CORRECTION Armenia Protest | World | rockymounttelegram.com Rocky Mount Telegram
Day: June 12, 2024
By Michael Munger
Public Choice originated as a heterodox corrective to a misguided focus on “market failure,” a;central concept;in the welfare economics literature of the 1950s. The orthodox work compared real-world markets with the “ideal” allocation of resources that would be selected by an omniscient, benevolent despot.;
Opponents argued that government also faces the “knowledge problem,” and state employees are not immune to incentives. Real governments are neither omniscient nor benevolent, and so state action is not always better than markets. Sometimes, relying on government may make things much worse. In fact, it has been estimated that the total “killing by the state,” or;total death toll from democide, exceeds 250 million since 1800.
Still, unless you are an anarchist, you accept that some government is necessary. But how much? Doing what? James Madison, primary author of the US Constitution, argued that (1) if;people were angels;no government would be necessary, and (2) if people were;governed by angels;then no constitutions would be necessary. But;government is necessary, and constitutions are necessary, so market failure has reasonably to be compared to its doppelganger, “government failure.”;
In deciding whether to use markets or the state, the;real question is comparative: Which imperfect system solves the;problem of ordering society;relatively;better, in a particular context, addressing a specific problem? In analytic terms, more mundane government failures can be divided into two types: failures of substance and failures of procedure.;
1. Substance
Since (almost) any political order is better than the Hobbesian state of nature, failed states are the clearest examples of substantive government failure. The failure to keep order, to maintain property rights (including collective control to solve commons problems), to maintain a reasonably efficient and fair judicial system, and to maintain both the value of the currency and the ability to borrow by avoiding excessive debt, are all examples of substantive government failure. By these standards,;many US municipalities are astonishing failures, and have been for years.
At the national level, there is a list of substantive government failure in the US over the past three decades:
- the regulation of the financial system
- the availability of a reliable, independent (not politicized) system for adjudicating disputes
- the stability of the currency
- the ability to control the expansion of debt, to secure modest interest rates on borrowing
- the incapacity to provide the basic state function of controlling the border
The presence of these substantive government failures need not be taken as a need for expansion of the market sector. They are instead;per se;failures of basic government functions. Nonetheless, this panoply of failure does raise the question of whether the scope of state action should be restricted to the functions listed above, with an eye toward improving the function of the state by restricting its charter;;This approach is characteristic of “state capacity libertarianism.”
2. Procedure
The fundamental political problem is the choice among Pareto optima. The reason is that any decision that is Pareto-improving will — in principle — be chosen by unanimous consent. But there are often two, or more, alternatives to the status quo, both of which are Pareto improvements, but which differ in those who would benefit from the change. Or, what amounts to the same thing, the existing situation is a Pareto optimum, and an alternative Pareto optimum has been proposed. By definition, the alternative will make some people better off, but some people will be worse off.
Which of the alternatives is “better,” in the sense that it would be chosen by an omniscient, benevolent despot? You might think that’s a ridiculous standard, but remember that is how “market failure” is measured.;William Keech and I argued;that government must somehow choose the “best” Pareto optimum, meaning that the utilitarian problem posed by the;Kaldor-Hicks- Scitovsky paradigm;will yield the maximum gains to the gainers, which must be larger than the losses to the losers.
One caveat: It is possible to argue that the entire welfare economics approach is nonsense, because no one could identify the “best of all possible worlds” that way. Fair enough. But we conducted our analysis by analogy to the market failure paradigm, where the optimal outcome is known.;Even then, conceding the dubious claim about knowing the correct solution, government; fails to choose the optimal Pareto optimum, because government must use a procedure to decide. And all procedures are flawed.
A simple example might be a decision to build a dam for flood control over a large region. The dam will be financed out of general tax revenues (each of the N citizens pays 1/N of the cost). The status quo, A, is the current world, with no dam. The alternative is B, where the dam is built. Which is better?
