In supporting a pivot away from the primary concerns of low-income countries, the US risks losing an important lever of policy influence around the world.
Ultimately "self- interest" is an unhelpful guide. To say that it is in US self-interest to support African development objectives doesn't take one very far. One could equally observe that decoupling from China is against US's own interests, and yet the US persists in pursuing this self-harming policy.
The problem seems to be that American perception of where its interests lie is quite different from what an observer (such as yourself) might think. For today's US politicians, why spend money on African development when it will also benefit other countries? Better to simply rely on intimidation and implied threats to persuade Africans where their (short-term) interests lie.
Correct. I’d add that this is probably the biggest challenge facing China’s diplomatic outreach: the absence of a leadership class in much of the world that can see and act in its own long-term interest. The elites they will have to try to deal with have very short electoral time horizons, a weak grasp on domestic power, incoherent goals and ideologies. They cannot make reliable partners, so China will likely end up adopting the same short-term tactics the West has been using.
Is a greater emphasis on the priorities of middle powers “puzzling geopolitics”? Those are precisely the countries that gain the most leverage from the rebalancing that’s now underway. Most low-income countries aren’t really partners worth having: their governments can’t command a domestic consensus for long enough to behave predictably anyway, and are probably reputational liabilities. Middle income countries have elites that can credibly be negotiated with, broader time horizons and concrete demands that can be met. The calculation for supporting these reforms seems correct: prioritize keeping the middle powers onside and use whatever resources are left for a standard “carrot and stick“ approach with whoever’s in charge in the rest of the world.
I think that the US doesn’t have the same incentive to influence low-income African countries as it did in the past. Before, the US was in a cold-war with the Soviet Union. Thus had a greater incentive to intervene in African countries, often with disastrous results — such as the assassination of Lumumba. Today the US’s main geopolitical rival mostly has the same economic system, which reduces the incentive to influence low-income African countries.
I've updated my Link tree, which is linked to my Substack, and vice versa, in case any of this can shed light on some of these psyop scams on us and others for so long now. https://linktr.ee/michaelatkinson
Ken here's another person who wants us to believe that he believes in the man-made religion of Christianity like some others but has a good bit of truth advocates on his show for your consideration. I think honesty is the best policy for all people, especially among the spin, lies and omissions of important truths that we've been raised on for so long without knowing so. If you find any bad info please let me know through email. Thank you. https://andrewcarringtonhitchcock.com
What exactly are the priorities of low-income countries? Is the inclusion of public goods a terrible idea? I do not understand what these priorities are. I need your assistance on this.
Ultimately "self- interest" is an unhelpful guide. To say that it is in US self-interest to support African development objectives doesn't take one very far. One could equally observe that decoupling from China is against US's own interests, and yet the US persists in pursuing this self-harming policy.
The problem seems to be that American perception of where its interests lie is quite different from what an observer (such as yourself) might think. For today's US politicians, why spend money on African development when it will also benefit other countries? Better to simply rely on intimidation and implied threats to persuade Africans where their (short-term) interests lie.
Correct. I’d add that this is probably the biggest challenge facing China’s diplomatic outreach: the absence of a leadership class in much of the world that can see and act in its own long-term interest. The elites they will have to try to deal with have very short electoral time horizons, a weak grasp on domestic power, incoherent goals and ideologies. They cannot make reliable partners, so China will likely end up adopting the same short-term tactics the West has been using.
Is a greater emphasis on the priorities of middle powers “puzzling geopolitics”? Those are precisely the countries that gain the most leverage from the rebalancing that’s now underway. Most low-income countries aren’t really partners worth having: their governments can’t command a domestic consensus for long enough to behave predictably anyway, and are probably reputational liabilities. Middle income countries have elites that can credibly be negotiated with, broader time horizons and concrete demands that can be met. The calculation for supporting these reforms seems correct: prioritize keeping the middle powers onside and use whatever resources are left for a standard “carrot and stick“ approach with whoever’s in charge in the rest of the world.
I think that the US doesn’t have the same incentive to influence low-income African countries as it did in the past. Before, the US was in a cold-war with the Soviet Union. Thus had a greater incentive to intervene in African countries, often with disastrous results — such as the assassination of Lumumba. Today the US’s main geopolitical rival mostly has the same economic system, which reduces the incentive to influence low-income African countries.
Thank you. Great work.
Nothing significant to say but, I was fascinated by this article! Thank you!
Ken,
I've updated my Link tree, which is linked to my Substack, and vice versa, in case any of this can shed light on some of these psyop scams on us and others for so long now. https://linktr.ee/michaelatkinson
Best regards,
Michael 🌻
Ken here's another person who wants us to believe that he believes in the man-made religion of Christianity like some others but has a good bit of truth advocates on his show for your consideration. I think honesty is the best policy for all people, especially among the spin, lies and omissions of important truths that we've been raised on for so long without knowing so. If you find any bad info please let me know through email. Thank you. https://andrewcarringtonhitchcock.com
Best regards,
Michael 🌻
What exactly are the priorities of low-income countries? Is the inclusion of public goods a terrible idea? I do not understand what these priorities are. I need your assistance on this.