China and Africa: An Amoral and Asymmetrical Relationship

Over at TNR online Joshua Kurlantzick has a fascinating and important article on "How China Controls African Politics." When I was in Beijing this past summer one of my concerns was that China couched any behavior, however dispicable, in terms of national sovereignty. It is a remarkably resilient and amoral argument: China can do wahetevr it likes and no one can judge them because of their unabiding belief in the principles of national sovereignty. The issue that most vexed me was China's involvement in the Sudan, which I referred to in one meeting with a Chinese official as "countenancing genocide." But China needs and wants oil, and they simply do not care about Sudan's internal affairs. Khartoum is more than happy to work with the Chinese, and so, based on their principles, voila! the outside world has no right to judge either the Sudan or the Chinese. This is a very convenient way to promote atrocity while simultaneously not caring about gross violations of human rights, all the while benefiting handsomely.

Kurlantzick's article focuses on Zambia and the recent elections. Here are some key excerpts:

[M]uch of the Zambian debate centered on a completely different topic: China. Opposition candidate Michael Sata accused Chinese companies, which have invested heavily in Zambian copper mining, of exploiting Zambian workers and undercutting Zambian goods. "Chinese investment has not added any value to the people of Zambia," Sata told a Zambian radio station, also threatening to toss Chinese companies out of the country. In response, China's embassy in Zambia became directly involved in the election, very unusual for foreign diplomats in any country, warning that Beijing might sever ties to Zambia if Sata won. The incumbent president, Sata's opponent in the election, reportedly apologized to Beijing for Sata's comments. [. . .]
Zambia, in fact, offers a window into a phenomenon American policy makers have only just begun to discover. In a short period of time, China has become a major donor and investor in Africa, and it has begun to play a major role in domestic African politics--not only in Zambia but also across the continent. In fact, China has so quickly amassed power in Africa that it now rivals the United States, France, and international financial institutions for influence--and potentially damages Africa's economic and political renaissance.

This is where China can be a profoundly destabilizing force -- in pursuing a grand strategy that amounts to geopolitical passive-aggressivism couched in very realpolitik western terms. They are not about to mount an attack on the United States or any of our interests. In military terms, China poses little danger, and almost never has -- though potentially it could. But where China can be massively destabilizing is by joining forces with states that either do not much care about its people (ie -- Big Men love Bigger Partners) or with those states so desperate for anything resembling development that they will sell out the safety and security of their people for short-term gain that holds immense appeal even as the repurcussions hang like Domocles' Sword over the heads of the teetering state.

A Few Things . . .

. . . before I head out to Tiananmen and the Forbidden City.

In what seems like remarkable coinsidence, just as I head from China to South Africa, Chinese premier Wen Jinbao embarks on a trip to South Africa as well. His purpose is to pull together ties between the two nations, both developing regional powers, with China of course a country with far more than regional ambitions. It seems clear that China's goal is to establish itself as a go-to power for the developing world. South Africa is a smart place to start. In years to come it may well occur that developing regions like Africa become a site of contestation for the attentions of the great powers, much like during the Cold War, except in the future, this competition need not be a zero-sum game. Countries will be able to fan the attentions of both China and the United States. And as importantly, unlike the Cold War, this need not be the consequence of global hostility. Hopefully the attention that comes from the outside world will also be different in another way -- hopefully this time, it will be good for Africa.

Meanwhile most of you may have seen Nicholas Kristof's far-from-flattering piece on China's justice system, the farcical trial of journalist Zhao Yan, and the way it reflects negatively on Hu Jintao:

The courthouse is a perfect symbol of Mr. Hu's vision of China today: a dazzling building with lavish facilities, but empty in every sense. It's all infrastructure, no software. It's as if Mr. Hu thinks that building a modern judicial system is about high ceilings and padded seats rather than about laws and justice. . . .
I'm still a believer in China, partly because Mr. Hu and his aides have managed the economy so well. Mr. Hu has also done well in canceling the agriculture tax and taking other measures to try to address the destabilizing income gaps in China (there, 1 percent of the population now controls 60 percent of the wealth, whereas in the U.S., 5 percent controls 60 percent of the wealth).

Yet ultimately, Mr. Hu's efforts to create stability by clamping down just risk more instability. Most Chinese don't want upheavals, but they are fed up with corruption and lies, with being blocked from Google and Wikipedia, with having to waste time studying political drivel like Mr. Hu's "Eight Honorables and Eight Shames" campaign. Wags call it "Hu shuo ba dao," a clever pun that translates as "utter nonsense."

Indeed, Mr. Hu's crackdown has been singularly ineffective, annoying people more than scaring them. Many Communist Party officials worry that crackdowns just anger and alienate the public; that is why some have talked of allowing people to let off steam through greater freedom of the press and more elections. In one province, a poll found that 85 percent of officials themselves wanted to speed up political reform.

But Mr. Hu seems paralyzed, altogether the weakest Chinese leader since Hua Guofeng in the 1970's. The result? Brace yourself for turbulence ahead in China.

Of course here in China? Not a word, which sort of lends credence to Kristof's alarmism, doesn't it?

And just so that you know that I have hardly forgotten about the Red Sox, or sports generally (I can find out Sox results with some detail by about 11 in the morning if I can access a computer), I want to post this fascinating Dan Shaughnessy article in the Boston Globe Magazine about the state of Boston sports fans. This is a follow-up to a piece he wrote in 1990. I am loving experiencing the World Cup abroad and am almost giddy for the (remote) possibility that I will be in Oxford for the finals and that England has a shot at being there. Meanwhile, in the next few weeks I'll be in South Africa. I am very much looking forward to finding a public place to watch that important US-Ghana match. I will very much be a minority in my rooting interests, though if Ghana wins, I am instantly on their bandwagon along with England's. Nonetheless, I miss my Red Sox, and I miss Sportscenter.

Africa & China, China & Africa

One of the issues we try to address here at dcat is African linkages with the rest of the world. There is a new Yahoo group, "FeiZhou-AsSiin - Africa & China, China & Africa," that is dedicated to examining more closely a significant global trend on which I have been focusing more closely since my trip to China last summer. In the word's of the group's founder(s):

This group is created to facilitate consideration of connections and interactions between China and Africa, and Africans and Chinese - historic, present, and future. It draws its name from the Chinese (Mandarin, Puthonghua) for Africa, "Fei Zhou," and the name in Arabic for China, "Al Siin" (pronounced as-siin). Arabic ws chosen since it is one of many maternal languages in Africa, and one that has influenced a number of other languages on the continent (notably in the Sahel and east Africa). The main language of this list is English. Postings in other languages such as Chinese, African languages, and French are welcome but please accompany them with an English summary to assure a wider understanding.

China is increasingly going to play a role in the rest of the world with Africa as a particular focus. It is in all of our interest to watch as this geopolitical relationship develops.

Fair Development in Africa

The Ford Foundation is announcing a bold new Africa initiative today. "Trust Africa," according to the New York Times, "aims to strengthen an expanding network of nonprofit groups across the continent that seek to hold governments accountable, whether elected or dictatorships." Although $30 million will come from the Ford Foundation, the organization hopes to draw in resources from elsewhere, especially pulling support from the African diaspora in the United States, Europe and elsewhere.

Trust Africa will be based in Dakar and hopefully will serve to provide much-desired "African slutions to African problems," but Africans cannot do it on their own, however much they ought to be allowed to take the lead and develop the vision for what the continent and her people most need. The truth remains that Africa still needs support from the outside, including investment and development. In today's Times Nikolas Kristof may surprise some by calling for what we label "sweatshops" in Africa. Since the geniuses at the Times hide their columnists behind a password-protected firewall, here is the gist:

Africa desperately needs Western help in the form of schools, clinics and sweatshops.
Oops, don't spill your coffee. We in the West mostly despise sweatshops as exploiters of the poor, while the poor themselves tend to see sweatshops as opportunities. [. . .]
Well-meaning American university students regularly campaign against sweatshops. But instead, anyone who cares about fighting poverty should campaign in favor of sweatshops, demanding that companies set up factories in Africa. If Africa could establish a clothing export industry, that would fight poverty far more effectively than any foreign aid program. [. . .]
The problem is that it's still costly to manufacture in Africa. The headaches across much of the continent include red tape, corruption, political instability, unreliable electricity and ports, and an inexperienced labor force that leads to low productivity and quality. The anti-sweatshop movement isn't a prime obstacle, but it's one more reason not to manufacture in Africa.
Some of those who campaign against sweatshops respond to my arguments by noting that they aren't against factories in Africa, but only demand a "living wage" in them. After all, if labor costs amount to only $1 per shirt, then doubling wages would barely make a difference in the final cost.
One problem [. . .] is that it already isn't profitable to pay respectable salaries, and so any pressure to raise them becomes one more reason to avoid Africa altogether. Moreover, when Western companies do pay above-market wages, in places like Cambodia, local managers extort huge bribes in exchange for jobs. So the workers themselves don't get the benefit.
One of the best U.S. initiatives in Africa has been the African Growth and Opportunity Act, which allows duty-free imports from Africa — and thus has stimulated manufacturing there. But last year, partly because of competition from China, textile and clothing imports under the initiative fell by 12 percent.
The Congo Republic's president, Denis Sassou-Nguesso, told me that he would love to have more factories. It's incredibly frustrating, he noted, to see African countries export cotton, timber and other raw materials but rarely have the chance to process them. The American initiative "is a step in the right direction," he said. "But it needs more of a push."
One push needs to come from African countries themselves: a crackdown on corruption and red tape. But another useful step would be for American students to stop trying to ban sweatshops, and instead campaign to bring them to the most desperately poor countries.

