Africa's expectations of Obama are unfounded

Gerald Caplan in his article, Obama in Africa: A Major Disappointment maintains that he and his fellow ‘progressives involved in Africa’ are disappointed with Barack Hussein Obama’s foreign policy towards Africa as follows:

‘As expected, President Obama used his twenty-four-hour trip to Ghana to send messages about his thinking and his priorities for Africa. This was a moment that progressives involved in Africa have been waiting for, hoping for some clear thinking about Africa’s many challenges and the American role in addressing them. On the basis of his interviews and speeches, they will be sorely disappointed. Once we get beneath the eloquence and style, it’s hard to point to anything in any of his remarks that couldn’t have been said, however inarticulately, by George Bush.’[1]

Caplan and his fellow ‘progressives’ are not alone in their major disappointment with the Obama administration’s Africa policy. Other individuals have registered this disappointment, particularly after Obama’s visit to Ghana. What are the sources of this disappointment? What is its basis? Caplan, ‘a Toronto-based researcher-writer and activist’ with a PhD in African history and the author of Rwanda: The Preventable Genocide has ‘documented the case against the Obama analysis of Africa’ in his book, The Betrayal of Africa, published in 2008. Has Obama betrayed Africa? What does it mean that Obama, the United States national and the president of the United States, has betrayed Africa? Has he ever maintained that he will solve its problems? Is his task to solve Africa’s problems?

GREAT EXPECTATIONS

Obama was elected as the 44th President of the United States of America on 4 November 2008. His inauguration as the United States president was on 20 January 2009. It is the first time in the history of the United States that an African serves as its president. This in itself is an issue of the socio-historical significance, not only in the history of the United States internal relations, but also in its relations with the rest of the world particularly Africa. He is the son of an African father from Kenya and of a European mother from the United States. This socio-historical development raised high expectations that that his administration will change the content of the United States internal relations and its relations with Africa. Some African leaders have articulated these expectations in public.

What was the basis of these expectations? Was it expected that the United States was going to usher in a new qualitative direction in its relations with Africa because for the first time an African American with an African father from Kenya is its president? Was it also expected that the foreign policy of the Obama administration towards Africa was going to be informed by his ties to Kenya, and that these ties were going to help in providing him a great personal connection to the continent and its people, more than any other United States president before him? Was it appropriate to have raised the question as to whether his administration was going fulfil the requirements of these expectations because of his race and his connection to the continent through his family ties to Kenya? Did Obama articulate political, economic and ideological position raising these expectations?

Another point is that the decisive majority of leaders of African countries in the post-colonial era have not advanced the interests of the masses of the people. They have served as their enemies. This brutal reality has not changed. It has remained essentially the same. The decisive majority of leaders of African countries are enemies of the masses of the African people and development and progress of their countries and the continent.

These are the very same leaders who claim to expect Obama to contribute towards the resolution of problems internal to African countries – problems they have actively created and sustain – some by any means necessary, including violence.

Is it realistic to expect the United States president and his or her administration to contribute towards the resolution of the structural problems in Africa – problems created and sustained by the United States? Obama made it clear in some of his statements that his administration was going to be committed to the defence and expansion of the strategic interests of the United States.

STRUCTURAL REALITIES

This structural reality is understood by leaders such as Mwai Kibaki and his Kenyan national allies including Raila Odinga, and continental allies such as Yoweri Kaguta Museveni and His Majesty King Mswati III. They fully understand that the Obama administration in its policy towards Africa will not abandon the strategic value of continuity in the United States policy by crafting and executing substantial policy changes.

It was structurally clear that those who expected that the Obama administration was going to substantially deviate from the expansive, moralistic, conservative, militaristic, brutal and ruthless essence of the United States foreign policy were going to be disappointed. The history of the United States relations with Africa in particular and the rest of the South in general has been the history of the struggle for the accumulation and expansion of power wealth and zones of control or spheres of influence.

Regarding itself as a model for the rest of the world, the United States has been dealing with the world in terms of its subscription to its ‘manifest destiny’ thesis, used to justify that it must meet requirements of insatiable thirst for its imperialist expansion into Africa and the rest of the South. For some progressive forces to expect Obama and his administration to deviate from this essence of the United States foreign policy is to disappoint themselves, not by Obama and his administration.

