Imagine Africa's future -2- Our version of NATO

[rivertemz]

Nations and regions outside Africa and Madagascar that have a majority Black/Afro-descent population (>70% of population).

Mostly the Caribbean islands;

Haiti, Jamaica, Saint Lucia, Saint Lucia, The Bahamas, Barbados, Dominican Republic, Grenada, Dominica, Bermuda, Netherlands Antilles, British Virgin Islands, Turks and Caicos islands; Saint Kitts and Nevis.

(Focusing on the nations and regions that would have significant political and economic control over their overall population)

Nations with a significant % of mixed/black Afro-descent population;

South Americas(~110 million); Brazil, Colombia, Guyana, Cuba, Peru etc.

North America (~44 million); US, Canada and Mexico

Europe (~8 million) ; France, UK, Germany, Italy etc.

And as Africans are vastly spread across the world, have travelled the world for centuries and even more today.

Brazil with the largest outside of Africa, followed by the US, (but obviously not a majority percentage in these nations).

The focus is on what global act of political significance can we achieve to recognize our natural relationship between Africa as a continent and the African diaspora across the Atlantic and Indian ocean, what can we imagine that could benefit an allied relationship between these distant peoples, cultures and nations?

What makes this concept so significant?

Will the right time come when our diaspora can come as an economic and political unit
?

Let's take the current NATO "The North Atlantic Treaty Organization" for example;

 

Made up of North American, North Atlantic and European nations;

"NATO’s essential purpose is to safeguard the freedom and security of its members through political and military means "

"It is an alliance of 28 member countries roughly bordering the North Atlantic Ocean: Canada, U.S., Turkey and most members of the European Union. NATO's purpose is to protect the freedom of its members. As famously defined in Article 5, "...an armed attack upon one...shall be considered an attack upon them all."

International alliances has always been stirred by relations with nations across it's border, either sharing political ideologies (communism and capitalism), religious beliefs (Catholicism, Protestant, islamic etc.) and Colonial/historical pasts. 

Map of NATO partnerships globally

(Blue) Members (orange) Partnership for peace (Green) Global Partners (Red) Mediterranean dialogue 

If the time comes when most African nations reaches a driving force of economic power, that may be able to compete against European nations (NATO members) Asian nations (such as China) and the Arab union, in many aspects such as (mainly) the economy, military, education, infrastructure, wealth and media, can we rely on and ally with our dismembered international relatives the same way a common relation was founded within NATO members' contrast to the world?

I emphasize on "If the time comes", because Africa as it is now, is separated by forced colonial borders and ethnic/cultural differences, it would take some time before the African Union is taken with the right perspective and advantage. But in the meantime we could only wonder what international alliances are seriously made up of.

From my personal perspective, the NATO is undeniably a predominant (and only) White/Eurocentric alliance at a global scale. We may be given a different role for it's existence on the surface, but how much can we take from what is apparent.

The African Diaspora may have more of a potential than what most Black people/ Africans think.

This could be a political beginning to a brighter unity of the African diaspora, turning a descent into political alliance and support.

 

[africurious]

I don't see how an african version of NATO would be of any substantial benefit to africans or the diaspora. NATO is a military alliance forged to defend members from a powerful common enemy, the former USSR. How would a military alliance substantially benefit africans? Who is the big enemy that is attacking or likely to attack african and diaspora countries? africans face the greatest military threat from within their own borders or neighboring african countries as the last several decades have shown. A military alliance against outside parties doesn't address this issue. It sounds more like you want something that sounds good (because there'll be some big african alliance to show off warplanes and what not) but that isn't helpful. There are already economic and social links among africans/diaspora. These would create vastly more benefit if they are strengthened as opposed to some romanticized military alliance.

[zarahan]

I would have to agree with the above analysis. Africa and the African disapora
are really too fragmented for anything but the vaguest, loosest political/military
union arrangements at present. Cultural unity and related institutions offer
the best alternative at present together with local/regional trading and economic
blocs. And it is an open question whether the bureaucratized Euro superstate that
is the EU is the best model for Africa. Is another layer of grasping bureaucracy (with all
its corruption, expense and inefficiency on many counts) really the best way to go for Africa?