Many people will benefit if the dam is built, but some people will be harmed, because they have to leave the farms, homes, and villages where their families have lived for generations. A (no dam) is a Pareto optimum, and B (build dam) is a Pareto optimum. Which one is better?
Procedurally, governments have two main ways of answering the A vs. B question: democracy or technocracy. Will either deliver the “best” solution?
Suppose there are five citizens making the decision. Three of them would like for the dam to be built, but–given the tax costs of building — their preference is only slightly in favor of B. Two citizens, who would lose their homes, oppose the dam fiercely.
Process 1: Majority Rule
If we could account for the values the citizens place on the dam, three slightly in favor and two fiercely opposed, we would not build the dam. But that is not how democracy works. Instead, we take a vote, using majority rule, outcome B wins 3-2, and the dam is built.
B is Pareto inferior to A, however, because the two citizens opposed to the dam suffer harms that exceed the slight benefits to those who favored the dam.; Using majority rule, or any voting mechanism, is a procedural government failure, because it almost certainly fails to choose the Pareto optimal outcome.
Process 2: Cost-Benefit Analysis
Experts should be able to solve this problem; all they need is accurate information about how each citizen values alternatives A and B, and they can “add up” the utilities, just like Kaldor, Hicks, and Scitovsky claimed. But there is a knowledge problem: when the bureaucrats ask the citizens which alternative they prefer, there is an incentive to exaggerate the “value” of whichever outcome is preferred. If I prefer that the dam be built, I will claim that I value it very highly, since my reported value has no effect on the cost I pay. Again, B is built, even though A “would be better” if there were an omniscient, benevolent dictator.
And that was our conclusion: the problem is not that;markets;fail, but rather that there is no omniscient, benevolent dictator. Keech and I considered a total of five possible procedures for choosing among Pareto optima, and showed that each of them fails to reliably identify the optimal Pareto optimum.;
The actual argument is rather technical, and excessively detailed for this forum. I wanted to look back on our effort from ten years ago, to remind those who (correctly) see problems in market processes and immediately advocate for state action to “fix it.”;
Perhaps the easiest way to explain government failure in one lesson is to remember that there is no such thing as “the state.” Instead, essential decisions about resource use will be made by political actors. This suggests what I have called “The Munger Test.” If someone says, “I believe that government should make decisions about what information is true in an emergency, and what should be censored!”, then you should make a simple suggestion: Take out the word “government,” and replace it with “Trump” (or “Biden,” I’m not making a partisan point).
See if the person still believes their argument, with that amendment. They probably won’t. That’s the “one lesson”: government is made up of people, using a process of discovery — voting or bureaucracy — that fails compared to an imaginary standard of omniscience and benevolence. In truth, results are rarely so bad in private life that government meddling can’t make things much worse.
- About the author: Michael Munger is a Professor of Political Science, Economics, and Public Policy at Duke University and Senior Fellow of the American Institute for Economic Research.
- Source: This article was published by AIER
Citing threats to public safety and national security “so elevated all at once,” FBI director Christopher Wray seeks a budget of $11.3 billion, a 6.1 percent increase over fiscal year 2023. While members of Congress think it over, they might run a few questions by the director.
Last August in Utah, an FBI SWAT team killed Craig Robertson, a 75-year-old woodworker, for threats against Joe Biden he had allegedly posted on line. Utah Sen. Mike Lee;wonders if the shooting;of Robertson was justified, but Wray has kept rather quiet about the killing.
The agency tasked to protect the president is the Secret Service, so why did the FBI mount this deadly operation? Has the bureau conducted an investigation of this shooting? Will the FBI release the autopsy report? Who gave the order to use deadly force? Did the FBI shooter or shooters receive any kind of commendation?
“The mission of the FBI is to protect the American people and;uphold the Constitution of the United States.” If so, why is the FBI arresting pro-life activists such as Mark Houck for simply exercising their right of free speech? Last year;Houck was acquitted;on federal charges stemming from a 2021 incident in Pennsylvania. Has that challenged the FBI over the wisdom of this policy? Are parents who protest peacefully at school board meetings really domestic terrorists and violent extremists?