The key to development in Africa along this model would be to ensure that big global companies pay a local, sustainable living wage in the context of the countries in which they invest. One of the most misleading trends for those who oppose "sweatshops" (and there is much to oppose, Kristoff's piece notwithstanding) is to couch worker wages in dollar terms. The problem with this, of course, is that the rest of the world oftentimes does not live by the standards of the dollar. What it might take to live comfortably, even well, in an African country might seem paltry, indeed outrageous, to an idealistic but largely uninformed college sophomore. Kristoff, then, is not actually caling for "sweatshops" as we understand them, but rather for investment, fair wages, and a deeper understanding of African needs on the part of well-meaning but sometimes self-righteous Americans who, as Stephen Colbert might say, know what feels right, even if the facts do not back them up.

Update: Reader GoodLiberal reveals that Paul Krugman made much the same point not so long ago.

By The Bedside Table: Travel Edition

When I travel, I read. Actually, when I do anything, I read. But multiple 12-hour-plus flights, lots of airport downtime, solitary hours in hotels, eating alone: These circumstances lend themselves to ploughing through a lot of books and journals and magazines and newspapers. I unrepentantly travel heavy as a consequence -- better to bring a book or two too many than one too few even if you know you will buy books along the way. I am pretty much guaranteed to pay luggage overage on the way home because I have purchased a good five or six kilos of written pages, not to mention research and gifts.

In any case, here is a travel edition of my semi-regular feature, "By the Bedside Table," a compendium of mini-reviews of books I've been reading. In addition to these books I have also been staying on top of a newspaper or two a day, plus the weekly Mail & Guardian and Sunday Independent, several magazines, including the recent 20th anniversary issue of South African Sports Illustrated, which just recently entered into a formal partnership with the US version of the magazine, and thus has adopted the familiar format from the US, which is a bit disjunctive. I've also been working my way through the latest Dissent and Foreign Affairs (well, they were the latest issues when I left anyway) and a small book I purchased to try to teach myself some Zulu. On this latter front, I am not doing all that well. I have also finished a book that I am reviewing for Aethlon, the journal of the Sports Literature Association, and have started another that I am reviewing for H-South, but I don't want to annoy my editors by pre-empting myself here. In any case, away we go:

Paul Theroux, Riding the Iron Rooster: By Train Through China: As you might imagine, I brought several books on China to supplement the reading I did before I got here. I might have even written about this book in the past, as I started it, then set it down for a while, then recommenced in the days before I came on this trip. Theroux, who had travelled through China before, and who had developed a decent grasp of the language (he is something of a linguistic savant, it seems, from all of his books that I have read), spent a year (centered around 1986) travelling by train through China. I enjoy Theroux's travel writings. He seems like a bit of a crank, and I sometimes think his breezy generalizations go too far, but he is a remarkable observer, a fine writer, and an intrepid traveller. This is not the first of his books that I have read and it surely will not be the last. His China is now two decades past, and so many of his observations seem not to hold, but there is value to older travel writing. If you want a guidebook, go to Lonely Planet or Rough Guides. If you want a travel companion, Theroux produces the kind of literature that won't let you down, even when he annoys you, as almost all travel companions do at some point along the way. A-

Will Randall, Botswana Time: Randall has written a number of travel books as well. I found this at a bookshop in Beijing and since I was bound for southern Africa and had travelled through the very area about which he writes in Botswana Time, I figured it might make for a good read. Randall is a pretty keen observer, he is an ebullient fellow, and occassionally he is a wonderfully descriptive, if a bit purple, writer. I imagine that many of you have surmised that there is a "but . . ." attached to all of this guarded praise, and you are right. In the wake of the James Frey imbroglio I wondered why people were so shocked: I've rarely read a memoir that did not make me pause and say "wait a second . . .". In some ways, it is the nature of the genre. One of my major pet peeves is nonfiction authors in non-footnoting works who recount conversations. I know it may be a trifling complaint, but this book provides a prime example that almost led me to flush the book down a plane loo. You see, Randall travelled to southern Africa to attend a friend's bachelor party and wedding. He had no intention of staying, certainly no intention of living in Botswana, a place he knew nothing about, and above all, if his chronology of events and happenstance is to be believed (and since it takes up about half of his book, it had damned well better be believable) he had no idea that he would write a book. Yet somehow he is able to recount drunken pub conversations, two-year-old discussions, and inconsequential asides in full. Furthermore, and this is most vexing of all, his characters all speak with stock national characteristics. For example, he has an Aussie travel companion who apparently says "mate" every sentence, oftentimes twice. I'd have to beat him with a wallabee carcass after about two days if he really talked like that all the time. It is as if Randall feels the need through these little tics to remind us that this is the rugged-outback-travelling-gung-ho-Aussie. This is the proper but intrepid Brit headmaster. This is the racist Afrikaner. Fortunately, this trend has gotten better as the book has progressed, but at the stage I have reached he is now ensconsed in the Botswana school that he is going to teach in and that makes up the brunt of the book, and I wade trepidatiously into his inevitable conversations with Africans. By the way, Theroux is a conversation quoter as well. And at times it is unbelievable. But there are two caveats: First, Theroux knew full well precisely what he was doing and that a book or other project would come from his travels. Thus, he took notes. Second, compared to those in Randall's book, Theroux's conversations don't noisomely remind us of cartoonish traits that supposedly embody anyone from place X. For all I know, his conversations might all be imagined as well, but Theroux is better with the sleight of hand if that is the case. Whatever the situation, writers, please, if you are producing nonfiction, there are ways to make clear what was said in conversations without imagining them or stuffing everything into quotation marks that imply a reality that does not exist. If you are reading this, Bob Woodward, it really is sage advice. B-

Kazuo Ishiguro, Never Let Me Go: I am only seventy-five pages in, so lots can happen. But to put it in the simplest terms possible, I have not been this affected by a book since I read Ian McEwen's Atonement, my favorite new work of fiction in the last decade. This is my first exposure to Ishiguro, who is probably most famous for The Remains of the Day, and I can already tell that more of his books will pass through my hands. His pacing is brilliant, his storytelling masterful, and his characters sympathetic and realistic (given that Randall's supposedly real characters are not realistic, this is high praise). Told from the vantage point of Kathy, a former student at a British boarding school, Never Let Me Go has a constant undertone of pending heartbreak, or perhaps simply of foreboding. Kathy drops little hints throughout her recounting of her school days to let you know that hers is not an ordinary school, theirs were never intended to be ordinary lives, and their futures are likely already spelled out for them. As I say, I have many pages to go, and books have promised but not delivered before. But unless he inserts fighting robots or something (and even then, maybe he can write his way out of it), Ishiguro earns an A+ so far. Go buy this book.

