upcoming politburo meetings of the various groups readying to leave the ruling coalition, which should launch early elections to the Lok Sabha (Indian House of Commons). Though some had wondered if Sonia Gandhi’s heart would be in this fight, she is leading the Congress Party’s election drive.

One of her most aggressive allies, and perhaps too aggressive, is Lalu Yadav, whose RJD Party is the second largest of Congress Party’s UPA Coalition. Though he is helping to pressure the Samajwadi Party to back the 123 Agreement and attacking vigorously their conservative opponents,he remains a controversial figure who might be bringing the Congress Party more enemies than friends.

Posted under Uncategorized | No Comments »

Obama needs Hillary’s active support in the general election, and particularly the votes of Hillary’s voters. Fortunately, Obama knows that. After controversially hiring former Clinton campaign manager Patti Solis Doyle, he now named as his new domestic policy director former senior Clinton staffer Neera Tanden.

On that note, there are now more active rumors as to just what role Hillary would play in an Obama Administration. The new interesting idea? Hillary on the Supreme Court

Posted under Uncategorized | No Comments »

Mulayam Singh Yadav, head of the Samajwadi Party, an independent left party with 39 votes in the Lok Sabha, the Indian House of Commons, holds many of the cards regarding the potential passage of the 123 Nuclear Agreement between the United States and India. Yadav is enjoying the attention. Coyly, he said yesterday, “I have not seen the document on [the] nuclear deal. How can I comment on it?”

His party and their voters play a crucial role, being the significant force in Uttar Pradesh, the most populous state in India. The BJP is also trying to appeal to them.

Mulayam has said, however, that no deal will be made until after July 3.

That week will be problematic for Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh, who would like to have the 123 Nuclear Agreement passed before he attends the G-8 summit in Japan on July 7th. He needs the vote to happen fast. Singh is being hit now from left and right; the Communist Party of India (Marxist) (CPI(M)) is attacking Singh for being excessively interested in appeasing American wishes, while the conservative BJP party is attacking Singh’s Congress Party for not keeping fertilizer prices (seriously) low enough.

Robin Raphael, Assistant Secretary of State for South Asia in the Clinton Administration reportedly thinks the process will continue until next year. Such a development could be especially damaging for Singh and his party.

Posted under Uncategorized | No Comments »

Bored at work? Need a vacation?

Consider becoming an animal conservationist.

Ken Henry, the Australian Treasury Secretary, doesn’t exactly have nothing to do. There’s inflation in his country, fuel prices are rising, and interest rates are up. But that isn’t stopping him from taking 5 weeks off to help the hairy-nosed wombats (their real name). And frankly, what better excuse is there than hairy-nosed wombats to get out of an annoying “central bank meeting”

Posted under Uncategorized | No Comments »

Though some within the Congress Party are still wary of pushing the 123 Nuclear Agreement forward against strident partisan opposition and risking the collapse of the government and the calling of new elections in an unfavorable electoral climate, the party and the government appear ready to fight. The center-right Times of India published an editorial today calling for the Congress Party to put the deal to a vote and risk defeat. The Congress Party seems poised to do just that, hoping that their improving relationship with the Samajwadi Party will lead them to victory.

The government also received the support of former Indian President Abdul Kalam who never joined a political party, who is not only a Muslim but an important figure in the national missile industry, which has been wary of the deal.

There are now 542 voting members in the Lok Sabha (the Indian House of Commons), meaning the government needs 272 votes to pass the 123 Agreement.  The Congress party has 145 votes, making it the dominant party within the United Progressive Alliance, the ruling coalition, which has roughly 222 votes. For a pro-123 coalition to win without leftist parties, it needs to gain the support of some of the smaller independent parties. Probably the most crucial one will be the Samajwadi party and their 39 votes.

Though the Samajwadi Party boasts significant Muslim support, its leader, Mulayam Singh Yadav, former defense minister and former chief minister (Governor) of Uttar Pradesh, the largest Indian state, is Hindu. He founded the party, which means the Socialist Party in 1992, uniting lower-caste Hindus like himself with Muslims.

Meanwhile, the conservative BJP party is preparing for the elections for the Lok Shaba that will probably result and appear optimistic.

The French are stepping up their public support for the 123 Agreement, hoping that it would allow them to make profitable nuclear-reactor construction deals with the Indian government. Other than for their diplomatic support, this might make it easier for the Indian Prime Minister Singh to fight off the perception that this deal would make India a US lackey.

There is now a growing consensus that India will probably not conduct another nuclear test, despite some suggestions earlier to the contrary.

Posted under Uncategorized | No Comments »

The day after attending Obama Campaign Manager David Plouffe’s meeting, Marc Ambinder offers his interpertation.

Organizing a volunteer army in Texas makes slightly more sense than investing in ads in Alaska for two reasons; first of all, if you have people who are that excited, you might as well have them doing something rather than complain that they aren’t being asked to do anything. Second, Texas could be a swing state, in 2012 certainly if not 2008, and messing with Republican minds over a state with that many electoral votes, could affect something.

It appears that the Obama campaign’s strategy is to try everything and anything to win the election. That would be a terrific strategy assuming infinite resources, something which Obama has boasted thus far. Last month, however, Obama barely raised more than McCain (23.3-21.8 million dollars). Even if money is not a factor, does the Obama campaign have the intellectual power to run 50 competitive elections even with volunteer generals, especially after giving up on a series of staffers from Samantha Power to Austin Goolsbee (though maybe not), to Jim Johnson? That relatively small amount of money and time devoted to a state like Alaska will probably not matter, but in a tight election, Obama might wish he could have invested it in Ohio or Missouri instead. Maybe now would be a good time for the Obama campaign to remember where Richard Nixon was in the final days of the 1960 campaign and where he could have been.

Posted under Uncategorized | No Comments »