Ties and recycled members of cabinet and senior officials connecting the Clinton administration and the George W. Bush administration to the Obama administration and the prominence of those who were members of the Clinton administration are not the key reasons why the strategic value of continuity in foreign policy is not being abandoned. Obama articulated his position on subscribing to the strategic importance of the value of the continuity in the United States foreign policy before he was elected the president. During the campaign, he called upon the United States to continue being ‘the leader of the free world’, leading it ‘in battling immediate evils and promoting the ultimate good’. According to him, the execution of this task is the issue of doing justice to its purpose in the world, which ‘is to promote the spread of freedom’.

A NEW BEGINNING?

Obama’s victory was globally celebrated as a victory in the struggle against racism. It was also celebrated as a new beginning in the relationship between the United States with the rest of the world, particularly developing countries. Some of his statements during his campaign and in his inaugural address contributed to this celebration. He pointed out in his inaugural address that ‘we have chosen hope over fear, unity of purpose over conflict and discord’ and that his administration will ‘seek a new way forward based on mutual interests and mutual respect’ in the United States international relations. However, his address was not focused. It was far from being a substantial and welcome addition to the presidential development and articulation of domestic and foreign policy direction.

Obama made serious efforts to convince his fellow Americans that their country can use its power not to create more enemies, but to help to build its global acceptable view, more beneficial to the defence and expansion of its strategic interests particularly in developing countries. Hilary Clinton, secretary of state, alluded to this when she pointed out that by ‘electing Barack Obama our next president, the American people have demanded not just a new direction at home, but a new effort to renew America’s standing in the world as a force for positive change.’ Al Gore, former vice-president of the United States, was more direct. In his words:

‘Barack Obama’s vision and voice represent the best of America. His life experience embodies the essence of our motto – E Pluribus Unum (out of many, one). That is the linking identity at the other end of all the hyphens that pervade our political culture. It is that common American identity which Barrack Obama exemplifies heart and soul that enables us as Americans to speak with moral authority to all of the peoples of the world, to inspire hope that we as human beings can transcend our limitations to redeem the promise of human freedom.[2]

His electoral victory was used to morally, culturally, racially and politically rehabilitate United States’ imperialism and the worse it offers the masses of the people of the world. There are key issues which are regarded as factors making this possible.

Firstly, his African and European combined racial identity. Secondly, his tactical means of being not focused, direct, serious and confrontational on race, race relations and racism in a society in which his fellow Africans are ‘a racial minority in a country where racism is a fact of life, a country that was founded on economic and imperialist racism.’[3]This second issue is highly appreciated by the United States rulers, their allies and their organic intellectuals. Thirdly, as the president of a multilateral imperialist superpower which is a racial, ethnic, linguistic, cultural and religious microcosm of the world, he is regarded by some forces as the deception tool to be used in representing the United States rulers, not only in their country’s internal relations, but also in its international relations in today’s world which is different from that of yesterday.

QUESTIONS OF LEGITIMACY

Today’s world is characterised by the declining legitimacy of imperialist powers. This development in international relations is a result of various processes.

Firstly, as the sole superpower, the United States, supported by some of its strategic partners such as the United Kingdom, has unprecedentedly increased its aggressive, combative, chauvinist, arrogant and reckless pursuit of policies, some of which are criticised and condemned by some of its allies. Some of these policies have increased the socio-economic suffering and pain of the masses of the people of the world who are the direct recipients of the damage inflicted on them by imperialism.

Secondly, the legitimacy of the United States is interlinked with that of other imperialist powers. As the legitimacy of the United States declines, that of its imperialist partners is structurally bound to decline, particularly as a result of their solidarity and unity with their leaders and the global opposition it generates.

Thirdly, the challenge to imperialist powers coming from countries with potential to lead to a multipolar power constellation, such as China. They are regarded as social formations destined to be the most important centres of power in international relations.

