As China’s influence grows in Africa, America resorts to faking “Jasmine” protests

Having successfully fuelled the “Jasmine” protests to create unimaginable impact in the greater part of North Africa, pulling down regimes in countries like Tunisia, Egypt, and threatening an end to Muammar Gaddhafi’s leadership in Libya, the U.S. and its allies are turning to “Jasmine” as a new weapon for removing governments they disapprove of – and this method seems to be an alternative to U.S. backed coups which prior to the “color” revolutions were the tactics used in dragging down “unfriendly” regimes in most parts of Africa.

With the situation of North Africa causing tongues to wag, some writers think the “Jasmine” protests will spread to Sub Saharan Africa – the regions of Africa that exclude North Africa – yet others say there are indications that the color revolutions can not spread to these countries. Whatever reasons these writers may have in mind for their assertions, one fact stands out clear: that it is either these writers do not understand the hidden forces behind these protests, or it is that the writers have failed to look beyond the protesters in the streets.

True, Sub Saharan Africa may have its own characteristics different from North Africa, but when it becomes vividly clear that western countries, especially the US and Britain are at the center of the manipulations going on in parts of Africa, pitting people against their governments, there will be no doubt of the fact that the worst is yet to come to “unfriendly” governments in Africa and other parts of the world, with regards to their chosen path in foreign policy – should that foreign policy not be pro-US, pro-Britain, and pro-France who are staggering between implanting their lost influence in the African continent, and fighting China’s friendly relations with African governments.

The White House - a symbol of protests

Take Egypt with a pro-US government. The U.S. president Barak Obama was virtually reluctant to give a quick reaction when the riots broke out; and when he finally did, his stance on Hosni Mubarak and the event in Egypt was ambiguous. In several comments, Obama was not plain in his language, and so was the position of the White House unclear. In fact, in the early stage of the riots in Egypt, Obama only called on Mubarak to take appropriate steps at reforming the country, and even in the later part of the “uprising” when the situation deteriorated, the US position was still not very clear, though covertly, the White House was playing its cards at disposing its long time ally, Mubarak. But Obama did not declare in the open that Mubarak should step down, until it was evident that Mubarak’s days were numbered as president; neither did Britain tell Mubarak to go, like the British Foreign Secretary William Hague did in the case of Libya.

In an interview with the BBC’s Andrew Marr program on Sunday, the British Foreign Secretary said of Gaddafi “Of course, it is time for Colonel Gaddafi to go, that is the best hope for Libya.” Hague also announced that the UK had withdrawn Gaddafi’s immunity on British soil stating that the order also applied to Gaddafi’s family and household.

Meanwhile, little or no information was available as to how deadly rich Mubarak was – having amassed his country’s wealth and stalled in foreign banks. But when he stepped down, information triggered on his wealth with the new power in Egypt – in complicity with foreign banks announcing that it was freezing Mubarak’s assets. But for Colonel Gaddafi’s case in Libya, his assets are already being frozen even when he is still in power. This is a clear indication that the Libyan leader, who has been at logger-heads with US foreign policies, is a victim. This proves that the US and its allies particularly Britain protect foreign governments which work for, or protect their interests.

In the meantime, if the “Jasmine” protests fail to bring the effects so-desired by the US and Britain in Sub Saharan Africa, then US backed military coups – with the unflinching support of Britain will take center stage to remove unfriendly governments. These two countries – the US and Britain are at crossroads – they must do something to implant their lost influence in Africa as a majority, if not all African governments are now turning towards China – where a win-win policy, equality, and respect for each other’s sovereignty are the principles guiding relations.

History holds that wherever and whenever US interests are at stake, the White House gets involved either covertly or overtly. This has been the case in Africa, especially in the Sub Saharan countries. But the main tactics of doing this has been through military coups, and in some instances, direct military involvement leading to civil wars. Angola is a vivid example whereby US military support in the conflict was glaring. The U.S. government began aiding the FNLA in 1961 during the Kennedy administration, and rerouted one-third of official aid to Zaire to go to the FNLA and UNITA.

In 1966, the US covertly supported the military coup in Ghana, and the underground reason was because Kwame Nkrumah was very independent in his foreign policy and had been actively calling for the United States of Africa. In 1980, the coup in Liberia was because a pro-US government was wanted, the same reason accounted for the coup that took place in Chad in 1982 – and the list continues. The few countries cited here are countries located in Sub Saharan Africa – where the so-called “popular” uprising, today the “Jasmine” protests would hardly provide the results desired by the US and its allies.

Therefore, as stated above, if the “Jasmine” protests fail to bring the effects so-desired by the US and Britain in Sub Saharan Africa, then US backed military coups – with the unflinching support of Britain will take center stage to remove unfriendly governments.

This means that, in 2011, Africa should prepare for more fake “Jasmine” revolutions, and or military coups – these two play complimentary roles, for where “jasmine” is considered as ineffective to attain US goals, then military coups would be an immediate substitute. “Jasmine” protests are probably the ideal means of uprooting government in North Africa which are “unfriendly” to the US and ally-Britain -while military coups and civil wars are so-to-say, more desired tactics in Sub Saharan Africa. France, Britain and the US are all queuing up to implant their lost influence and fight China’s growing admiration in the whole of Africa.

Sharing is caring!

Leave a Reply