“Ahead of the threat through leadership, agility, and integration—outlines the FBI’s desired strategic position,” reads the;FBI’s vision statement. “The FBI will achieve this by continuously evolving to mitigate existing threats and recognizing and anticipating threats it has not yet seen.” The people have a right to wonder how this vision plays out in reality.
In 2016, actual terrorist Omar Mateen gunned down 49 people and wounded more than 50 others at a nightclub in Orlando, Florida. Why did the FBI fail to prevent this act of terrorism? Why did the FBI play no role in the takedown of Mateen?
In 2015 in San Bernardino, California, terrorists Syed Farook and Tashfeen Malik murdered 14 people and wounded more than 20 others. Why did the FBI fail to prevent this mass murder? Why did the FBI play no role in the takedown of the terrorists? As in Orlando, that was accomplished by local police, with no civilian casualties.
Russian intelligence;warned the FBI about Tamerlan Tsarnaev. Why did the FBI fail to prevent Tamerlan and brother Dzhokhar from bombing the Boston Marathon in 2013? The attack;claimed three lives;and wounded more than 250 others.
In 2009, the FBI was aware that U.S. Army Maj. Nidal Hasan, a self-proclaimed “soldier of Allah,” was communicating with al-Qaeda terrorist Anwar al-Awlaki about killing Americans. The Washington office of the FBI judged that Hasan was “not involved in terrorist activities” and dropped the surveillance.
On November 5, 2009 at Fort Hood, Texas, Hasan murdered 13 American soldiers, including Pvt. Francheska Velez, who was pregnant. The more than 30 wounded included Sgt. Alonzo Lunsford, who took seven bullets from Hasan.
Who gave the order to drop the surveillance on Hasan? Was any FBI official disciplined, demoted, or dismissed over that failure? Why did the FBI fail to stop the massive terrorist attack of September 11, 2001, and the first attack on the World Trade Center in 1993?
That year the FBI was involved in the assault on the Branch Davidian compound in Waco, Texas, in which;military tanks;were deployed. Seventy-five people perished,;including 25 children.
The year before in rural Idaho, the FBI deployed military force against the family of Randy Weaver. FBI sniper Lon Horiuchi shot dead Randy’s wife Vicki as she held her infant child. The mother was unarmed, not under arrest, and not wanted for any crime. Snipers are trained carefully to “acquire” the target, so slim chance the shooting was accidental, as the FBI maintains.
Director Wray, who was never an FBI agent, is doubtless aware of this incident. What are his views on government deployment of military force against civilians? The people have a right to know, especially in an election year.
Members of Congress might also ask Christopher Wray if the FBI has covert operations such as “Crossfire Hurricane” or “Midyear Exam” in the works against;any;candidate, member of Congress, or private citizen. The people have a right to know.
Threats to national security may indeed be escalating in 2024. So are threats to the rights and freedoms of the people. Congress should hold off on the $11.3 billion until Christopher Wray answers some hard questions about the FBI’s actual record upholding the Constitution. To guard against mounting security threats, the incoming Congress might look for better ways to spend $11.3 billion.
- This article was also published in The American Spectator
By Connor O’Keeffe
Last week, President Joe Biden and a number of top American and European officials met in Normandy to attend a ceremony marking the eightieth anniversary of the D-day invasion. In a;pair;of;speeches, Biden;recounted;the operation that he said marked the beginning of the “great crusade to liberate Europe from tyranny” before drawing a direct connection to where things stand with the war in Ukraine.
Biden called Russian president Vladamir Putin a tyrant who invaded Ukraine simply because he is “bent on domination.” Biden then renewed one of his favorite tropes, asserting that if Ukraine falls, its people will be subjugated, its neighbors will be in immediate danger, and all of Europe will be threatened by Putin’s aggressive ambitions.