Fourthly, the participation of the global movement for socio-political and economic justice is challenging the legitimacy of imperialist powers. This movement has played a role of crucial importance in ‘debunking and delegitimising’ imperialist powers by ‘questioning the very idea’ that the few ‘self-appointed countries can presume to determine the fate of humanity.’[4] Thanks to the efforts of this progressive movement, today’s world is characterised by the intensified mobilisation against imperialism, its global agenda and the basis of its governance and the authority it uses in articulating its rule and subjecting developing countries and their people to its domination and exploitation.

CHANGED WORLD

How is the Obama administration going to respond to this global reality, is the question raising another question, as to how it is going to satisfy its supporters whose interests and positions are antagonistic? Included in the second question should not be the question as to what the administration can do for the global movement for social justice. The question for members of this movement is the issue as to what they should do, in advancing the cause his administration is structurally opposed to. It is not to say that they are disappointed by his administration’s implementation of its domestic and foreign policy decisions. They should expect it to implement decisions provide against the strategic and tactical objectives of the United States domestic and foreign policies.

Obama was groomed for the presidency by the Trilateral Commission as more attractive and historically relevant than all other presidential aspirants to tackle this global reality confronting imperialism and its rulers. Some of its leading strategic theoreticians support this position. One of them is Zbigniew Brzezinski, the co-founder of the Trilateral Commission and its first executive director from its inception in 1973 until 1976 when he was appointed by President Jimmy Carter as assistant to the president for National Security Affairs. Brzezinski, the author of several books serving as policy guidelines for the Trilateral Commission, was Obama’s principal foreign policy advisor. Introducing Obama at Ashford University in Clinton, Iowa on 12 September 2007, he criticised what he called colonialist policies of the Bush administration in a post-colonial world, as if he is against neo-colonialism which Nkrumah maintains that it is the last stage of imperialism.[5] In supporting and endorsing Obama’s presidential candidacy, he pointed out that ‘What makes Obama attractive to me is that he understands that we live in a very different world where we have to relate to a variety of cultures and peoples.’ For him, the issue in the 2008 presidential elections was not just to choose a new president. The choice made was going to ‘define America’s role in a historically new era.’ Maintaining that Obama ‘has a sense of what is historically relevant and what is needed from the United States in relationship with the world,’ he concluded that he represents ‘a new face, a new sense of direction, a new definition of America’s role in the world.’

Obama is being used by leaders of the Trilateral Commission and the Council on Foreign Relations to put a new face on the United States’ domestic and foreign policies and the institutions implementing them. Leaders of the Council on Foreign Relations are responsible for the formation of the Trilateral Commission. There are structural inter-linkages and close patterns of cooperation between these two organisations. Since its inception, the Trilateral Commission has been playing the central role in providing the political administration of the United States. The strategic importance of providing the political administration of the North American, Western European and Japanese trilateral centre of capitalism is one of the key purposes of the Trilateral Commission.

A NEW FACE FOR IMPERIALISM

Because of the racist nature of imperialism since its inception, the relationships between imperialist countries and developing countries, the relationship between the race question and the class question in the developed and developing countries – particularly in the distribution of wealth and privileges and their opposites – and the role of the United States in ‘safeguarding of the alliance of the capitalists of all countries against the working people,’[6] Obama’s presidency is regarded as an unprecedented development of crucial importance in the history of imperialism. It symbolises a necessary change in racial representation in the political management of imperialism in its post-Cold War multilateral phase, and a hope for a softer face of global capitalism. Any means necessary is used to rehabilitate and defend the imperialist system.

Brzezinski is the same person who pointed out clearly in no uncertain terms that democracy is against the practical and theoretical task of serving imperialism and that it will become more difficult to execute key foreign policy issues in an increased multi-racial, ethnic, linguistic, cultural and religious United States. ‘Democracy is inimical to imperial mobilisation,’ he wrote in 1997.[7] He continued that as ‘America becomes an increasingly multi-cultural society, it may find it more difficult to fashion a consensus on foreign policy issues, except in the circumstances of a truly massive and widely direct external threat.’[8] This position suggests that a person like Obama should not be the United States president. Why has Brzezinski, National Security advisor to President Jimmy Carter from 1977 to 1981, the Center for Strategic and International Studies counselor and trustee and co-chairperson of its advisory board, supported and endorsed Obama’s presidential candidacy and played a key role for him to be nominated as the presidential candidate and elected as the president?