[rivertemz]

africurious zarahan I'm really trying to emphasize on "future" plans or ideas. I absolutely agree that Africa and the African diaspora is currently not ready for a platform for military association. I didn't think in today's perspective but rather a point of view that comes from me claiming--"what if a time comes when Africa makes it's way into an economically (including a power-politically) competitive platform between other nations"

africurious "NATO is a military alliance forged to defend members from a powerful common enemy, the former USSR."
Yes, that was it's initiative when it was first formed, but has for now, NATO has become a military alliance in the position to defend and protect its members against any threat from other nations and regions. [As you can see from the 2nd map, its current affiliations with the USSR is in partnership for peace, whilst it hasn't got a relative alliance with most east-asian nations, most significantly China. Neither does it have relations with the majority of the third world nations]

When the Rwandan Genocide in 1994 occurred, the known accusation was the French government would have been able to purge the incidence from further occurring at it's infant beginnings. But Chose not to because of it's insufficient and un-excusable reasons for dropping out. Many Rwandan politicians blamed the NATO for holding back any European forces from interfering with the civil unrest.  which was mostly blamed for it's French and Belgian colonial involvement in the tribal conflict they stirred up in the small country.

Next in line was the UN to support the cause but;

Most of the 2,500 UN peacekeepers in Rwanda at the time were withdrawn after the deaths of 10 Belgian soldiers.

At a council debate, the Canadian Foreign Minister, Lloyd Axworthy, said none present could look back without remorse and sadness at the failure to help the people of Rwanda in their time of need.

"The unchecked brutality of the genocidaires made a mockery, once again, of the pledge 'never again,'" he said, referring to the promise made after the Holocaust."

The point I'm trying to make here is that Africa's intra-continental conflict is inevitable and Africa will continue to rely on the UN for it's peacekeeping agenda, but there will come a time when the AU will be justifiable and strengthened by it's future political association.

Inter-continental conflict may also occur, in fact it's inevitable since Africa is the richest continent in the world in terms of resources, that there will be a brawl for the continent again and we're seeing signs of old, undercover- colonial affiliation with the west.

Back in the 90s they would rather see Africans kill each other as long as it didn't involve the resources handled in that region which would have allowed Western or Asian economic giants to pull in, they would have provided the support against the civil unrest. But in this case the Rwandan incident was only sparked by the death of their (Hutu) president blamed on by the Tutsis,( rather than natural resources which had mostly been the case for civil unrest in Africa).

When national civil unrest by the masses occurs in a region of Africa again (not involving untapped resources), can we still rely on the UN? Or would there be another revised excuse for their insufficiency and a sincere apology.

In the future can the AU (African Union) do enough to protect it's future internal partnerships over it's international competition, military wise the UN is doing what it can to bring peace, but how much can we believe happens for the UN's role in Africa. Have you people forgotten what Muammar Gadda ranted about in his UN speech?

but we must have a template for our affiliations involving nations predominantly African/Afro-descent, to also protect our economical and political interests.

[africurious]

Rivertemz, the fire of pan-africanism burns within you as it does within me. But, you're not practical. What you propose is just "feel-goodism", which accomplishes nothing substantial.

Jun 12, 2014 7:23:29 GMT -5 rivertemz said:

africurious zarahan I'm really trying to emphasize on "future" plans or ideas. I absolutely agree that Africa and the African diaspora is currently not ready for a platform for military association. I didn't think in today's perspective but rather a point of view that comes from me claiming--"what if a time comes when Africa makes it's way into an economically (including a power-politically) competitive platform between other nations"

Military alliances are made to strengthen members against a common enemy. Why would it make more sense to wait until a future date when africa is perhaps more powerful to form an alliance when they are weak now and most vulnerable?


I don't see how the Rwandan Genocide is relevant. It involved no military aggression from non-african forces. Africans killed other africans as happens with members of any continent.

The point I'm trying to make here is that Africa's intra-continental conflict is inevitable and Africa will continue to rely on the UN for it's peacekeeping agenda, but there will come a time when the AU will be justifiable and strengthened by it's future political association.

Inter-continental conflict may also occur, in fact it's inevitable since Africa is the richest continent in the world in terms of resources, that there will be a brawl for the continent again and we're seeing signs of old, undercover- colonial affiliation with the west.