V.S. Naipaul, Guerrillas: I think I have written about this one before as well. I started reading it the last time I was in southern Africa, in December or January, and for whatever reason, it never really grabbed me. I'm sure it was my fault, not Naipaul's. In any case, I stopped reading it because I had assigned his wondrous A Bend in the River for my Modern Africa class in the spring and I knew that would cast its spell on me. But I picked Guerrillas up again for this trip, and while it still never fully took hold, one does get a reminder of why Naipaul is so exalted. He is an exquisite writer. Basically the novel follows the tumultuous political and personal circumstances faced by a couple of expats in an unnamed chaos-torn caribbean nation. One expat is a woman from London who falls for a somewhat inscrutable white former political prisoner and resistance fighter from apartheid South Africa. Things devolve quickly. There is violence. I think Naipaul's intended statement is a little fuzzy, but that may well be the point. B

Geoffrey Douglass, The Game of their Lives: The Untold Story of the World Cup's Greatest Upset: Want to annoy a Brit? Of course you do! Bring up the 1950 World Cup to them. That was the one in which a plucky band of overmatched underdogs who played for local clubs funded by funeral homes and car dealerships somehow managed to upset the mighty British soccer empire. Douglass intersperses a rehashing of the game with the far more compelling stories of the men who played for that US team. In particular his book is an homage to an America long gone (if it ever was -- there is a bit of a sepia-toned coat to his telling) in which neighborhoods, flag, and family are cherished. I wanted to read a couple of books on soccer during the World Cup, and I got this one from my friend and colleague Jaime. It is a very short book (maybe 150 pages) and a fast read, though it still lasted longer for me in this World Cup than the US team did. (Ouch.)B+

I am happy that the French beat the Portuguese. My early prediction: Italy 2, France 1 in regulation time. But I am wavering -- Zidane looks like a man possessed right now. And to all of my English readers: 1950 World Cup.

The Great Wall of China

Can there be a better metaphor for China than its Great Wall? Almost unfathomable in its size and scope, awe-inspiring in its ambition and grandeur, forged on the backs of the thoroughly expendable labor of millions, emblematic of a fear of the outside world and a simultaneous desire to show that world that it is impenetrable, in a sense the Wall and China seem as one. The one embodies the hopes and fear and paranoia of the other. A country and its most well known landmark have perhaps never been so perfectly matched, so inextricably intertwined.

Oddly, from China's most powerful city, its capital, there are only two real options to see the Wall, and one is far closer than the other, though still taking more than an hour to reach. This might be why this closest point is known as the more touristy choice. Nonetheless it was the only viable option today for me, my Aussie friend Jonathan, and his lovely wife Lotus. And so this morning we forged out from China Foreign Affairs University, where the three of us still were staying (Jonathan and Lotus, who arrived a couple of days ago, left tonight for a long train ride through the countryside), in the care of a cab driver who spoke not a word of English (and who subsequently would try to screw us out of about 50 remnibi despite a rather clear deal that had been brokered through the folks here at CFAU).

The drive through hazy, polluted Beijing has become familiar, but about forty-five minutes into the trip we began to see mountains. The landscape grew more rugged and more beautiful, with the highway increasingly enveloped by the tree-shrouded mountains, the grade becoming ever more steep and testing the capacity of our little taxi, which chugged upward slowly. Traffic in Beijing is a disaster -- Chinese drivers are the worst, cutting into lanes with no warning even if they know you are there, and it was odd to see the same phenomenon manifest itself in slow-motion as we forged through the hills and valleys and toward the Great Wall. Drivers did the same things they do in the city, but they did so at a creeping pace, turtles racing one another and swapping paint, laying on the horns, but barely meaning it, honking as if to say "I do it too, but you're doing it TO ME," as opposed to "stop that, people could get killed," or, as would seem more appropriate, "what the fuck are you doing? Are you insane?" On more than one occasion today, whether hurtling through the city or struggling up the mountain, I could easily have reached out and touched a car as it swerved into our lane and took it, or as our driver bravely stayed the course even as two vehicles seemingly simultaneously shared the exact same plot of tar, breaking the time-space continuum until one miraculously eked ahead of the other.

After arrival and a quick breakfast of dumplings and noodles -- no English spoken even at a restaurant in the tourist mecca at the base of the Wall; I am getting rather good at a commbination of pidgin Chinese, slowly spoken English, and charades -- we started the ascent. If the lingo seems alpine, it is for good cause. At least at the Badaling entrance to the Wall, there is nowhere to go but up, at least until you hit the end of where foot traffic is allowed -- the Wall goes on endlessly even as the parameters of our capacity to walk it are clear -- and then you turn around. It is a lung-testing, thigh-searing, hamstring-stretching haul, especially if you try to take it briskly, but it is also breathtaking. In between the ubiquitous hucksters trying to sell t-shirts, postcards and various forms of kitschy Wall-related folk art, the photo opportunities are amazing. I am not a big fan of check-the-boxes tourism, though I am experiencing a bit of that in my waning days in China, but despite all of the masses of people -- mostly Chinese but with a smattering of Americans and Europeans -- the rampant salesmanship of the pesky and inexhaustible proto-capitalists, and the limited access to a Wall that seems to go on forever in all directions (and for all intents and purposes does), the Great Wall of China is an awesome manifestation, all the more so when one couples what it is -- breathtaking, spectacular, epic -- with what it embodies.

I have less than two days left and am determined to get a good, long night's sleep tonight before my flight itinerary takes a turn for the crazy as I head for South Africa via Hong Kong. Last night I was up late watching soccer in the Ho Hi hutong, I have not gotten more than four or five hours sleep in so long I cannot even remember, and I want at least one restful night to absorb some of the wonderment before heading off to another day of exploration. I am the last remaining member of the group with which I began, so I am more and more on my own in this vast, sprawling, squawking city.

Let the Games Begin

I love the Summer Olympics. My track and field background certainly plays a role in my devotion to the quadrennial games, as this is the one time every four years when the jumpers and throwers and runners take center stage. NBC is planning about a billion hours of coverage, and I plan to watch a million of those hours over the next fortnight or so.

One curiousity that even casual viewers will have is how NBC and its several component stations will address the China question. Will NBC remain largely mum, making the fatuous (and demonstrably false) claim that politics have no place in the Olympics? Will any athletes use the medal stand, starting blocks, or any other platform to speak out against China's human rights abuses? Will China shoot itself in the foot by proving its critics' point?

And then there is the much-discussed issue of air quality. Everything you have heard is true. The air is nasty in China. When I was in Beijing a couple of years ago the smog was ubiquitous. On my last day, however, a mucous-thick yellow haze draped the city so that on the way to the airport early in the morning visibility was near impossible. Barring great luck, expect this environmental worry to be a legitimate question, especially when outdoor endurance events are in play.

My guess is that the main theme we'll see the most over the next couple of weeks will involve that precarious line between cultural exploration and cultural streotype. There will be myriad stories and images exploiting the differences between China and the West that will inevitably hint at the idea of ther inscrutable Chinese. And this is understandable -- China is very different from what most of us know. But how this is handled will be telling. There will be very real transportation and language issues for athlete and spectator alike. And China is fascinating. But this sort of endeavor is fraught with landmines. The line between caricature and picture is finer than most think.

Here are a few links that caught my eye this morning: Bob Ryan's column in The Boston Globe is, as should be expected, fine. The New York Times has a blog, Rings, covering all things Olympics (and here is an interesting interview on odd Olympic events with NYT sports magazine Play's John Tayman). The Washington Post scours its archives and samples excerpts from more than a century of opinions on the Olympics. The Council on Foreign Relations spotlights how the Games are part of a larger plan to augment China's peculiar brand of authoritarian capitalism. Here is an article from South Africa's Mail & Guardian discussing the "spectacle and controversy" that will be these games.

Enjoy the Games, USA! USA! Etc.

China's Dual-Edged Sword in Africa

To put it in the simplest terms, China is countenancing genocide in the Sudan. But equally simply, China might be emerging as the best partner Africa has, a country committed to Africa's development in ways that the rest of the world ought to observe and from which we ought to learn. earlier this week the New York Times emphasized China's growing role in Africa in an important article, "China Courts Africa, Angling for Strategic Gains."

China's role in Africa allows us a glimpse at our China dilemma in microcosm. China is vast, powerful, and pretty much immovable. The Chinese policy (a few notable exceptions -- Taiwan being the most prominent -- notwithstanding) of national sovereignty above all coupled with their sometimes callous disregard for human rights and human lives makes them a vexing world power. That China is reaching out to the rest of the world holds out both promise and peril. Let us hope that we can help promote the former while curbing the latter, but we need to be aware that force and coersion are simply not on the table as viable options in dealing with Beijing.

Thoughts on Iran

A longtime reader and friend sent me the following email the other day about the ongoing situation in Iran:

I have been spending a fair amount of my newspaper/internet time reading about the protests in Iran and what strikes me is the way that the press and photo/video journalism have been used in previous protests (civil rights movement as the first and most powerful) to accelerate change and how it has the potential to make meaningful change in Iran as well. I thought you might be well-positioned to be thoughtful on the subject given your background and focus. The one thing that it is so difficult to get a grasp on is how much "Americanized" spin is being put on the protests. Given that Americans have such a skewed conception of the middle east and Iran in particular, it is tough for me to know if the protests are the precursor to meaningful change or are just two different sides of what amounts to a relatively minor disagreement over the pace of gradual reforms, and whether this is Soweto or Tianamen Square.