As the greatest strategic thinker, who understands the fundamental and structural need to make changes in policy to achieve what is in the best interests of the rulers of advanced capitalist powers sitting in judgement of their own actions, he is fully aware of the possibility that the seeds of the defeat of the system may lie internally in the United States and be carried by its increased multi-racial, ethnic, linguistic, cultural and religious nature against the present global pain and suffering its ruling class sustains.

Imperialist domination of Africa under the leadership of the United States is the strategic objective that constitutes the focus of its policy makers. This is an integral part of the United States position, not only on its enemies and opponents, but also its allies and friends regarding the defence and expansion of its leadership of the world. This position is articulated by Zbigniew Brzezinski, one of the leading strategic organic intellectuals of multilateral imperialism, in his works. According to him, the United States must protect its ‘global primacy’ by any means necessary. It must ensure that ‘no state or combination of states gains the ability to expel the United States’ from its leadership of the world ‘or even diminish its decisive role’ and that a ‘benign American hegemony must… discourage others from posing a challenge… by making its costs too high.’[9] For him, countries dominated by imperialism should not challenge the United States domination of the world. No other advanced capitalist country should attempt to take over the leadership of the world and imperialism from the United States. The United States must remain the leader of the world and the imperialist camp. The point is that ‘the only alternative to American leadership’ of the word ‘is international anarchy.’[10]

AFRICOM, THE US AND AFRICA

Obama made it clear that, if elected the president of the United States, his administration was going to continue with Africa Command. It became fully operational on 1 October 2008, one month before he was elected the president. He made it clear that it was going to be central in the United States strategy using military force in Africa to intensify its access to energy resources and other vital strategic resources.

Obama provided the conclusive evidence that his administration was going to continue with Africa Commandas the organisational structure serving the militarisation of the United States Africa policy in his answers to the Presidential Town Hall Meeting Africa Questionnaire, organised by the Leon H. Sullivan Foundation in October 2007. Responding to the questionnaire, he maintained that Africa Command ‘should serve to coordinate and synchronise our military activities with our other strategic objectives in Africa,’ that it should ‘help to integrate military capabilities with the other elements of US power and diplomacy’ and that it should ‘provide a more united and coordinated engagement plan for Africa.’ Maintaining that ‘there will be situations that require the United States to work with its partners in Africa to fight terrorism with lethal force,’ he concluded that ‘having a unified command operating in Africa will facilitate this action.’[11]

Obama was calling for the intensification of the militarisation of the United States Africa policy. Throughout the campaign, he clearly articulated the need for the United States to intensify its military efforts in Pakistan with or without the approval of its leaders and its right to take unilateral military actions against al-Qaeda, the Taliban and other terrorist organisations in Afghanistan. He repeatedly voted in the Senate supporting the Bush administration’s funding the occupation of Iraq. He called for more troops to be sent to Afghanistan. He never seriously criticised and questioned the legitimacy of the United States war against terrorism on the international scale.

Paul Moorcraft maintains that that ‘Obama may have African blood flowing in his veins, but his main focus in foreign policy is the middle East and Afghanistan, the war on Islamist terror’ and that he ‘does care about the continent, but his’ main ‘priorities are the economy at home and abroad, getting out of Iraq, and fighting the long war in Afghanistan.’[12] Is he correct or incorrect in maintaining this position?

