In mid January, on the 52^nd anniversary of Lumumba’s assassination,  I was inspired  to learn more about one of the greatest African heroes- Patrice Lumumba hence my interest to learn more about DRC was rejuvenated.  I knew that to grasp the urgency of shortening Lumumba’s life and to understand the current situation in DRC, I had to go back to history. My mind then recalled a book that I had read more than 5 years ago while doing my MA studies- King Leopold’s Ghost. I decided to re-read the book again. I have finished it. Here is my remixed review (I call this a remixed because I have not done it in a conventional book review format).

Hoschschild presents a thoroughly researched book. Going through the pages of the historical facts in the book, I couldn’t stop thinking how much archival work Hochschild must have done.  Although he laments his frustration on the fact that his book lacks Africans’ (i.e. Congolese who were the victim in the entire story) voices, he tried as much as possible to incorporate testimonies given by Africans.  His book is full of evidence from different sources ranging from accounts of missionaries to Leopold’s own commission that tried to cover up the whole demonic experience he put the Congolese through.

To try and explain the content of the book in this brief blog post is to do injustice to this marvelous work. However, we can draw a number of lessons from the book in relations to the contemporary world. I will speak of two lessons:

The first lesson: international relations perpetuates itself. There is a famous saying that ‘history repeats itself’. From the book, it is evident that the practice of international relations also keeps repeating itself.  The politics and rhetoric of King Leopold in the 19^th and early 20^th Century are very similar to politics and rhetoric of some great powers in  contemporary international affairs .  When Leopold was acquiring Congo as his colony, his rhetoric was that he wants to save the humanity, to civilize the Congolese, blah blah. In the contemporary international relations, we have heard and see acts by great powers with rhetorical justifications of wanting or even the need to ‘bring democracy’, ‘to protect human rights’, ‘to ensure rule of law’ and other blah blah to countries… only a few (either naïve or the system’s loyalists) would agree that is the genuine motive behind some of the brutal wars we have seen in the 21^st Century.  Just like we see how great powers support each other, it was the same during Leopold’s time. The USA and Britain recognized Leopold’s acquisition of Congo. Of course they would do so because they also had interests (especially trade) and were practicing similar policies of colonialism. They were all in the same business. The 1884/85 Berlin Conference, for example, brought all of them together.

Hochschild gives a thorough account of people and missionaries who lobbied their heart out against Leopold’s inhumane activities in Congo. These people, such as E.D. Morel, Sir. Casement, and Mr. & Mrs. Harris, were from the Western world, which had recognized Leopold as a legitimate master of Congo. This shows that not all citizens support their States’ actions. In fact, one of the lobbyists, Sir Casement who did a turning-point investigation, was a British diplomat.  Because countries of the Western world always want to be seen as messiahs to ‘civilize’ others, they finally ‘listened’ to them and start acting against King Leopold. However, we can see this support was superficial. These countries did not stop practicing colonialism themselves. In fact they were also using forced labour and harsh punishments in their own colonies to ensure productivity and maximum profits.  We see the same today. A significant number of Western citizens do not support their States’ policies. There are known critics such as Noam Chomsky who are critically opposing and writing against their governments’ policies.  In reaction to this, their governments either use spin to cover up their real motives or apportion the blame to others. The USA, for example, blames China of human rights abuses but the USA itself does the same things China does only that they do it under a blanket of spreading democracy or fostering the rule of law.

The support that the Congo lobbyists received from the USA and Britain was based on calculated interests that the powerful thought they may protect. Consider this statement from a British parliamentary committee in the 1830s, “better treatment of colonial subjects would promote the civil and commercial interests of Great Britain…savages are dangerous neighbours and unprofitable customers, and if they remain as degraded denizens of our colonies, they become a burden upon the State” (p. 212)…haven’t we heard similar sentences considering the so called ‘fragile states’?  Similar rhetoric are common in the statement of Western leaders when they are trying to justify ‘giving aid’ and/or ‘fighting terrorism’. Even in recent Mali intervention, we have had similar rhetoric in the UK parliament. On 14 January 2013, the UK Parliamentary Under Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs said the following in the Parliamentary Statement concerning Mali ‘The House will no doubt be concerned about the humanitarian situation in the region and what the UK is doing to alleviate that situation…The threat posed by the instability in Mali is of grave concern to the UK. We must not allow northern Mali to become a springboard for extremism and create instability in the wider West African region. The ferocity and fanaticism of the extremists in northern Mali must be not be allowed to sweep unchecked into the country’s capital. France, which has an historic relationship with Mali, is quite rightly in the lead. In the coming days we will be focused on the regional and international diplomacy we must achieve to check this emerging threat.’ (http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201213/cmhansrd/cm130114/debtext/130114-0002.htm#1301142000002).  Similar rhetoric can be extracted from Tony Blair’s statements prior to the infamous 2003 Iraq War. Recent statements by David Cameron  on Mali and Algeria are not different.