Here are the thoughts I sent to him, though looking at it, I do not know if I answered the last part of his question, and so I will do so toward the end of the post:

1) I think it is clear that both the protesters and the state are well aware of the power of media. This explains why the state has been so deeply committed to crushing not only dissent, but especially to controlling the media access. Outside reporters have been banned, the media, circumscribed already, has been virtually shut down. There is no doubt that the protesters, meanwhile, are trying to counter the crackdown by using new media -- the state has tried to respond by shutting down blogs and the like, and so we see the Twitter aspect. What I wonder about that is just how pervasive the Twitter aspect is -- I cannot help but wonder, for example, whether or not Andrew Sullivan (who turned his blog into virtually all Iran all the time) is overstating the actual concrete importance of Twitter. But it is clear that those using the new (and otherwise pretty annoying and self indulgent) technology see it as one way to control the story as best they can.

2) As for the comparative framework, obviously it is hard to tell now. But certainly the awareness of the importance of getting the story -- and as important the images -- out to the larger world indicates that they are cognizant of how important images are. During the Civil Rights Movement, as you well now and alluded to, the media played a vital role, and more to the point, the civil rights activists knew this. During the Freedom Rides the protesters were well aware of the important of images, indeed, of promoting the sorts of conflicts that would garner attention, and thus sympathy. If the media was not there to cover it, it did not happen. The CRM was tremendously successful at this, but the segregationists learned as well. two examples will suffice. During the Freedom Rides when one of the first batches of students and their allies were dropped off at Parchman Farm in Mississippi, a couple tried to go limp and use the nonviolent technique. The police said, in effect, what the hell are you guys doing? There are no cameras here. John Lewis conceded that they had a point. The second example comes with the Albany campaign. Sheriff Laurie Pritchett had read about and paid attention to the contours of the movement and especially to King's nonviolence, including reading King's books. As a result, he knew that a Bull Connor-esque confrontation was the surest way to draw media attention and thus bring the crisis to a boil. So there was little no no violence under his watch. Arrests were orderly, even polite. And the media did not descend on Albany, changing the narrative of that struggle considerably.

3) in South Africa certainly the media was a factor as well, though much of the appeal was to the global media, as the apartheid state had the capacity to respond by cracking down on the media in the country. Interestingly, one of the main motivations for politicians during the Cold War was to prevent the American civil rights movement from becoming international news -- futile in the face of Bull Connor and others, during the 1963 campaign in his city but also during the Freedom Rides. Those events making front page news in the US was bad enough, but when that burning bus was splashed across newspapers the world over? As my friend Jaime would say, no goodo.

4) I'm not sure how much Americanized spin is being put on the events, certainly a lot from our vantage point. This is most obvious in the (to my mind silly) criticism of Obama that he has not been ardent in addressing the situation. This is not our fight. Though it has enormous ramifications for the US, that is a struggle that is still Iranian in nature. Obama recognizes this in a way that Bush/Cheney would not have and Netanyahu does not. Now does this mean we will never act? No. but it means bellicosity is not the right approach.

5) One thing that somewhat vexes me is the amount of attention this incident has gotten relative to other similar crises. I am especially thinking of Africa, in particular Kenya and Zimbabwe. Now those situations received their share of attention relative to African issues normally, but nothing compared to what this is getting. Andrew Sullivan giving his blog over? C'mon. I am not denigrating or downplaying the Iranian situation. I simply cannot see why it is so much more outsized than the situations in Zim or Kenya. Or I do, but I disagree -- the answer is tied to realpolitik. Iran has more strategic value in the minds of most people. And that belief may well be true. But intrinsically, the events in Africa are no less important or fraught or complex (or violent) than those in Iran.

That is my response to him. Now, as to the question of whether this qualifies as a precursor to meaningful change, I am not especially optimistic. The reader astutely posed two situations -- Soweto or Tiananman -- both of which certainly have some parallels. In the case of the Soweto Uprisings, the effect was to invigorate the anti-Apartheid movement that had been quiescent in the wake of the South African government's response to activists in the post-Sharpeville Massacre period. Soweto started a long process that led to the crises in the 1980s in South Africa and that in turn fueled the negotiations and ultimately the fall of apartheid and rise of Mandela and the ANC. Tiananman, meanwhile, simply showed the length the Chinese leaders would go to to maintain control and crush opposition. Though it is worth noting that post-Tiananman things have opened up considerably in China, even if it is far from a free nation, and even if the Chinese authorities rarely concern themselves with the niceties of human rights either within China or outside of it. My suspicions are that it will be more like Tiananman inasmuch as there are two factors reinforcing one another: The role of the state as an authoritarian presence and the role of religion as quite literally a higher power within Iranian politics. I hope, of course, that I am wrong.

The Break?: South African Politics and the Potential Earthquake

I have said it for years. The dominance of the African National Congress will not wane as the result of a challenge from the right. The days of the National Party and its inconsequential successors is past. There is room and a need for true conservatism (which I will then heartily oppose) in South Africa, but it cannot rise from the ashes of the Afrikaner Broederbond, the Afrikaner Weerstandsbeweging (AWB) or the Nats, new, old, gereformeerde or otherwise. The challenge, then will come from the left. More accurately it will come as the result of a break in the tripartite alliance that makes up the ANC -- the ANC, the South African Communist Party (SACP) and the Congress of South African Trade Unions (COSATU). I am certainly not an original thinker on this point, but these are observations I have been making since 1997 so I feel some sense that my construction of the discussion, at least, is my own.

The reason one can envision such a break is because recently both COSATU and the SACP have been making noise indicating that they could, possibly, at some point, consider breaking fron the alliance and going forward on their own in the political waters. That it has taken this long, and that it might never come to pass, is testament to the hold that power has on any constituency that has it. Being in the ANC fold is a virtual guarantee of access, status, and viability -- of, in essence, the concrete benefits of being in the catbird seat. COSATU and the SACP have always been second among equals, however, and this has long chafed the leadership of these organizations that, rightly, remind us of their vital role in the long liberation struggle.

This last point cannot be overstated. I know that many of my readers place themselves in the ardent anti-Communist camp, a standing that generally is the right one. For reasons too obvious to explore here, when Americans think of Communists we think of the Soviets, or possible China. Those, especially the Soviets, posed a real and serious threat and embodied the ultimate evil. In that context, I too am an anti-Communist. But the South African example is a significant exception, because almost universally the Communists in South Africa subsumed the idea of class revolution to the necessary fight against racial dominance. In so doing, they contributed greatly to providing both an intellectual framework and a multi-racial dynamic that proved vital to the ANC. It is worth noting that the SACP was virtually the only organization to which white South Africans could belong and contribute to the long fight against apartheid. On top of all of this, the explanatory apparatus of socialism really did resonate in South Africa, and for good reason: The apartheid system was many things, most of them bad. One of the most significant of its grotesqueries was that its very existence was based on the existence and ruthless exploitation of masses of black labor. Capitalism, free markets -- these quintessential components of liberalism were a farce for black South Africans. There was nothing free about South Africa's markets, a point that a succession of American presidential administrations never understood, which is remarkably obtuse. Furthermore, white South African anti-Communism was ardent -- in significant ways, far more so than in the US. This too made the National Party's rule seem appealing to the United States. The problem was that it was an anti-Communism borne of the most vicious racism, yet another point that myopic American governments failed to grasp in their simplistic use of Africa as a Cold War battlefield. In sum, then, as long as they subsumed Communist ideology to the anti-Apartheid fight, and they did for the duration, the SACP were the good guys in the decades after 1948.

It is in recognition of this that the ANC has bent over backward to accomodate, or at least pay lip service to the SACP and to the socialist-sympathetic unions of COSATU. Plus the ANC has always known that keeping these groups in the fold maximized their own power. But times are changing. This relationship that for so long has been fruitful is wearing out its usefulness. It may finally be time for a change.

The SACP is antsy to push a socialist agenda. It is an agenda that, while it has some fruitful points, would, if implemented in toto, be an utter disaster in the one country that Africans across the continent simply cannot afford to go awry. COSATU rightly emphasizes the rights of workers, but like all unions is largely unconcerned with masses who live on the agricultural fringes and with those not within its ranks, which is to say, a majority of South Africans, apoint that COSATU elides because to do otherwise would raise some uncomfortable questions.