But the West’s chosen depiction of Putin as a tyrant bent on conquering the entire European continent suffered its latest setback last month when it;came out;that the Russian president is interested in halting the fighting and negotiating a deal that recognizes the current battlefield lines.
Putin is showing this interest even though the Russian military is in a strong position that seems likely to get even stronger. Last year’s long-anticipated Ukrainian counteroffensive was meant to drive Russian forces out of Ukraine. But since its launch last summer, Ukraine has lost more territory than it has gained. Recently, the Russians even;launched;a brand new incursion into territory around the northeastern city of Kharkiv—territory that had already been recaptured by the Ukrainians in late 2022.
Russia’s minefields, artillery, and punishing glide bombs have not only kept Ukrainian forces from advancing but left them struggling to hold their positions along the current front line. Meanwhile, Russia has significantly boosted war-related production far beyond anything we’re seeing from the West, which, while bad for the Russian economy in the long run, ensures the intensity of Russia’s bombing and shelling will not cease anytime soon.
At the same time, the Ukrainian government is facing a serious shortage of soldiers that no amount of foreign aid or equipment transfers can do anything to alleviate. Earlier this year, the Ukrainian parliament;passed a law;that sought to boost conscription rates by making it easier for the government to find and identify draft-eligible men. But the problem persists, leading Ukrainian officials to tap into the country’s;prison population, cut;consular services;to military-aged Ukrainian men living abroad, and forbid men who are;dual citizens;from leaving Ukraine. As the country’s supply of young men runs low, the average age of a Ukrainian soldier has;climbed;to forty-three years old.
What makes Ukraine’s situation even more tragic is how easily it could have been avoided. One month after Russia invaded in early 2022, both sides;reached an agreement;where Russia would pull back to preinvasion boundaries and, in return, Ukraine would agree to not seek NATO membership.
The deal could have put an end to the fighting and handed Kyiv control of all the land Russia had just seized. But, according to senior;negotiators;on both sides and high-level mediators from the various countries facilitating the talks, officials from the United Kingdom and the United States convinced the Ukrainians to walk away from the deal and fight.
Since then, Ukraine’s leverage over Russia has only diminished. Many Ukrainians have been;killed or maimed;as the war has devolved into a brutal trench-style artillery war. Meanwhile, Russia laid permanent claim to the land it had earlier agreed to hand back to Ukraine.
Even with its extensive conscription laws, Ukraine does not have enough soldiers to break through Russia’s now heavily fortified lines, much less to drive Russian forces out of all the territory claimed by Kyiv. The Ukrainians have, so far, been able to prevent the Russians from advancing and seizing all the territory that Moscow;now claims. But with their dwindling numbers, Ukrainian forces won’t be able to hold these lines forever.
So, accepting Russia’s offer to move this conflict from the battlefield to the negotiation table is almost certainly the best chance Ukraine will get to hold onto the eastern territory they still control.
But rather than take this opportunity, the Ukrainian government and its backers in Europe and the United States have instead decided to escalate the conflict with risky, strategically pointless provocations.
President Biden and a number of other European heads of state recently gave Ukraine a green light to use NATO weapons to conduct strikes within Russia. Around the same time, Ukraine;struck;two Russian strategic nuclear early-warning radars and attempted to strike a third one deeper in Russian territory.
And, as if hampering Russia’s ability to confirm that they are not under a nuclear attack after allowing Ukraine to shoot US missiles into Russia wasn’t enough, the US then;test-fired;two nuclear intercontinental ballistic missiles—launching them four thousand miles from California to the Marshall Islands.
The escalations have not been one-sided. Russia conducted drills simulating the use of strategic nuclear weapons in Belarus and has sent warships and a submarine to the Caribbean. The Russians have also stepped up shelling and airstrikes in Ukraine in response to the strikes on their territory.
None of this is necessary. The strikes on Russian territory have not translated to Ukrainian gains on the battlefield. And the Russian early-warning radar Ukraine hit wasn’t even aimed at Ukrainian airspace. All these escalations do is prolong the Ukrainian people’s suffering while nudging the world closer to a catastrophic nuclear accident. Instead of fantasizing about waging some World War II–level offensive on Putin’s Russia, Biden and his friends in NATO should come back to reality and, before it’s too late, agree to work this conflict out with words for a change.