Back in the 90s they would rather see Africans kill each other as long as it didn't involve the resources handled in that region which would have allowed Western or Asian economic giants to pull in, they would have provided the support against the civil unrest. But in this case the Rwandan incident was only sparked by the death of their (Hutu) president blamed on by the Tutsis,( rather than natural resources which had mostly been the case for civil unrest in Africa).

When national civil unrest by the masses occurs in a region of Africa again (not involving untapped resources), can we still rely on the UN? Or would there be another revised excuse for their insufficiency and a sincere apology.

You seem to be misunderstanding what a military alliance is. The military alliance does not stop something like the Rwandan Genocide from happening. Said alliance counters military threats. The AU and regional orgs such as ECOWAS and SADC would be the relevant African organizations and they are already in existence. The problem is african countries are poor so there isn't enough funding (and frankly, sometimes not enough african countries give enough of a damn about other african countries) to intervene on such a large scale. The AU already has the framework to operate in such a fashion--it just needs the $ and political will. So, again, what would your alliance bring to the table?

but we must have a template for our affiliations involving nations predominantly African/Afro-descent, to also protect our economical and political interests.

Affiliations and military alliances are 2 different things. Also, our eco and political interests may not all align; in fact, they may conflict at times. It was easier when all except Ethiopia was under the boot of colonialism and we all had the paramount goal of throwing out the colonizer. That is no longer the case. Further, we have eco and political interests now so why would we wait to form an alliance in the future if said alliance supposedly offers great protection?

[rivertemz]

Jun 12, 2014 18:54:30 GMT -5 africurious said:

Rivertemz, the fire of pan-africanism burns within you as it does within me. But, you're not practical. What you propose is just "feel-goodism", which accomplishes nothing substantial.

Jun 12, 2014 7:23:29 GMT -5 rivertemz said:

africurious zarahan I'm really trying to emphasize on "future" plans or ideas. I absolutely agree that Africa and the African diaspora is currently not ready for a platform for military association. I didn't think in today's perspective but rather a point of view that comes from me claiming--"what if a time comes when Africa makes it's way into an economically (including a power-politically) competitive platform between other nations"

Military alliances are made to strengthen members against a common enemy. Why would it make more sense to wait until a future date when africa is perhaps more powerful to form an alliance when they are weak now and most vulnerable?


I don't see how the Rwandan Genocide is relevant. It involved no military aggression from non-african forces. Africans killed other africans as happens with members of any continent.

The point I'm trying to make here is that Africa's intra-continental conflict is inevitable and Africa will continue to rely on the UN for it's peacekeeping agenda, but there will come a time when the AU will be justifiable and strengthened by it's future political association.

Inter-continental conflict may also occur, in fact it's inevitable since Africa is the richest continent in the world in terms of resources, that there will be a brawl for the continent again and we're seeing signs of old, undercover- colonial affiliation with the west.

Back in the 90s they would rather see Africans kill each other as long as it didn't involve the resources handled in that region which would have allowed Western or Asian economic giants to pull in, they would have provided the support against the civil unrest. But in this case the Rwandan incident was only sparked by the death of their (Hutu) president blamed on by the Tutsis,( rather than natural resources which had mostly been the case for civil unrest in Africa).

When national civil unrest by the masses occurs in a region of Africa again (not involving untapped resources), can we still rely on the UN? Or would there be another revised excuse for their insufficiency and a sincere apology.

You seem to be misunderstanding what a military alliance is. The military alliance does not stop something like the Rwandan Genocide from happening. Said alliance counters military threats. The AU and regional orgs such as ECOWAS and SADC would be the relevant African organizations and they are already in existence. The problem is african countries are poor so there isn't enough funding (and frankly, sometimes not enough african countries give enough of a damn about other african countries) to intervene on such a large scale. The AU already has the framework to operate in such a fashion--it just needs the $ and political will. So, again, what would your alliance bring to the table?

but we must have a template for our affiliations involving nations predominantly African/Afro-descent, to also protect our economical and political interests.

Affiliations and military alliances are 2 different things. Also, our eco and political interests may not all align; in fact, they may conflict at times. It was easier when all except Ethiopia was under the boot of colonialism and we all had the paramount goal of throwing out the colonizer. That is no longer the case. Further, we have eco and political interests now so why would we wait to form an alliance in the future if said alliance supposedly offers great protection?

