How do you divide up Africa?

Hey all,

I went to an event at the World Bank, called Yes! Africa Can!, an event attempting to address the dearth of positive events in DC that discuss the continent of Africa.

It was a bit of a mixed event--some of it good, some of it interesting, some of it atrocious. I don't want to make any enemies, so I won't name panelists, but the first group mostly named 1 small success story (without telling us what made it a success), and then complained about how difficult 'Africa' is. There was even the suggestion that, since African countries can't run their own economies (these were their words, not mine), that African countries should rent coast lines or areas with minerals to other 'more productive' countries to take over and manage.

I don't see how this would address governance issues, empower countries to have control over their own wealth (or lack of it). In fact, the first panel left me somewhat horrified...at the idea that neo-colonialism is the answer and we're all going to he** in a hand basket. The interesting part of being at a World Bank event, as opposed to a US government organization, no mention was made of AFRICOM.

The second panel was a relief from the first. The first speaker brought up the fact that discussing Africa as a whole was difficult and often not very productive.

So, he divided Africa into 3 groups: Oil/Resource rich countries (ex: Nigeria, Angola, DRC), High Performers (almost all democracies and sources of fairly dynamic growth) and Low-Performers (almost all dictatorships, where quality of life and other norms have been steadily declining). I really would like to see this list.

What do you think of this as an approach? How do you tend to think of the continent?

As of yet, I've only been to two African countries, both Anglophone, both in West Africa, and both like night and day to each other. So I will reserve judgement until I've got more to go on.

The speaker also brought up an interesting point. Many people see various life-quality indicators on Africa remaining about the same for the last decade. The speaker maintained that it is really that Group 2 (see above) were steadily improving and Group 3 (also see above) were steadily declining, effectively cancelling each other on any graphical representation of change of the whole continent. I think this speaks to not grouping the continent as a whole, in general, unless you are, say the African Union.

What do you think?

Best,
Alena

In honor of the Nuclear Summit, part V

Dear all,

Here is part IV in my series of excerpts from President Ikeda's 2010 Peace Proposal.

2010 Peace Proposal
Toward a New Era of Value Creation
Daisaku Ikeda
President, Soka Gakkai International

Regarding pledges of mutual non-use, even an agreement limited to the United States and Russia would be a watershed event that would produce a major reduction in perceived threats, from which alliance partners would equally benefit. It would also provide an opening for reviewing the extraterritorial deployment of warheads and missile defense programs as steps toward the gradual dismantling of the nuclear umbrella.

As demonstrated in the final report of the International Commission on Nuclear Nonproliferation and Disarmament, a joint initiative of the Australian and Japanese
governments, issued in December 2009, there are increasing calls from within countries living under a nuclear umbrella for a review of traditional nuclear doctrine.

Among the benefits of establishing declared nuclear non-use regions would be to encourage progress toward global denuclearization and a comprehensive system to prevent the proliferation of all weapons of mass destruction and forestall the dire possibility of nuclear terrorism. The aim would be to transform the confrontational stance prevailing in certain regions—including those where the nuclear-weapon states or their allies are present—of meeting threat with threat. What should be encouraged instead is the approach of mutual threat reduction exemplified by the Cooperative Threat Reduction (CTR) Program instituted between the United States and the states of the former Soviet Union in the wake of the Cold War.

Regrettably, the NPT in its current form does not include provisions for reducing threats and offering mutual assurances that can enhance confidence. If progress can be made on negotiations toward these goals on a regional basis, it will make even more salient the physical and psychological security offered by participation in disarmament frameworks, as opposed to the further deepening of isolation on the outside. This will in turn reduce motivations to develop or acquire nuclear weapons.

If, through these systems, expanding circles of physical and psychological security can be created to encompass not only countries relying on the nuclear umbrellas of nuclear weapon states, but also North Korea and Iran, as well as countries such as India, Pakistan and Israel that are currently not part of the NPT framework, this would represent a major breakthrough toward the goal of global denuclearization.

There are still many more pages, so thanks to those who've followed so far!

Best,
Alena

In honor of the Nuclear Summit, part I

Dear all,

I am watching the Nuclear Summit closely. I am strongly dedicated towards nuclear abolition--not just for the removal of the weapons themselves, but for making an important step forward as humanity--to realize that we shouldn't use fear as an weapon. Nuclear weapons may seem remote to those of us who grew up after the Cold War, but they're still very real.

In that vein, I will spend most of the week posting excerpts from President Daisaku Ikeda's 2010 Peace Proposal, which focuses on the abolition of nuclear weapons.

Hope you enjoy--please feel free to post events/thoughts/articles related to this issue:

TOWARD A NEW ERA OF VALUE CREATION

Daisaku Ikeda
President, Soka Gakkai International (SGI)
(Excerpted Translation)
On January 26 and 27, the annual Peace Proposal by SGI
President Ikeda was carried in the Seikyo Shimbun newspaper.
The following is a translation of the portion carried on January 27 dealing with specific policy proposals in the fields of nuclear abolition and human security.

I would like to take this opportunity to discuss several proposals that I believe can support efforts to resolve the current crises faced by the world and construct a new order of peace and coexistence for the twenty-first century.

The global economic crisis has had a severe impact on the lives of citizens in many
countries. There is also concern that one of its impacts will be a slowing or scaling back of international cooperative efforts to respond to the complex array of global issues, including poverty and environmental destruction. We must avoid a vicious cycle in which crisis gives rise to pessimism, which in turn exacerbates crisis.

In terms of finding a path toward the resolution of global issues, the year 2010 will be a critical one, with a number of important meetings scheduled, including the Review Conference of the Parties to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT) in May and the special summit in September on the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs).

We must remember that there is always a way, a path to the peak of even the most towering and forbidding mountain. Even when a sheer rock face looms before us, we should refuse to be disheartened, but instead continue the patient search for a way forward. In this sense, what is most strongly required of us is the imagination that can appreciate the present crises as an opportunity to fundamentally transform the direction of history. By mustering the force of inner will and determination we can convert challenges into the fuel for positive change.

I will post more tomorrow.

Best,
Alena