- About the author: Connor O’Keeffe (@ConnorMOKeeffe) produces media and content at the Mises Institute. He has a master’s in economics and a bachelor’s in geology.
- Source: This article was published by the Mises Institute
The Israeli government could have freed everyone that was held by Hamas since Operation Al-Aqsa Flood on October 7, 2023, if it had continued the truce and negotiations that were taking place in;November and Decemberof 2023. The government has even;killed some of the hostages;in its attacks on Gaza, using the people it claims to care so much about as pawns, bargaining chips to serve nefarious ends at opportune moments.
One such moment took place on June 8, 2024, when Israeli forces used humanitarian aid trucks as cover to rescue four hostages while also killing an estimated 274 Palestinians . These same forces killed journalist Abdalah Aljamal along with his wife and his father, and then claimed without proof that the family was holding one of the captives in their home.
The entire operation was consistent with Israel’s past actions. It came on the heels of a massacre at a;school;that killed 40 people seeking refuge there, which came on the heels of an attack on a;refugee tent camp;in Rafah which also killed at least 40 people.
War crimes are nothing new for Israel, but large scale public protest is new and, despite Israel’s stranglehold on corporate media and the political duopoly, represents a threat to continued support. What is a genocidal apartheid nation to do? It has to continue the attack on human beings in Palestine and on any opposition to its client state.
The coordinated astroturf attack on journalist Briahna Joy Gray preceded the hostage rescue massacre. Gray was co-host of The Hill program, Rising, and was;fired;after months of good reporting, including questioning the narrative of mass rape by Hamas on October 7. It was pointed out that she “rolled” her eyes at a guest who was the sister of a hostage. Not only was she subjected to a relentless barrage of social media attacks, but even after she was fired her;podcast was spammed;in an effort to take it down. Of course, the;mass rape narrative;has quite rightly been questioned as relying on unsubstantiated claims and;unethical reporting;. However, telling the truth is not the point. Silencing critics and frightening others into silence is the point of Israeli war propaganda efforts which are needed now more than ever before.
Student protests on campuses across the country and mass action such as the;People’s Red Line;at the White House show that Israel is on shaky ground, with fewer supporters than it could traditionally rely upon. After the International Criminal Court (ICC) was finally forced to apply for arrest warrants for its leadership and the International Court of Justice (ICJ) twice ordered Israel to cease its actions in Gaza, it was harder to make the claim that this pariah state is a shining example of democracy in its region.
It comes as no surprise that Israel increased its activities that would have been called “malign influence” if committed by other nations. The;Ministry of Diaspora Affairs;utilized AI bots and other means to target Black lawmakers like Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries and Ritchie Torres, who, ironically, were always on board with support for the zionist state. Yet no stone can be unturned in a time of crisis when students in the liberal class are targeted for arrest and other forms of repression. ICC and ICJ condemnation is very dangerous, even when it is inadequate and lacks any meaningful enforcement measures.
That conundrum explains why Briahna Joy Gray and others are targeted. Brute force does the job when public opinion goes south. Making an example of a prominent person is a warning to others. We are all to be terrorized, fearing damage to professional lives and personal harassment as the Biden administration dithers with announcements of dead on arrival peace agreements that neither they nor the Israelis are serious about concluding.
Yet all of the censoring and pressure tactics can’t undo the damage wrought by the United States and Israel. The two countries are pariahs around the world, with only vassal states in the collective west supporting them. Even the citizens of those nations have turned against this project and will never view either nation in the same ways again. The massacres and deaths of at least 40,000 people cannot be unseen and what was the status quo of public opinion is in jeopardy.