Hmm I don't think you thoroughly read through my response enough to get where this is going, but anyway it's a minor concept, we really don't have to embrace it. I still think we are looking at this from a key hole rather than a perspective that recognizes sensitive topics like "military" actions or "Alliances" that has it's recent war-torn impact. I understand, but I really don't think you've understood what I've stated on my first response.

[zarahan]

Rivertemz said:
I didn't think in today's perspective but rather a point of view that comes from me claiming--"what if a time comes when Africa makes it's way into an economically (including a power-politically) competitive platform between other nations"

Yes Africa is not in a position to challenge a bloc like US/NATO all out,
though individual nations or regional alliances of nations, could if
prepared years in advance and willing to pay the price, fight a long war
of attrition that might defeat or stalemate a specific NATO initiative or
mission- just as the NVA and the Viet Cong defeated US objectives or
policy in Vietnam without having to physically annihilate all US forces.


but there will come a time when the AU will be justifiable and strengthened by it's future political association.
Maybe but the other possibility is that the AU could become an errand boy/water
carrier, dependent on, and doing the bidding of EU/NATO hegemons

we must have a template for our affiliations involving nations predominantly African/Afro-descent, to also protect our economical and political interests.

Hmm, I see some possible template outlines like below maybe:

1-- Cultural: arts, music, sports etc linkages and events and institutions.
So for example a consortium of Puff, Jay-Z and Oprah could fund 50 hard-hitting
annual cultural events across the diaspora: from New York To Bahia, to Kingston, to Accra,
and vice versa African, Brazilian and South American moguls doing the same
or collaborating. It could be scaled up or down based on country and situation
and available potential/talent.



2-- Diasporan economics at individual or group level- this means networks
of economic assistance and development just as overseas Chinese, Jews, Armenians,
Lebanese etc do across continents to build wealth. Nigerian groups are an example
of this in action in the US and England


3-- Prosperous, stable free-market oriented showcases based on primary resources-
Botswana is one such example. There need to be several others that leverage their
mineral wealth or natural resources to create encouraging role models to emulate. Rwanda
is coming along as another example- an alternative without the heavy primary resources


4-- Messy, noisy but striving/thriving giants: Nigeria is the best candidate for this- but it
has a way to go, and needs much better governance. The idea is to have such a "regional
champion" proving a massive manpower base and an expanding economy that can furnish
anchor points for the template. With proper policies, Nigeria could have been approaching
the neighborhood outskirts like one of the BRIC nations now like Brazil. How much time
and resources have been wasted and siphoned off. Just General Abacha and his cronies
stole 2.2 billion from the country. If such excrement can be checked, and the masses
benefited with proper government and policies, one can see the potential there in a
giant like Nigeria- if only it can get cleaned up.

I think these 4 elements make a military pillar unnecessary, and indeed the basis for such
a pillar is thin on the ground at present.

----------------------------------------------------------
General note:
relocated one out of place comment by another user to Egyptology. Now back to the thread..
-------------------------------------------------------------------

[africurious]

^Yup, I was thinking along similar lines to your 4pts, Zarahan.

You know what i've phantasized about doing if I won crazy $ in the lotto... Having an annual afro-descendent mega meeting/festival in different cities worldwide each year. The Hajj inspired this idea and I would copy elements of it. Have everyone wear simple white clothing to mitigate the materialism and have several activities leading up to some climax activity (a la rounding the Kaaba) that'd be the main pt of the meeting or whatever you wanna call it. I'm thinking something on a grand scale tho. But, starting off small and eventually hoping to have thousands or 10's of thousands of participants. Not anything music or party focused cuz there's enough of that available already. Just something for people who want to experience some cultural exchange and brotherhood.

[zarahan]

Hmm,
If you had these dollas available what venues would you host such events?
Would you build stuff from scratch or what? And would not some music and partying be
right in line with cultural events? I mean take Brazil's Carnival in Bahia No
discussion of the broad-based African/black cultural landscape in the Americas
would be complete without something like that festival. I think there is plenty
of scope for culture and brotherhood in there.