Please watch my provocative interview (click above) on the Lambom Show, conducted by Lambert Mbom, on the subject of the the new US-Africa Strategy, released by U.S. State Department on August 8, 2022. In our hour long discussion, we go into depth about the implications of President Biden’s policy for the lives of Africans. My contention is that the U.S. strategy is seriously flawed because it focus on imposing western democracy does not serve the interest of Africans, who desperately need assistance in improving their abysmal conditions of life. This will require billions of dollars of investment credits in infrastructure to facilitate the development of industrialized African nations, which is not part of this strategy. Unfortunately, rather than addressing seriously the requirements for economic development, Biden’s strategy for Africa, like that of his predecessors, is couched in the geopolitical framework of maligning Russia and China. Lambert and I agreed that a renaissance of new ideas for the development of Africa is needed.
Lawrence Freeman is a Political-Economic Analyst for Africa, who has been involved in economic development policies for Africa for over 30 years. He is a teacher, writer, public speaker, and consultant on Africa. He is also the creator of the blog: lawrencefreemanafricaandtheworld.com. Mr. Freeman’s stated personal mission is; to eliminate poverty and hunger in Africa by applying the scientific economic principles of Alexander Hamilton.
While I do not agree with all the views of this essay below, the author raises an important historical analysis. United States was a far better nation when it was committed to the American System policies of George Washington, Alexander Hamilton, Abraham Lincoln, William McKinley, and Franklin D Roosevelt. The USA has lost its way, suffering from a ratcheting down of its culture, which has resulted in an un-American foreign policy.
By Matthew Ehret, February 10, 2022
It should be clear that the USA is in desperate need for a new security doctrine more befitting those ideals laid out in her founding documents.
These principles were elaborated upon by President Washington himself who warned the young nation of avoiding the dual evils of foreign entanglements externally and party politics domestically.
John Quincy Adams extended these ideas further still by drafting the Monroe Doctrine which he knew could only work if America ventures “not abroad, in search of monsters to destroy”.
That is to say, as long as the USA focused her efforts on fixing her own problems with a focus on internal improvements, then the Monroe Doctrine would be a blessing for both herself and the international community.
Sadly, other impulses within the US establishment of 19th century America had other ideas.
Working with a young protégé named Abraham Lincoln, Adams fought tooth and nail against the Spanish-American War of 1846 which saw a deep abuse of his doctrine.
After the last “Lincoln-republican” William McKinley was assassinated, Teddy Roosevelt’s “big stick” diplomacy launched a new 20th century trend that saw the USA extending its hegemony over weak states rather than keeping out foreign imperial intrigue as Adams had envisioned.
Another essential component of Adams’ security doctrine was shaped by his view that the international community as a whole should never be defined as a sum of parts to be dominated by a single hegemon like the British Empire had done for centuries.
Adams understood the importance of seeing the world as “a community of principle” where win-win cooperation based upon the self-improvement of both parts and the whole would constantly bring renewal and creative vitality to diplomacy. It was a top-down systemic approach to policy that saw economics, security and political affairs interwoven into one unified system. This is an integrative way of thinking that has been sorely lost in the hyper theoretical, compartmentalized mode of zero-sum thinking dominant in today’s neo-liberal think tank complex.
It was for this reason, that Adams advocated the use of Hamiltonian national banking and large-scale infrastructure projects like the Erie Canal and railways throughout his years as Secretary of State and President. From this paradigm, if American interests would be extended across the continent or the world more broadly, it would not be through brute force, but rather by the uplifting of standards of living of all parties.
Over the years, we have seen small but powerful attempts to revive Adams’ overarching security doctrine.
We had seen it revived with President Ulysses Grant’s efforts to extend US industrial know-how to countries across the world during the 1870s. We saw it again with McKinley’s promotion of rail lines uniting the Americas in what was to become a new industrial renaissance for Latin America.