Obama’s position that Africa Command ‘should serve to coordinate and synchronise our military activities with our other strategic objectives in Africa’ is the same position articulated by Theresa Whelan, deputy assistant secretary of defence for African affairs, in her testimony before the United States Senate Foreign Relations Committee’s Subcommittee on African Affairs on 1 August 2007 that:

‘Some people believe that we are establishing AfriCom solely to fight terrorism, or to secure oil resources, or to discourage China. This is not true. Violent extremism is cause for concern, and needs to be addressed, but this is not AfriCom’s singular mission. Natural resources represent Africa’s current and future wealth, but in a fair market environment, many benefit. Ironically, the US, China and other countries share a common interest – that of a secure environment. AfriCom is about helping Africans build greater capacity to assure their own security.’[13]

RULES OF ENGAGEMENT

Obama made it clear that he was going to use his African and ‘Kenyan roots’ in advancing strategic interests of United States imperialism in Kenya and Africa. In his memo of gratitude to his Kenyan supporters he articulated the position that Israel is the strategic ally of the United States in the Middle East by stating that ‘part’ of the United States ‘foreign policy is to ensure the safety and secure borders of Israel, safe routes of our oil supplies and commitment to our bilateral and multilateral allies.’ Reminding them that Kenya has always been the friend of the United States, he concluded that United States–Kenya ‘ties shall now be strengthened’ by his ‘heritage’. He used dictatorial and bullying tone in addressing ‘a sovereign state’. He threatened the government of Kenya to allow his administration to build Africa Command headquarters in Kenya. In a typical Anglo-American imperialist arrogant and chauvinist style of addressing Africans and their governments, he told Kenyans and their government where his administration wanted to build Africa Command headquarters in Kenya. It is as if Kenya is an extension of the United States. Is he asking or demanding to build headquarters of Africa Command in a particular place in Kenya – headquarters, if built, to be led, coordinated and dictated by the United States. In his words:

‘Our relationship could be imperilled should your foreign policy be at odds with ours. We will never dictate your policy as you are a sovereign state, but our relationship is dependent on your choices. Kenya may benefit if it makes certain strategic decisions.

What are these ‘certain strategic decisions’ which Kenyan rulers should make for them to benefit more in their relations with the United States under the leadership of their ‘son, brother’ and ‘friend?’ He continued in his patronising tone that:

We are looking for a base in Africa to build our AfriCom headquarters, and Lamu is one of the likely locations. In the event that you accept our request, we will make Lamu a deep-sea port and build a railway line from there to Ethiopia, our other strategic ally in the region. The choice again I say is yours.’

Beth Tuckey, the associate director of the development and policy programme at Africa Faith and Justice Network in Washington, DC, articulated the continued arrogance and chauvinism in the United States Africa policy after the November 2008 presidential elections, in the article published in Pambuzaka News on 2 October 2008, explains how the Obama administration will contradict Obama’s declared position on the importance of transparent and accountable government. In her words:

‘Never mind that AfriCom’s mandate involves direct military-to-military training and equipping, rather than support for an African Union (AU) that conducts multilateral peacekeeping missions. Never mind that AfriCom’s stated goals involve protecting American interests, rather than ensuring that the African people’s primary needs and desires are met. Never mind that many African governments and African civil society strongly oppose AfriCom. No, the next administration will ignore all of that in the blind belief that the United States can unilaterally bring peace and prosperity to the African continent.[14]

Will the question what the Obama administration can do for the African continent and its people not be the defence of the continued arrogance and chauvinism displayed in the analysis of the United States Africa policy? Why some ‘progressives’ analyse only what American, Chinese Russian, Indian and other external actors, not African actors, in the theatre of the United States Africa policy? Is this not the articulation of the racist position that Africa is the field of action, not an actor in its relations with the United States?

NOR WILL WE WAVER

Like other United States presidents in their inaugural address, he pointed out in his inaugural address that his administration ‘will not apologise for our way of life, nor will we waver in its defence.’ There was nothing new in this articulation of preparedness to defend the system at all costs by any means necessary. President J.F. Kennedy articulated it in his inaugural address on 20 January 1961 when he warned ‘Let every nation know, whether it wishes us well or ill, that we shall pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe, in order to assure the survival and the success of liberty.’ He called upon the people of the United States to actively play a role in ‘a struggle against the common enemies of man: Tyranny, poverty, disease, and war itself.’[15] Kennedy pointed out that the United States must be prepared in shouldering responsibility to control processes in the global capitalist order. He expressed this issue when he stated in his address that ‘In the long history of the world only a few generations have been granted the role of defending freedom from its hour of maximum danger. I do not shrink from this responsibility – I welcome it.’[16] It was in this address that an us-versus-them thesis was articulated clearly for the first time in the history of the United States foreign policy. Since the articulation of this thesis, countries have been forced to either become allies of the United States or to accept the consequences of being regarded as its enemies. This is the same ‘You are either with us or against us’ thesis articulated by President Bush following the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks. ‘Over time it’s going to be important for nations to know they will be held accountable for inactivity,’ Bush said. Pointing out that it was time for action, he concluded that ‘You’re either with us or against us in the fight against terror.’[17]