South Africa has a parliamentary legislature that the ANC has dominated since 1994. I surmise that even after a break of the alliance the ANC will continue to do so. But its support levels will surely drop to or below where they were after the 1994 elections when the Nats and Inkatha Freedom Party, the one defunct the other irrelevant, drew support. This is to my mind a good thing. The ANC with too much support, which translates to too much power, frightens me. I'd like to think that South Africa is different from other African states, its leaders more sage, its democracy more stable, its juduciary and military more independent. But power is power, and when too much of it is consolodated for too long, such power becomes dangerous. Such a break would be especially good if it could be amicable -- if COSATU and SACP can maintain an alliance on a large number of issues while pursuing their own course where there is divergence.

This is all by way of description -- what I see happening -- rather than prediction, though I have long held that in the long run the alliance would be untenable if the partners ultimately chose to care about more than simply maintaining their grip on the levers of control. It is a dynamic well worth watching in the weeks, months and years to come.

On matters seemingly more prosaic, but almost assuredly of more immediate interest to a huge number of South Africans, the Springboks face off against the French in a rugby test match at 2:00. Just enough time for me to head back, drop some things off, and hit a (hopefully warm) pub for the clash.

The Reasons I Travel

At the end of the day, travel is, for me, about people. Whether I am returning to Africa or to the UK, places I visit regularly, where I have lived and worked, or whether visiting someplace for the first time, such as when I went to China a couple of years back, the most important component to me is always the people I meet, and friends new and old. This is not to say that there are not other factors -- work, for example, certainly requires me to travel quite regularly, and provides the justification for these trips. And like anyone who leaves home a lot, I like experiences as well, whether cultural, aesthetic, adventure, or what have you.

But the most important element of travel is people. I am staying in Sea Point, in Cape Town, with my good friend Doug, a black Zimbabwean who has lived in South Africa for more than a decade. We met in 1997 when we were at Rhodes University, in Grahamstown, and he is one of the people I always try to meet up with when I return. The time here will be too brief, but it is important, indeed crucial, that I spend it here. The conference in Stellenbosch provides another example. I walked into the conference venue knowing of a handful of the people there but actually knowing only one, a grad student at The University of Texas who I nonetheless always seem to see in South Africa. By the time I left Stellenbosch yesterday I had made a handful of new friends, some of whom I'll maintain contact with professionally, a few of whom I will likely remain friends with over the years.

In some ways I think I'be grown almost sanguine about the opportunities travel affords me. I brought my camera on this trip, have been able to see some new places and revisit old ones, and have yet to snap a single shot, which probably seems like a waste, but in my eyes just remonds me of all of the time I have spent here and the ways in which I try to immerse myself.

In any case, Cape Town is raw this morning -- rainy and damp, cold -- and I have decided to devote a day to trying to catch up on work. I apologize for the fundamentally personal nature of this entry, which lacks much insight into South African politics or history or culture. But South Africa is, for me, more than simply a tableau for politics and work. It is a real flesh and blood place where I've spent a large proportion of my life and energies for nearly a dozen years. So today I'll just work for a few more hours until Doug, my friend, gets home from work, and we'll go out to eat and for a few drinks before tomorrow, when all too quickly, I'll be leaving again.

[Crossposted at the FPA South Africa Blog and the FPA Africa Blog.]

Doin' Nothin', Soccer Style

Traditionally, I am not very good at just doing nothing. While I am a huge tv fan, for example, I cannot watch anything except for the most important sporting events without a book in hand to read during down times and commercials. I get antsy just lounging around. The idea of doing nothing but sitting, say, on a beach all day is not my idea of paradise, though if there are volleyball courts and books and picnics and walking and swimming and a radio I can start getting with it.

So this is an interesting few days. Until I head to Pretoria for my conference and some research, I have literally no plans. I've already met some people in cafes and bars, and when they ask me what my schedule looks like, I can honestly tell them that it is completely free for the next three days. Yesterday the goal was simply to stay awake, which I did (more on that in a moment)and today the goal is just to wander. I met an interesting actress/writer at a coffee shop and we talked for a couple of hours. Now I am ensconced at a used bookstore/internet cafe that I visit every time I am in Melville. In an hour or so I'll move on again. I might get my hair buzzed (it's already short, so I balk a bit at paying 70 rands -- $10! -- to get it shaved, but at the same time, once I decide I am getting my hair cut I tend just to do it. I'll surely grab a late lunch/early dinner, and even though the games are not very compelling today, I will go watch at least one of them over beer or wine or hot chocolate. I got the weekly Mail & Guardian, my favorite South African paper, which comes out on Fridays, as well as the Star, which is my fav . . . well, which is a South African daily. I am carrying a bag with stuuff to read. So I still am not doing nothing, but for me, this is as close to it as it gets, and I am adjusting. I suspect I'll keep meeting people, making short-term friends, one of the joys of travel, and taking things as they come.

As promised, I met my goal of making it as far as the game yesterday, at which point I knew I'd be fine. I found a nifty little cafe with two couches next to a fireplace -- a serious score. A woman about my age was there and started a conversation. She is a journalist working on some documentary, and we just talked and enjoyed the fire. One of her friends came in, we chatted a bit more, and then they shifted to Afrikaans while I awaited the opening kickoff of the game. They were chatting about boys. Eventually I decided to let them know that while I am not fluent, and I was trying not to listen, I understood about two thirds of what they were saying and gleaned most of the rest. They were surprised and a bit embarassed. No real need, but still, I felt it only fair to let them know. We chatted some more, though most of my attentions were on the game, and when the game ended and their friends started pouring in, it added a nice social element to the ambience, at least until inevitably I was the outsider, at which point I was due to move on anyway.

What can I say? The US simply did not come to play in this World Cup. But it was a fun scene. I was a bit removed from the screen, having chosen to keep my fireside poll position, but there was a roomful of African guys and we jawed back and forth in a friendly way. They respected the Americans but as with most of the continent, had fully embraced the Black Stars as their own, as well they should. They did not really put up a fight when I argued that the penalty kick was based on a cheap call, but they also pointed out that in the most technical sense our goal likely came on an offsides. They were ebullient when the clock, after a capriciously announced five minutes of injury time (they all assumed it was a conspiracy against Ghana), ran down to all zeros. It was all good fun. Except for one aspect that left a nasty taste in my mouth, even if I restrained myself. There were two white South African women rooting for Ghana, and why wouldn't they. But they kept referring to Ghana as "we," which seemed a bit odd. I suppose they have some claim to the continent as well, but it struck me as disjunctive and maybe a bit pretentious. But then one of them said "beat the fucking imperialist Americans."

Um, excuse me, what was that? Let me get this straight. You are a white South African. Not to put too fine a point on it, but you and your predecessors were beneficiaries of the most noxious colonial settler regime in African history and the world's worst racial dictatorship in the decades after World war II. Yes, yes, yes, I know you PERSONALLY opposed apartheid. I just find it funny that all of the white people I encounter who are over the age of 35 all opposed Apartheid, yet the National Party never received less than 84% of the vote until 1983, when the Conservative Party, which was more ardently pro-apartheid than even the Nats stole a few percentage points. I find the American Imperialism argument problematic when it comes from the most well-meaning critics. When blurted from the mouth of a white South African who benefitted in every possible way from apartheid for half of her life (where she lived, where she went to school, where she could attend college, where she could travel, what sorts of jobs she could have, with whom she could associate . . .) using "we" to describe Ghana's soccer successes? Well, color me unimpressed by your Pan-Africanism couched in geo-political inanities.

That exception aside, I do think Ghana's win marks a great Pan-African moment. The explosion of happiness in the bar was legitimate. The celebrations across the continent have been rapturous. This win means so much more to Africans than it ever would have meant to Americans that I not only do not begrudge the Ghanaian victory, I am happy for it. They have a tough draw against Brazil coming up, but what do they have to lose? They faced a gantlet of top 10 teams, two of which they defeated to get to this stage. They are aggressive and vibrant. They are a little bit lucky. They are confident. Why not? (Beyond the fact that Brazil is the greatest national team in the history of the sport, is playing well now, and has what by any measure is a better roster of superstars, I mean). Africans have been talking about Pan-Africanism and falling short of it for the entirety of the post-colonial era. At least this one time, this grand African nationalism seems to be a welcome, if undoubtedly temporal, reality.

I stayed out for a bit longer, drinking Castles and making new friends. I went back to my B&B ("Akuwaiseni," which means "Place of rest" in, I believe, Zulu.) and tried to watch some bad television, but before long I crashed. I awoke a few times during the night, but slept until 7 this morning and remained in bed for a while before starting my day. I am rested and ready, even if it was zero degrees celcius when I got up (which as you might recall is exactly 32 degrees fahrenheit, or freaking freezing).

A few additional notes: The M&G this week has several articles (print and online) on South Africa's take on the China question, which is basically whether or not to Fear the (China) Dragon. I certainly feel as if the China question is following me. I'll be writing more on that issue for other forums when I get back.