We saw it come alive again with FDR’s program for internationalizing the New Deal across China, India, Ibero America, the Middle East, Africa, and Russia.
Eisenhower made some noble moves towards this renewal by ending the Korean War and attempting his Crusade for Peace driven by US-Russian cooperation and advanced scientific investments into India, Iran, Afghanistan, Pakistan, and Latin America. Eisenhower’s many positive plans were sadly derailed by a growing parasite in the heart of the US deep state which he addressed in his famous “military industrial complex” speech of 1960.
Franklin Delano Roosevelt (1882-1945), thirty-second President of the United states, only president to serve four terms, created the New Deal, formed strategic alliance with Russia and China. (Courtesy of thoughtco.com)
Kennedy’s efforts to end the Vietnam war, revive FDR’s New Deal spirit in the 1960s, while seeking entente with Russia was another noble effort to bring back Adams’ security doctrine, but his early death soon put an end to this orientation.
From 1963 to 2016, tiny piecemeal efforts to revive a sane security doctrine proved short-lived and were often undone by the more powerful pressures of unipolarist intrigue that sought nothing less than full Anglo-American hegemony in the form of a New World Order whose arrival was celebrated by the likes of Bush Sr and Kissinger in 1992.
Despite his many limitations, President Trump did make an honest endeavor to restore a sane security doctrine by focusing American interests on healing from 50+ years of self-inflicted atrophy under globalized outsourcing, militarism, and post-industrialism. Despite having to contend with an embarrassingly large and independent military-intelligence industrial complex that didn’t get less powerful after Kennedy’s murder, Trump announced the terms of his international outlook in April 2019 saying:
“Between Russia, China, and us, we’re all making hundreds of billions of dollars’ worth of weapons, including nuclear, which is ridiculous.… I think it’s much better if we all got together and didn’t make these weapons … those three countries I think can come together and stop the spending and spend on things that are more productive toward long-term peace.”
This call for a US-Russia-China cooperative policy ran in tandem with the first phase of the US-China Trade deal which went into effect in January 2020 guaranteeing $350 billion of US finished goods purchased by China. None other than George Soros himself suffered a public meltdown that month when he announced that the two greatest threats to his global Open Society were: 1) Trump’s USA and 2) Xi’s China.
Of course, a pandemic derailed much of this momentum and the trade deal slowly broke apart. Despite these failures, the idea of returning the USA to an “American first” outlook by cleaning up its own internal messes, extracting CIA operations from the military, defunding regime change organizations like NED [National Endowment of Democracy] abroad and returning to a traditionally American policy of protective tariffs were all extremely important initiatives that Trump put into motion, and set a precedent which must be capitalized upon by nationalist forces from all parties wishing to save their republic from an oncoming calamity.
One year into Biden’s “rules based international order”, the hope for stability and peaceful cooperation among the nations of the earth has been seriously undermined. Unlike Trump, who rightfully severed US cooperation with NATO, the current neo-con heavy administration has made absorbing Ukraine and other former Soviet States into NATO a high priority going so far as to assert that Russia’s invasion is immanent should NATO forces not protect “poor, peaceful Kiev.” No mention of Nazi-ridden Azov Battalions used by Nuland and the CIA to topple the former government in 2014 is ever mentioned of course. 8500 US troops have been told to be put on high alert and 2000 US troops have been deployed to Poland and Germany. Over 19 NATO war games have been planned for 2022 which will start this month, and even China is concerned that Biden’s “NATO-of-the-Pacific” agenda is seeking to enflame Taiwanese independence and absorb the rebellious island into the US military industrial complex.
When looking at Russian “red lines” from this standpoint and holding in mind the new form of a Eurasian Manifest Destiny emerging with Putin’s Far Eastern Vision, Polar Silk Road and China’s BRI, it is a rich irony that the spirit of John Quincy Adams’ security doctrine is alive in the world. Just not in the USA.