THE WAR ON TERROR

The war on terror ensures the United States policy of containment for Africa. Obama made it clear that his administration was going to intensify the ‘war on terror.’ Speaking at the State Department on 22 January 2009, he told his diplomatic corps that ‘We are confronted by extraordinary, complex and interconnected global challenges: War on terror, sectarian division and the spread of deadly technology. We did not ask for the burden that history has asked us to bear, but Americans will bear it. We must bear it.’ This war on terror will be intensified against Africa and the rest of the South or ‘the dark corner of the world’ as George Bush pointed out in his address to the West Point graduating cadets on 1 June 2002. In his words: ‘Our security will require transforming the military you lead, a military that must be ready to strike at a moment’s notice in any dark corner of the world.’

MANDELSON AND MULTILATERAL INSTITUTIONS

Peter Mandelson as European Union Trade Commissioner in 2008 called upon President Bush’s successor to ensure that the United States is with its European strategic partners in the fight to save imperialism from its enemies. This is to be done by ‘renewing’ the leading multilateral institutions to ‘hold’ developing countries ‘together by tough debates on climate change, energy security and trade,’ and ‘adapting’ the United Nations, the Word Trade Organisation and the International Monetary Fund to ‘give’ developing countries ‘a chance, not just to exercise their rights, but to assume their responsibilities’ within this system.

Their role as dominated social formations is to enable the political leaders of the countries constituting its centre in ‘tackling economic insecurity and inequalities’ in their ‘own societies.’[18] Central to his position is the strategic importance of developing countries in helping advanced capitalist countries to manage their internal socio-political and economic contradictions. This issue is indirectly articulated by Mandelson when he maintains that:

‘Americans and Europeans might welcome the fact that globalisation is narrowing inequality between countries, but they are more worried by the risk that it is widening the gap within their own. If we want to preserve our open economies, we need to build a social contract that guards against economic insecurity and inequality in our own societies.’[19]

If Mandelson is diplomatic about the role of the multilateral organisations in the defence of the imperialist system and the strategic interests they represent as well as their leadership, Brzezinski is sincerely and honestly brutal about the American leadership role of the system. In his words:

‘Unlike earlier empires, this vast complex global system is not a hierarchical pyramid. Rather, America stands at the centre of an interlocking universe, one in which power is exercised through continuous bargaining, dialogue, diffusion, and quest for formal consensus, even though that power originates ultimately from a single source, namely, Washington, D.C. And that is where the power game has to be played, and played according to America’s domestic rules. Perhaps the highest compliment that the world pays to the centrality of the democratic processes in American global hegemony is the degree to which foreign countries are themselves drawn into the domestic American political bargaining.[20]

Brzezinski continues stating that:

In addition, one must consider as part of the American system the global web of specialised organisations, especially the ‘international’ financial institutions. The International Monetary Fund (IMF) and the World Bank can be said to represent ‘global’ interests, and their constituency may be construed as the world. In reality, however, they are heavily American dominated and their origins are traceable to American initiative, particularly the Bretton Woods Conference of 1944.[21]

We must not base our unity and solidarity primarily on the race question. We must judge leaders including Obama not primarily in terms of their race, but by the form and content of their political, economic and ideological position and the way they substantiate their theoretical position on issues and processes in practice. There are Africans who are enemies of the masses of the African people.

CLASS AND RACE

One of the socio-historical significance of the Obama administration on the ideological front of the struggle, particularly in the United States, is bound to be its contribution towards the correct view of the relationship between the class question and the race question. It will help in waging a war against the incorrect thesis of the primacy of the race question over the class question. It is going to contribute towards the acceptance of the correct thesis of the primacy of the class question over the race question. It will do so particularly if it fails to satisfy the needs, interests and demands of the masses of Africans of the United States. The failure of the African president of the United States to advance the interests of the masses of his fellow Africans of the country will be one of the key issues leading towards this contribution.