Meanwhile, over at Big Tent, Tom has a beautiful evisceration of Steve Rushin's assertion in Sports Illustrated last week that Americans hate soccer because we are ignorant provincials. I add my two cents in the comments, as do other folks.

In any case, it's time to move on as I practice this strange doing nothing thing.
Update: More on SA and China from this week's M&G can be found here.

Africa Stuff

There is lots of news from Africa in the last few days. The Sudan nightmare continues, and might be expanding; South Africans are going to the polls today to vote in what should be telling municipal elections; Observers fear for the future. Consider this a roundup.:

At The New Republic online, James Forsyth, assistant editor at Foreign Policy makes a compelling realist's case for greater involvement in the Sudan crisis. The gist of his case is that our inaction in the Sudan appears to lend credence to the idea that countries that seek shelter under "the China umbrella" will have free rein to be as dastardly as they choose. Forsyth acknowledges the virtue of humanitarian arguments for intervention while at the same time introducing a fairly compelling argument for intervention based on geopolitical interests.

Meanwhile, in a tail-wags-dog story, the Times reported yesterday that the Sudan has withdrawn its support for UN peacekeepers to take the place of African Union troops doing their best to control the situation in Darfur. One can easily debate this move on the merits -- in the wake of previous peacekeeping fiascos in which the UN was ineffectual in the face of African tyranny, such news might give pause -- but that Sudan should have a say in the matter is, to say the least, not reassuring. On a somewhat related note, Smith English professor Eric Reeves has been one of the leading voices drawing attention to the Sudan, and in a recent Mail & Guardian piece he addresses some of the problems of the AU forces, South Africa's inaction, and the need for stronger leadership, whether from South Africa, the AU or elsewhere.

All the while, Darfur refugee spillover into Chad runs the risk of turning the Sudan situation into yet another international (in the most literal sense of the word) miasma in Africa. Just consider what happened in the wake of the Rwandan genocide in 1994 or how the Congo/Zaire became a tinderbox a few years later. Once this becomes a cross-border problem, the potential for explosive conflict expands exponentially. This Sudan spillover may pose the worst refugee crisis in Africa (and the world) since the aftermath of the one hundred days of mayhem in Rwanda a dozen years ago.

In more hopeful news, South Africans flock to the polls today in what may be the stiffest challenge the ANC has yet faced. Thus far things seem to be going smoothly. In yesterday's Times Padraig O'Malley sounds a note of caution in the context of discontent over how the ANC has handled relocating certain communities from Gauteng to less prosperous provinces. I do not quite buy the most dire interpretations from the article, and would point out that while there are aspects of the ANC that seem bent on grasping more power than most (myself included) find comforting, the very existence of what should be fairly well-turned out voters who may challenge the ANC ought to be reassuring. The sentiments of one member of a Northern Cape opposition party member may indicate the tone of discontentment but not vitriol many in South Africa feel about the current state of the ANC: "I pray that the ANC will lose. We feel that you failed us. I was part of the people who helped the ANC win in 1994." What this indicates may be that a short-term setback for the ANC might cause the party to take a long look at itself, and perhaps to win back, to earn back, those who are concerned with what they see. Then again, some of the dissatisfaction appears pretty deeply seeded, as a quotation from a Shangase headman, Phenyamadoda Mchunu, indicates: "Tell me one reason why I should vote. We always vote but our lives don't improve." If enough South Africans begin to feel this way, things could grow very difficult for Mbeki's ANC.

Finally, according to the Mail and Guardian and observers, "things don't look good for Uganda." President Yoweri Museveni of the National Resistance Movement (NRM) is facing its stiffest challenge yet, and the one-time darling of a west that only half-pays attention to Africa at the best of times (Presidents Clinton and Bush have both heaped praise on Museveni since he came to office in 1996), looks to be resorting to typical "Big Man" tactics that have become frustratingly commonplace across Africa.

Summer to Winter

Howzit!

After a damned long 48 or so hours, I have successfully made it from Beijing to Hong Kong to South Africa. And I have been reminded of the unique chill of South African winter, surely exacerbated by the fact that it was 90 and humid as hell when I was wandering Hong Kong yesterday. The winters here can get pretty raw, but the biggest issue is that there is no cultural infrastructure for winter. This morning, for example, was no colder than a brisk but sunny spring day in New England. But houses here are not insulated for cold, they do not often have central heating, and so the frigid factor is out of all proportion to the conditions. Jo-burg will not be that bad, but if I make it to Grahamstown it can get pretty raw, and a windy day in Cape Town will send you scurrying for cover and a duvet as well.

In any case, I am back and savoring the special familiarity I have with South Africa -- not as familiar, and thus as banal, as home, but even if I don't know it blind, I know the contours. South Africa is the friend I go months without seeing, but when we do get together it feels good and right and special. I pay extra close attention, because it may be a while before it happens again and a chance meeting is unlikely, but it is highly doubtful that I'll be thrown for a loop by much that I see and hear, and I appreciate the differences that absence affords me the opportunity to notice.

Yesterday was long, but not uneventful. I headed into Hong Kong proper for several hours with the highlight being a trip up the tram to the "Peak," a hill (mountain? Though that designation seems a bit grandiloquent) that affords splendid views of Hong Kong's unquestionably fabulous skyline (I place it in my top five) but which also captures the essence of Hong Kong as I have discerned it from an admittedly small sample. The first thing one sees upon debarking from the vertiginously steep two-car tram (which, impossibly, has not had a single accident since 1888) is a glitzy, unabashed, out-of-place Shopping Mall in the midst of a beaucolic escape that most cities would work to preserve, to keep somehow sacred. Not Hong Kong -- if it can be developed, exploited, sold and commercialized, bring it on.

After two weeks in Beijing the contrast was sharp. I loathe false designations like "real" versus "false" with regard to Asia or anything else, but there was something ersatz and chintzy about Hong Kong. Maybe the root is its status as a former colony. Hong Kong sees itself as self-consciously different and better than the rest of the leviathan that now more than ever hovers so menacingly nearby. The gorgeous setting is just a delivery system for a soulless brand of commercialism. I'm sure there is much more to Hong Kong than this, but in so brazenly cultivating the high-end mall culture the city doesn't do much to tug at the curiousity of guys like me who travel enough not to be suckered. Of course the city's world-class airport serves as a hub to much of the rest of Asia, and that will draw in the filthy lucre. Plus, my views may represent a minority -- Disney Asia has opened up in close and convenient proximity to the airport, right off the Airport Express train service. Hong Kong seems content to cultivate the empty shell approach to tourism.

Dizzy from commercial overload I was almost relieved to get back to the airport for what still loomed as a five-hour wait, which I killed quite well, made easier by the fact that I ran into my new friend from the last weeks, Kaz, who was in Hong Kong from her trip to Nanking on her way back to Australia. I also was able to spend my Hong Kong dollars down to the nub, which I always like to be able to do. I did keep a garish HK$10 note, which looks like technocolor vomit.

Not much to say about the flight. Happily it was not full, and my row of four seats had two of us. The entertainment system was largely down, so I got quite a lot of reading done. The stewardesses were first-rate (Cathay Pacific earns high marks based on these last four flights) and while long, it was not unbearable. Customs was easy and my Melville bed-and-breakfast dispatched someone to fetch me for two thirds of what a private taxi hire would have run me. I have managed to avoid sleeping, and even finished the last hundred or so pages of a book and caught a rerun of Dallas, which I thoroughly enjoyed. My memories of that show are that my Mom loved it, periodically watched it with friends, and that it followed a heavy-hitter Friday Night Lineup from the vantage of an eight-year old, The Incredible Hulk and The Dukes of Hazzard a show the passion for which I had cannot be described. In the early years of South African television (the country kept tv's pervasive influence at bay until thirty years ago almost wholly because of the closed nature of the apartheid state) Dallas was huge. One could analyze why for hours (it represented the ideal of privilege that white South Africans had cultivated for themselves; secretly everyone here envied the hats; etc.) but apparently the romance is still alive, as wedged between the soap operas (South Africans love their soap operas, which can be found throughout the day, both imported US soaps and as importantly from a cultural vantagepoint, their own domestic ones, which, because they sometimes try to carry a message and because they are multi-lingual might actually have at least some social value) was J. R. Ewing in all of his conniving glory. I'm not going to lie to you -- if it is on dvd, I might have to buy season one of Dallas when I get back to the States.