Lawrence Freeman is a Political-Economic Analyst for Africa, who has been involved in economic development policies for Africa for over 30 years. He is the creator of the blog: lawrencefreemanafricaandtheworld.com. Mr. Freeman’s stated personal mission is; to eliminate poverty and hunger in Africa by applying the scientific economic principles of Alexander Hamilton.
Watch two interviews with Lawrence Freeman on the cause of the crisis in Sudan and the solution. He discusses, poverty, regime change, George Soros, National Endowment of Democracy, President Omar al Bashir, Open Society, the International Criminal Court, the International Monetary Fund, poverty, infrastructure. China, US, and UK.
Plans are afoot to potentially use violence or other means to disrupt Nigeria’s Presidential election re-scheduled for Saturday February 23, 2018, in order to discredit President Buhari, and Nigeria. I am not making an idle prediction. Knowing Nigeria and its history as I do, and the intent of financial predators to weaken the Nation State of Nigeria, one must be prepared.
Hours before the polls were to open, the Independent National Election Commission postponed the voting for one week. Leading up to the originally scheduled vote on February 16, circles in the US and UK issued unprovoked condemnations warning President Buhari to conduct a “fair and transparent” election. Why such warnings delivered weeks in advance, when Nigeria had distinguished itself in 2015 by conducting, by most accounts, the most honest Presidential election in its history? The most dangerous threat against President Buhari came from George Soros’ Open Society of West Africa. Soros, a member of the financial globalist oligarchy is notorious for using his worldwide tentacles to foster regime change. Read: External & Internal Forces Fear Continuance of Buhari Presidency
Earlier this week, Republican Congressman Chris Smith, who is the party’s point man on Africa, issued a denunciation of President Buhari. In his statement Cong Smith said: “Responsibility for the delay of Nigeria’s presidential election lays squarely with President Muhammadu Buhari and those close to him.” He went on to accuse the President of “undermining confidence that this election and subsequent gubernatorial elections will be free and fair…” Smith is no friend of Africa. He is a proponent of regime change and has joined with anti-Muslims forces in the US in calling for the removal Sudanese President Bashir. In April of 2018, when Ethiopia was celebrating the selection of Dr. Abiy Ahmed as its new, young reformist Prime Minister, Smith’s subcommittee on Africa, passed a resolution denouncing Ethiopia for alleged human rights violations.
On February 19, John Campbell (retired US Ambassador to Nigeria), published a blog for the Council of Relations raising suspicions of President Buhari’s involvement in the postponement of the February 16 election. Campbell reports that many Nigerians “are seeing the postponement as part of a strategy to throw the elections, most often to incumbent President Muhammadu Buhari.” He goes on to say: “Nigerians are also concerned that the postponement provides more opportunity for the incumbent powers to buy votes and deploy security services to intimidate voters.”
Campbell in his blog, retails the allegation from President Buhari’s opponent, Atiku Abubakar, “claiming that the Buhari administration postponed the vote to ensure a lower voter turnout.” He also repeats the accusation that President Buhari’s plan: “is to provoke the public, hoping for a negative reaction, and then use that as an excuse for further anti-democratic acts.”
Violence: A Political Weapon
There are forces inside and outside Nigeria, who would like to undermine the nation’s sovereignty, preferring a malleable government that would permit the continued exploitation of Nigeria. Since Royal Dutch Shell descended on Nigeria with its first oil well in 1956, Nigeria has never been truly sovereign. Mega oil companies and their financial cohorts, conspiring with a cabal of corrupt “middlemen,” have looted Nigeria’s oil for decades, resulting in economic and political instability for Africa’s largest populace.
The Buhari administration has not yet acted to fully mobilize the Nigerian economy as forcefully as required to end abject poverty and generate productive jobs for millions of unemployed youth. Not nearly enough has been done to reverse the British nurtured deep ethnic divisions that have instilled great mistrust in Nigerian society. Sadly, these volatile ethnic, religious, and geographic fault lines have been easily manipulated into wanton violence. However, President Buhari has displayed a nationalist commitment for economic development, initiating the largest expansion of vitally needed infrastructure in Nigeria’s history. He has also demonstrated his determination to alleviate the horrible conditions of life in the Lake Chad Basin (where Boko Haram recruits), through his steadfast support to replenishing the shrinking Lake Chad.