Of course in the short term Israel still wins and will have a zionist U.S. president in November, regardless of whether it is Joe Biden or Donald Trump who emerges victorious. Benjamin Netanyahu will speak to congress for a record fourth time, but the proverbial genie is out of the bottle. Some;members of congress;have a little bit of spine and are publicly questioning the invitation. Netanyahu will surely be greeted by protests, making a political victory somewhat questionable. All of the support will be forced while sincere and heartfelt positive feelings about Israel will continue to be on the decline among the public.
The most important question is whether the people in this country will be cowed into silence or will dare to fight for change. Israel is not the only obstacle to peace and to true democracy but it represents everything from the power of the military industrial complex to various lobbies wielding influence and bought off and cowardly people refusing to work on behalf of the nation’s best interest. Shutting down campus protests and restricting freedom of expression only escalates a political crisis, a crisis of legitimacy that cannot be undone.
The attempted;coup;in the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC) on May 19, 2024, was not just another failed power grab. It exposes a worrying trend with long-term implications: the role of the African diaspora in exacerbating instability in already fragile African states. While Africa holds immense potential, its future stability hinges on addressing how its expatriates and immigrants, with their complex motivations and various allegiances, can either impede or accelerate progress. The persistent erosion of democratic institutions on the continent, manifested through military coups, electoral manipulation, and foreign-backed constitutional amendments, becomes opportunities for these communities to exert influence in internal conflicts.
A Double-Edged Sword: African Diaspora’s Impact on Stability
African diaspora, a population scattered worldwide, presents both opportunities and challenges for the continent’s pursuit of stability. Within the global African diaspora, there are African expatriates who reside outside the continent, often for temporary work or study reasons, and African immigrants who have permanently relocated to another non-African country, typically becoming citizens. While factors like conflicts, economic hardship, and educational pursuits drive this migration, popular destinations remain;concentrated;in Europe, Asia, and Northern America. Despite the distance, many maintain strong ties to their homelands, keeping a watchful eye on political and social developments. ;
African expatriates and immigrants recently held protests in Europe and the United States. In;Belgiumand;France, they showed solidarity with the people in North-Kivu, a province in eastern Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC) that’s under attack by a rebel group called M23. In New York, people with roots in West Africa;protested;against the influence of the United States and France in West Africa. All these protests show how much these communities care about their home countries, even if they live elsewhere now.
On the one hand, the African diaspora injects valuable resources – financial investments, Non-Governmental Organizations (NGOs), and advocacy efforts – that strengthen ties between their adopted countries and their homelands. This fosters collaboration on development initiatives and bolsters relations, laying a foundation for present and future cooperation between their homelands and their new country.
However, a segment of the diaspora, particularly those from war-torn or politically volatile regions, can become a destabilizing force. Witnessing perceived corruption and repression, some feel compelled to support opposition movements, even those employing violent tactics, against regimes viewed as proxies of Western powers. This fuels insurgencies, as exemplified by the Ambazonian separatists in Cameroon who;receive;funding and leadership from abroad.
The recent coups d’état in Mali, Burkina Faso and Niger underscores the complexities of regional security in the Sahel. Members of the African diaspora, motivated by Pan-African ideals and critical of France’s historical influence, have voiced support for the newly formed Alliance of Sahel States (AES). This highlights a potential tension: the diaspora’s aspiration for improved governance in their countries of origin may diverge from the foreign policy priorities of their adopted nations, creating a loyalty conundrum.
Combat Veterans Expatriates: A New Destabilizing Force?
A new layer of concern emerges with Africans gaining combat experience abroad, particularly in conflict zones. The ongoing war in Ukraine has become a new training ground for;fighters;from various countries.;African;fighters engaged on either side of the conflict risk returning home with advanced weaponry skills and potentially radicalized ideologies. Their motivations might be diverse – disillusionment with Western-backed regimes, support for ethnic militias, or alignment with Pan-African or pro-Russian leaders.
Individuals with Western military training and extensive combat experience, while motivated by a genuine desire for change, may leverage their skillsets in ways that undermine fragile democracies. This creates a complex situation: a confluence of well-intentioned actors and actions that inadvertently weaken state institutions and democratic processes.