I'm in danger-zone time. If I sleep anytime before tonight, I'm royally screwed, no two ways about it. I could have stolen a nap upon arrival and been ok -- when I got in it was 11:00 pm last night in China -- but if I do so now, I am going to end up awake in the middle of the night, and that sometimes leads me to depression, plus it makes getting my clock right all the more difficult. So I am just going to catch up on some internet, wander around Melville for a while longer, and by 3 settle in to a bar to watch the US-Ghana game that kicks off at 4, which I think will be especially fascinating because not only do I expect everyone here to be anti-US, but also the fact that we are playing an African nation should ratchet it up a few notches. Fortunately, it will be friendly banter, and truth be told, I would be fine with Ghana moving on because that would mean so much more to that country and this continent than if the US wins. That said, I'd like the US to strap on a pair and begin to look like a team that deserved its ranking coming in. If Ghana wins, I am rooting for them and England the rest of the way.

You know what's good for a chill in the air? Beer. It will soon be Castle Lager time. Lekker.

More China and Africa

In this week's New York Times Magazine James Traub has a long feature on "China's Africa Adventure." I addressed the issue of "China's Dual-Edged Sword in Africa" a couple of weeks ago. Africa will represent a pretty good backdrop for China's intended global policy over the course of the next few decades and our policy makers would be wise to keep a close eye on what goes on there. This is yet another of many reasons why Africa matters.

Hillary at the CFR

Because of my affiliation with the Foreign Policy Association I am able to access media events, though to this point I have not really done so. But today I decided to partake in Secretary of State Hillary Clinton's on-the-record speech and presser at the Council on Foreign Relations. I am going to write a piece for the FPA and wrote a blog post for the Africa Blog, but I thought I'd share my notes (and that is all these are, so they are pretty fragmented) here:

Hillary Clinton On-The Record Event and Conference Call – Council on Foreign Relations

*Clinton is a much better, and frankly, more palatable and likable speaker in this capacity than she is on the stump.

*Advice she once received: Don’t try to do too much. But today this is impossible.

*The question today isn’t whether America should, but rather how it should lead.

*Obama – caused us to think outside traditional boundaries.

*We will exercise American leadership that no nation can do alone.

*While the idea that shape our foreign policy are critically important, this is not just an intellectual exercise.

*Does not make sense to utilize 19th c concert of powers, 20th c balance of powers, Cold War containment, etc,

*Countries face many of the same issues and “obstacles that stand in the way of turning commonality of interest into common action” – no nation can face these challenges alone but none can face them without America.

*A combination of boilerplate and heady rhetoric – clear break from previous administration in many areas – emphasis on coalitions and working with international community, climate change and nonproliferation, torture, talking with enemies, etc.

*Economic turmoil changes the calculus – normally economic matters not a major factor for SecState, but in these times she believes that there needs to be a restoration of State role in economic outreach, trade issues, etc.

*Good speech, to be sure. Coherent, well presented, smart, but certainly broad and even diffuse.

*Very little on Africa. Mentioned Ghana but in context of larger policy goals.

Q&A:

Israel/Palestine peace prospects in 2010? She carries forward hope. Wanted a skilled negotiator and got it in envoy George Mitchell. Not just responsibility of Israel, nor even of Palestinians, but of Arab States as well. Will not make predictions, but commitment is deep and durable.

Could Hamas play a role in the peace process? Firmly committed to quartet process. Would expect Hamas to recognize Israel, denounce violence, and support peace process. (Yeah, right.)

Elaborate on administration’s willingness to engage with Iran – any response from Khamenei to letter sent in May, and if they do show interest, what if they stonewall with no give? Has there been a green yellow or red light sent to Israel (re: Biden) with regard to attacking Iran? Troubled by repressive actions post-election, but there is no path opened up right now. There is a choice for the Iranian government to make. Will wait to see how they decide. This would not be an open-ended engagement, a door that stays open no matter what. Re: Biden: White House clarified the next day (ie: punt).

What do you expect from trip to India, especially foreign policy/global aspects? Delighted to be engaging in broad comprehensive dialogue – most wide ranging ever put on table between India and US. India has an opportunity to play a greater global role. There are a number of areas where we would welcome Indian leadership or involvement.

Reports that in discussions between Mitchell and Ehud Barak there was some agreement to allow construction to go forward – can you comment? Not going to step on the process – will announce decisions that have been made.

Talk a little more about Quadrennial Diplomacy and Development Review? Served on armed services committee for 6 years. This (QDDR) seems to be a very important discipline and tool for Defense Department. Allows us to justify what we are doing and to show concrete results. This is both a policy approach as well as an attempt to explain and justify what they are doing – wants this to become long-term policy put into place by Congress.

Dividends being received from recommitment to alliance relationships – early on it seems that some allies are still skeptical? She agrees that we are still dealing with the “down payment” process where we are taking unrequited steps without clear responses. But in the long run she is quite optimistic. We have intense ongoing discussions with allies trying to implement our strategies. Economic downturn plays a role. Furthermore, after eight years we are actually adding troops to Afghanistan and both at home and abroad we still have to answer questions and clarify our positions. We still need to assuage fears and anxieties (referenced loss of 8 British soldiers and Gordon Brown’s political difficulties as a result). Slow development and change in Afghanistan indicative of the difficulties we are facing. Of course she cannot say that all of our allies are going to come through to our thinking, but she is optimistic.

Previous Presidents from Carter to Clinton have set out to reach out to Iran and has been rebuffed – what happens if this attempt fails – are we prepared to live with a nuclear Iran? We have consistently said that we cannot accept a nuclear Iran. But we are not going to negotiate with Iran sitting here. Policy to Iran in last eight years was a mistake – we basically outsourced our policy to Iran and it failed. It’s not just US that should be concerned, but many others in world, including some much closer to situation for whom consequences are much more dire.

Expand on point about State Dept approach to economic issues – trade agreements, but also exports, etc. – what is the role of State in commercial advocacy? Takes commercial advocacy seriously, as it is part of State Dept. role, and trade policy is certainly an important issue for State. We are a trading nation and we need to make that clear, but economic policies also seen as important part of the diplomacy of nations. Role of State’s economic agenda needs to be strengthened, work with Treasury, work with Economic Council. Why would State say it is not part of economic mix when economics are so vital to our relations with other countries. Have worked to make ties with China comprehensive because economic issues are at the forefront.

In six months what has struck you most about your job? Excitement of new administration, this has also allowed us to improve our image in the world. Shocking that we do not Have full gov’t in place after six months. Realizes how shortsighted she was in Senate when it came to asking a ton of questions of every nominee! It’s been a real privilege and an honor and she is proud of what the gov’t has done so far.

China, Railroads, Roads, and Africa

One of the issues that has captured my attention since my trip to China this past summer, and subsequent travel to Africa, is the role that Asia's behemoth is increasingly staking across the continent. I have written about the issue here, here, here, and here. In The New Republic Michael Currie Schaffer has an article exploring China's newfound interest in building railroads in Africa. His article is actually more a fascinating slice of travel writing than an especially astute geopolitical observation -- he is long on description and short on argument -- but his observations provide another example of how China has targeted Africa for development.

Zai Jian!

Update: Edited from Hong Kong, where I can see my work after a couple of weeks under the censors' gaze. I have a hellish 12 hour layover -- enough to go into the city, not enough to keep me from staring at my watch regularly.

First off, it should be noted that almost everything I have written this past couple of weeks invoking Chinese has been utterly based on my own understanding of phonetics and misunderstanding of what I have heard.

Quick final night story:

So, I was just out drinking -- not too much, but wanted to do a little tippling on my last night. I went to a place near campus and had a couple of pijiou (Beer, or in this case, big assed bottles of beer). I am reading a book, but feel nature calling. I hit the bathroom -- I cannot even begin to tell you just how nasty many Chinese public toilets are, plus so many of them are just these odd little one-person porcelain troughs in the ground -- and have two options for a stall. I picked the one I used the other night (the one on the left), when I went with a bunch of colleagues to the same humble streetside eatery after our final banquet. Squatting just beyond the door is a tiny Chinese women. She screams. I scream back. Which leads her to scream more. I scurry to the other filthy stall (I guess my reading of the symbols for women and men got crossed) take a quick wee, and realize that in her mind, I might be some sort of sicko. So I head back to the sidewalk, tag down about 16 ounces of remaining beer (a man's got to have priorities) and take off, not wanting my last night to be characterized by some sort of bizarre Chinese revenge ritual.

The lesson: Drink all of your beer before you go pee; Learn the Chinese characters for the women's room; Knock. Loudly. (Another lesson one could draw is that those toilets teach Chinese folks to squat deeply; it's a country of catchers in the making. But that was not the first lesson I garnered from that little experience;) Yet another is that I pissed in the women's room on Friday night.