The next President of Nigeria should be decided by the Nigerian people. One cannot dismiss the likely probability that violence will be instigated as means to undermine the legitimacy of the election. Not only is there a history of violence in Nigerian elections, but Boko Haram, which has brutalized the Nigerian people, is dedicated to using violence as a political weapon. In the last two weeks leading up to this Saturday’s election, over one hundred Nigerians have been killed or injured. Not just by Boko Haram, and other extremists, but also from clashes between the APC and PDP, ethnic conflicts, and attacks by suspected herdsman. This has created an opportune environment that provocateurs may exploit in their scheme to disrupt the voting process in this all-important election.
President Buhari removed Chief Justice Walter Onnoghen last week, after it was found that Onnoghen had violated the Code of Conduct, failing twice to appear before the Code of Conduct Tribunal. Buhari’s opponent in the Presidential race has accused him of not following constitutional procedures, by which he should first obtain two-thirds in the Parliament vote or a request by the Supreme Court itself. There is a provision in the Constitution under which the President can suspend or dismiss the Chief Justice. That is, in a situation where the Chief Justice is found to have contravened the Code of Conduct. In this regard, the President does not require any Senate vote or recommendation from the National Judicial Council. The Nigerian Supreme Court has jurisdiction and final say in challenges against election results.
Internationally forces based in the City of London- financial capital of the world-do not want to see President Buhari succeed in a second term as Head of State. His commitment to fight against corruption, and develop the Nigerian economy with collaboration from China threatens the internal and external enemies of Nigeria, who oppose the nation’s progress. The announcement this past week that Nigeria has become an official member of China’s Belt and Road portends success for Nigeria, as the country frees itself from domination by the International Monetary Fund.
The British government issued a statement of concern on January 26, which says “we are compelled to observe that the timing of this action, so close to national elections, gives cause for concern. It risks affecting both domestic and international perceptions on the credibility of the forthcoming elections.”
In the US establishment’s Council of Foreign Relations blog, Udo Jude Ilo from the Open Society Initiative for West Africa and Yemi Adamolekun of Enough Is Enough Nigeria (EIE) attacked President Buhari. They wrote among other things: “the timing of [Onnoghen’s] replacement is so troubling. Many analysts, including the authors of this piece, see the move by the President as a calculated attempt to gain some electoral advantage should an election petition between the President and the main opposition party end up in the Supreme Court.”
Open Society Initiative was created by billionaire George Soros, who is member of the global financial elite. Open Society is a vehicle for regime change around the world. Enough is Enough is funded by Soros’ Open Society. The authors of this blog are not just concerned Nigerian citizens, but part of a of a nasty operation to aimed at disrupting/tainting the Nigerian Presidential election and potentially destabilizing Nigeria to prevent the re-election of President Buhari.
In recent weeks media outlets in the West have been voicing allegations of violence and other actions to be instigated by the government of Nigeria in order to insure a victory for President Buhari. The British are undoubtedly the driving group behind this scenario, but we cannot rule out US involvement. President Trump to his credit has come out against regime change, however US support for the removal of the President Venezuela raises doubts about that commitment.
Not accidentally, the terrorist thugs from Boko Haram have resurfaced in force lately, scoring unexpected victories against Africa’s Nigerian led Multinational Force, and the Nigerian army, spawning a new wave of refugees in the Lake Chad region.
Those of us who have studied Nigeria’s political-economy over decades understand that the efforts directed against President Buhari are intended to derail the momentum for the industrial development of Nigeria. This includes the President’s commitment to Transaqua, a vital water-transfer project to save the shrinking Lake Chad.