The presence of Biafran fighters;spotted;in Ukraine exemplifies this concern. Their potential acquisition of advanced combat training could significantly bolster secessionist movements in Nigeria or other African countries. Additionally, exposure to pro-Russian narratives could fuel anti-Western sentiment, prompting them to align with pro-Russian regimes within Africa, further complicating or reshaping the continent’s geopolitical landscape.
With the increasing growth of Russian influence on the continent, its military relations with African countries, especially the Alliance of Sahel States, the strong anti-West sentiments, and the democracies’ rejection of the International Criminal Court (ICC);arrest;warrants for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and other Israeli leaders, which is seen as another manifestation of the West double standards, those veterans African fighters might have the status of helpers than destabilizers when they return to fight alongside their people.
Countering the Tide: A Multifaceted Approach
The trend of diaspora influence on internal conflicts in Africa presents a significant challenge, but there are strategies to mitigate its impact. A multifaceted approach that addresses the root causes of instability and fosters positive change is crucial.
The cornerstone of this approach lies in promoting robust democracies and inclusive development across Africa. The recent wave of concerning developments –;attempts;to extend presidential terms,;rigged;elections, and the rollback of democratic reforms – creates fertile ground for instability. Strengthening democratic institutions, ensuring free and fair elections, and upholding the rule of law are essential first steps. Concurrently, promoting economic development that benefits the wider population is critical. Widespread poverty, lack of opportunity, and feelings of marginalization can create a breeding ground for discontent, making individuals more susceptible to radical ideologies or recruitment by insurgent groups and private military companies.
International actors must adopt a nuanced approach. Past interventions in the Sahel region have yielded mixed results, suggesting that purely military solutions are unsustainable. Any future interventions must be part of a comprehensive strategy that addresses the underlying causes of instability, such as poverty, ethnic tensions, governance failures, and most importantly the respect of countries’ sovereignty and a partnership that is not based on intimidation and bullying from their western allies. A focus on capacity building within African militaries and regional security forces is crucial to empower them to address internal threats while fostering a sense of ownership over security solutions.
ECOWAS, which is supposed to have a leading role in West Africa, is;seen;by West Africans and observers as a U.S./French proxy entity and a non-reliable institution. The Alliance of Sahel States, even fragile now, can become a cornerstone for a more robust approach to insecurity leading to development and stability in the Sahel region. The recent military;maneuver;called “Tarhanakal” or “Love of the Fatherland” which aims to strengthen the resilience capacities of the forces of the Alliance of Sahel States (AES) in the face of all potential threats as well as to strengthen the interoperability and cooperation” between the armies of participating countries – Burkina Faso, Mali, Niger, Tchad and Togo – is a great example for capacity building within the region.
Engaging constructively with the whole African diaspora is another crucial element. Many in the diaspora possess valuable skills and expertise that can be harnessed for positive change. Fostering dialogue between the diaspora and their home governments can create opportunities for collaboration on development initiatives, conflict resolution, and democratic reforms. African countries like Ghana and Rwanda are key examples by bridging the gap between diaspora with their home countries to create a better condition for investments and development. Diaspora communities can be a powerful force for positive change, but only if their energies are channeled productively.
Ignoring the trend of expatriates and immigrants influence on African conflicts would be a grave mistake. By acknowledging the potential for destabilization and initiative-taking measures, leaders can help ensure a more peaceful and prosperous future for Africa. This requires a multi-pronged approach that combines promoting democracy and development, fostering constructive dialogue with the diaspora, and ensuring responsible international engagement. Only through a comprehensive strategy can African countries mitigate the risks posed by some of its own people and create a more stable and secure future.
- This article was published at Centre for African Conflict and Development (CACD)
Categories
NPR News: 06-12-2024 10PM EDT
NPR News: 06-12-2024 10PM EDT
Learn more about sponsor message choices: podcastchoices.com/adchoices