Went solo into Tiananmen and the Forbidden City today. The first observation about Tiananmen is that it is vast. It is supposed to be the largest public square in any city in the world, and I believe it. I tried to eyeball it in terms of football fields, and my sense of space failed me, but the answer must be dozens, maybe scores. It is huge. Mao's mausoleum is there (didn't visit; knowing he's dead is enough for me) and flanking it on the sides are the Chinese museum (didn't go in. Knowing it's there is enough for me) and the Chinese equivalent of the Parliament, which is enormous. It has a regal, vaguely Stalinesque look (go figure), and I don't know if I could have gone in (Knowing I shouldn't have been there was enough for me).

I don't need to remind any of you of 4 June 1989. The facts, as we know them, are somewhat sketchy. It is quite possible that no one was killed that day in the square. It is quite possible that thousands were slaughtered once students were rousted out from it. That day is misunderstood, and it was not a simple morality play -- there were serious and important reformers within the Communist Party who pleaded with students to leave and by many accounts their legitimate and brave attempts at reform from within during Deng's time died on that day; The vast majority of the students had no idea why they were there, many descended on the square because it was an event, a jol, the thing to do; The ones who thought they knew oftentimes had no real concept of democracy. And so forth. In any case, there are now just enough soldiers on the grounds to remind anyone who has any ideas that they are probably bad ones. And there are cameras. Lots of cameras. And yet more desperate hawkers. Lots of desperate hawkers. I've come to hate them.

I have to admit, I took on the Foridden City (so named because for more than 500 years it was off limits to outsiders, with punishments ranging from 100 lashes to death to those who violated) in a somewhat perfunctory way. It is enormous beyond comprehension (the Chinese do big well. Americans are pikers by comparison, which may not be a bad thing) and I did spend a couple of hours or so there. But I was a bit touristed out, and my main goal was to get to this hill beyond the Walls of the Forbidden City, on the north side of the axis that is Tiananmen-Forbidden City. That hill is part of a bucolic park complex, the centerpiece of which is the steep hill that quickly rises from the pool-table flat surroundings. The climb was a tester, but I presumed worth it, until I discovered that the pagoda- or temple-like building at the top, which promised exquisite views of the city on all sides, was closed. I saw a leggy Chinese girl get beyond the mesh gates. When I opened the gate and peered within, I was brusquely waved off by a soldier. The soldiers here tend toward the scrawny and short, but with visions of 1989 in my head I demurred, even if I muttered complaints that they did not understand ("Fuck Mao" becoming standard juvenile boilerplate nonsequiter by now.)

The rebuffing granted me time to wander the park, which is lovely, then to make my way back through a hutong that, given its proximity to the Square and the Forbidden City, and given that 10,000 hutong are disappearing a year, is surely ill fated. Intermittently in the hutong were scattered what is to me already a familiar dual-role business: hairdresser shops by day, and shall we say red light districts by, well, apparently at least by 5:00. I could have gotten some serious tail, but my newfound status as an engaged man and love for my fiancee, coupled with my aversion to venereal disease, trebled with the fact that my fate in matters intimate was clearly to walk in on some poor woman taking a dump, led me to keep on walking.

I have to be up in 5 hours for what will be 48 hours of: Flying, getting one last shot at Hong Kong, lots more flying, and then arriving in South Africa. I'll try to touch base from Hong Kong, where I'll have the benefit of being able actually to see the blog. China has been remarkable. Too much to absorb. I've learned so very much, met some great people and new friends, immersed myself as deeply as possible, eaten amazing food, drank lots of pijou, and avoided becoming a political prisoner. Not a bad couple of weeks.

Zai jian, China.

Inaction in Sudan

Susan Rice (a former Assistant Secretary of State for Africa during Clinton's second term), Anthony Lake (national security adviser from 1993 to 1997 and Rice's boss when she was at NSC during that time), and Donald Payne (D-NJ) ask a very good question in their Washington Post article "We Saved Europeans. Why Not Africans?" Noting that the Sudan appears willing to do everything within its power to keep foreign troops or peacekeepers out, and that we seem perfectly willing to acquiesce to their demands, they note, "Will world leaders continue to give the perpetrators of genocide a veto over international action to stop it? Unless something changes dramatically, the answer seems to be yes."

This is the unfortunate reality in the Sudan -- the powers in Khartoum know that they can ignore the powers of the west because we are unwilling to back our demands with action. We dither, Africans die. This has been the story in the Sudan as it has been the story elsewhere in Africa, such as in Rwanda. We need to acknowledge an uncomfortable truth: Unless we force Khartoum's hand, the carnage and dispossession in darfur will continue apace, the turmoil will spread into Chad, and ten years from now we'll get to hear about what we should have done, didn't do, and what we will for sure this time do in the future. As Rice, Lake and Payne argue:

Lost in the diplomatic bustle is reality: First, the U.S.-brokered peace deal for Darfur, fatally flawed from its signature, is dead. Second, Sudan has broken every pledge to every envoy to halt the killing in Darfur. Third, China is unlikely to compel Sudan to admit the United Nations -- 7 percent of its oil is at stake, and China may figure we value its help on Iran and North Korea more than on Sudan. Fourth, it's too late for sanctions; even if China miraculously relented, it would take months before their bite was felt. By then, Sudan will have completed its second wave of genocide in Darfur.

History demonstrates that there is one language Khartoum understands: the credible threat or use of force. After Sept. 11, 2001, when President Bush issued a warning to states that harbor terrorists, Sudan -- recalling the 1998 U.S. airstrike on Khartoum -- suddenly began cooperating on counterterrorism. It's time to get tough with Sudan again.

The question is, how credible would such a threat appear to be? If we are going to make the threat, we need to be able to back it up. We need to develop a coalition that will act in our name and with our backing and that will have the ability to use credible force to an extent that will make the Sudanese listen and take our promise to act seriously.

Diversity v. Dilettantism

Jonathan Malesic, in a clunkily titled piece ("The Subcategorical Imperative") in the Chronicle of Higher Education asks a question that hits close to home for dcat: "By saying that my scholarly interests are broad, will I run the risk of being labelled a surface-skimming dilettante?"

I have not been very good about narrowing my professional interests. If forced to answer the "what do you do?" question, a query for which we are all supposed to have developed a glib, rote answer by the time we are ABD, I say something like "race and politics in the US and Africa. Plus some stuff on global terrorism. Oh, and sports." And it is true. These are all areas in which I have written, published, researched, and taught. But in a profession that sometimes seems to want to narrow its practitioners beyond the bounds of relevance, that answer sometimes meets with askance glances.

But here is the thing: So what? At the end of the day, shouldn't my work speak for itself? If some people think that a young scholar cannot pursue a variety of interests without actually seeing the work that the person has produced, if they simply use their own framework based on their limitations to decide what is within the realm of the possible, isn't that their problem, not mine? Since when is being a generalist a bad thing? Since when did trying to be a renaissance man become reason for scorn?

Like Malesic, I take some solace in one of his key points:

I take some comfort in knowing that in their research, many of the big names in the humanities deal with a broad range of topics. If resisting easy categorization is good enough for Martha Nussbaum (she of the 25-page CV), then it's good enough for me.

Some of the historians I most admire have a diversity of interests. Furthermore, historians tend to think thematically. Yet my interests do have a coherence -- I am a contemporary historian. I deal with currents in the twentieth century that are not all tied to one geographic nexus point. I am working hard on being a comparativist. So in my rather narrow chronoloogical focus, I end up wearing lots of hats -- I am a southern historian, but I am probably not your man if you want to discuss 18th century settlement patterns in Virginia. I look at global terrorism in places as diverse as Northern ireland and Israel and the South and South Africa. But i may not be the guy to talk to to get a sense of Ireland before the potato famine, or the Middle east since antiquity. I am an African historian, but I'll be the first to admit that my focus on things before the Scramble for Africa in the late 19th century is pretty episodic. I also acknowledge that in my breadth, there are blind spots. I know little about Asia, though for reasons I'll explain down the road, I may get the chance to go to China for a week or two this summer.

Is this so bad? Since when is the fact that I love and am conversant in sports and music and can talk across traditional scholarly boundaries a bad thing? And since when, short of looking at the work itself, is it even acceptable to dismiss someone's work because it crosses those boundaries? So what do I do? Lots of stuff. I cannot really answer it in one sentence. But do you want to grab lunch? We'll talk. I just got this great new album. I am worried about the Sox lineup when Bard catches for Wakefield. And I've been thinking a lot lately about the South African Treason Trials, the Baton Rouge bus boycott, and the Enniskillen bombing. Maybe it'll all make sense after a while. Or maybe not. It does to me.