Warning those highly optimistic that the Obama administration was going to significantly change the United States internal relations and its relations with the rest of the world and that it was going to help to effect international progressive changes of risk of being disappointed, Vladimir Putin, Russian Prime Minister, concluded that ‘I am deeply convinced that the biggest disappointments are born out of big expectations.’

We must ensure that our theory and practice reflect the link between knowledge and power in which the masses of the African people view themselves as historical subjects with power not only to transform their countries, but also, most importantly, as the foundation against subversion of structures of their power and authority against the system of socio-political and economic injustice by the fact that the president of the imperialist superpower is a member of their race.

BROUGHT TO YOU BY PAMBAZUKA NEWS

* Sehlare Makgetlaneng is the head of the Governance and Democracy Research programme at the Africa Institute of South Africa in Pretoria, South Africa
* Please send comments to [email protected] or comment online at Pambazuka News.

NOTES

[1] Gerald Caplan, ‘Obama in Africa: A Major Disappointment,’ AfricaFiles, 13 July 2009.
[2] Al Gore, quoted in Xolela Mangcu, ‘Beautiful or ugly, the United States produced Obama,’ The Weekender (Johannesburg), 30-31 August 2008, p. 4
[3] Walter Mosley, ‘A New Black Power,’ The Nation, 27 February 2006, p. 1
[4] Nicola Bullard, ‘The G8 – not the only show in town,’ Critical Currents, No. 1, May 2007, p. 13
[5] Kwame Nkrumah, Neo-Colonialism: The Last Stage of Imperialism, New York: International Publishers, 1966.
[6] V.I. Lenin, Report on Peace and Foreign Policy of the Republic, Moscow: Progress Publishers, 1969, p. 34
[7] Zbigniew Brzezinski, The Grand Chessboard: American Primacy and its Geostrategic Imperatives, New York: Basic Books, 1997, p. 35
[8] Ibi., p. 211
[9] Zbigniew Brzezinski, ‘A Geostrategy for Eurasia,’ Foreign Affairs, Vol. 76, No. 5, September/October 1997, p. 52
[10] Ibid., pp. 51-2
[11] Barack Obama, ‘Presidential Town Hall Meeting Africa Questionnaire,’ The Leon H. Sullivan Foundation, Washington, DC, 2007, www.thesullivanfoundation.org/foundation
[12] Paul Moorcraft, ‘The message and potential of Clinton’s Africa safari,’ Business Day (Johannesburg), 6 August 2009, p. 11
[13] Theresa Whelan, Exploring the U.S. Africa Command and a new Strategic Relationship with Africa, Testimony Before the U.S. Senate Foreign Relations Committee, Subcommittee on African affairs, Washington, DC, 1 August 2007.
[14] Beth Tuckey, ‘The Weight of ‘Change’? AfriCom and the Presidential Election,’ Pambazuka News: Weekly Forum for Social Justice in Africa, 2 October 2008.
[15] John Fitzgerald Kennedy, quoted in Wikipedia, ‘Kennedy Doctrine,’ Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (not dated), http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/kennedy_Doctrine, page 2 of 4.
[16] Ibid.
[17] George W. Bush, quoted in CNN, ‘Bush says it is time for action,’ November 6, 2001, http://archives.cnn.com/2001/US/ret.bush.index.html, page 1 of 2 (Accessed on 11 May 2006) and George W. Bush, quoted in CNN, ‘‘You are either with us or against us,’’ November 6, 2001, http://archives.cnn.com/2001/US/11/06/gen.attack.on.terror, page 1 of 2.
[18] Peter Mandelson, ‘New U.S. president must fan flame of globalization,’ Business Day (Johannesburg), 20 June 2008, p. 11
[19] Ibid.
[20] Brzezinski, The Grand Chessboard: American Primacy and its Geostrategic Imperatives, p. 28
[21] Ibid., p. 27