 I am not commending terrorist actions. In fact, my stand is that terrorists must be fought and be eliminated.  However, I am always skeptical of the rhetoric based on the ‘war on terror’,  ‘spreading democracy’, ‘foreign investments’ or ‘humanitarian purposes’ while the real motive is national interests. National interests under the blanket of ‘democracy’ or ‘humanitarian’ values often motivate foreign interventions in Africa.  This is what I often call ‘double standards’ in IR. If the Western powers are so pro humanitarian and democracy, why is Syria still in chaos? We have many such examples…Was Mali really more urgent than Syria?

Second lessons: In connection to the above, we, Africans, must learn and get real with our dignity and ourselves. The reasons Hochschild called his book ‘ Leopold’s Ghost’ is partly because he thinks Leopold’s ghost still haunts Congo. This is true. Leaders of Congo, in particular Joseph Mobutu, embraced the ghost and continued to carry out inhumane activities and pursue unfair policies to people. Because he promoted the policies of the great powers who had enjoyed Congo’s resources for centuries he was celebrated as an ‘ideal leader’ who is anti communism. Patrice Lumumba, who cared about Congolese and dignity had to be stopped. The cost of his courage was his life. The ghost couldn’t stand his ideals. Unfortunately the ghost is still alive. The ghost is now tormenting the whole continent. Some leaders and African children are embracing the ghost for personal gain at the cost of so many lives and African dignity.

Thus, we, Africans cannot only blame the ghost but we must also blame those Africans who embrace and sustain the works of the ghost in Africa. The ghost represents all unfair policies, deals, and investments towards Africa. The ghost is there to plunder for the interests of the great powers and a few individual Africans.  We need to rewrite our own history and tell our children about the ghost and its hosts. Our children must know the truth. This way we will save Africa.

Hochschild rightly showed how the history of Congo is one-sided. He gave examples of the biased exhibitions and museums in Europe that do not portray a true picture of what happened. This reminds me of a quote by Alexandre Dumas ‘True, I have raped history, but it has produced some beautiful offspring’. This continues to be the case. Patrice Lumumba lamented the same more than half a century ago and insisted that Africans will write the history of Africa. If we will not get serious and write this history, the ghost will keep tormenting us surviving under the name of aid, humanitarian, war on terror, education, and civilizations… our raped history will produce beautiful offspring for the ghost.

Thanks to Hochschild for writing such a mind-provoking book.  I am now motivated to work upon the dignity of Africa and expose the ghost hidden not only in foreign interventions but also in unfair resource contracts, puppet leaders, and….FINISH THE LIST! THEN JOIN ME!

The ongoing riots and chaos in Cairo against President Morsi’s unwise move to grab more presidential powers underscores the explanatory power of Acemoglu and Robinson’s argument in their well researched and compelling book. In general, the book main argument is that nations fail or succeed due to economic and political institutions that they have in place. They categorize these institutions into two types- inclusive institutions and extractive institutions. Extractive institutions are those institutions that don’t give equal opportunities to all citizens to participate and to engage in the countries’ socio-economic/political activities. Important to note is that extractive institutions may lead to economic growth but this kind of growth will only benefit the elite class and it will not last.

On the other side, inclusive institutions are those that give opportunities for all citizens to participate and engage in socio-economic/political affairs. These kinds of institutions enable sustainable growth that benefits all citizens.  The main reasons for that, Acemoglu and Robinson argue, is because inclusive institutions allow what Joseph Schumpeter called ‘creative destruction’. Creative destruction- i.e. replacing the old with new: new sectors attract resources away from old ones. Similarly, they argue that the fear of creative destruction is often at the root of the opposition to inclusive economic and political institutions (p.84). Impressively, the authors use appealing and thoroughly explained examples to illustrate these two types of institutions. They use historical trends to trace the formulations and persistence of these institutions.  To further justify their theories, the author took a whole chapter (chapter 2) to explain other mega theories that try to explain economic failure and success and show each of those theories weaknesses.

In connection to that, the authors expound on the arguments that extractive and inclusive institutions create a vicious and virtuous circles respectively. By these they mean that the type of institutions set will perpetuate similar institutions over time.  They type of institutions created lead to a path that makes it difficult to break or change hence leading to the similar institutions over and over.  For the extractive institutions, they use Robert Michel’s concept of the Iron Law of Oligarchy to explain vicious circle. With regards to this, the authors clearly expressed their doubts on the 2011 Egyptian Revolution- they argue that ‘ Thus the fact that the extractive regime of President Mubarak was overturned by popular protests in February 2011 does not guarantee that Egypt will move onto a path to more inclusive institutions. Instead extractive institutions may re-create themselves despite the vibrant and hopeful pro-democracy movement’ (p. 436).   Seeing how President Morsi shamelessly grab more power for his own, I cannot agree more with Acemoglu and Robinson’s arguments.

One of the arguments from the authors that I am not completely buying is that their theory is not based on historical determinism. This, they argue, is because there are may be critical junctures through which change occurs. In fact they have a chapter titled ‘Breaking the Mold’ whereby they give examples of countries and societies that broke from extractive institutions to inclusive institutions. Although I agree with the concept of critical juncture and that change occurs, I still think their theory has to do with historical determinism.

In spite the fact that the authors do not mention historical institutionalism, which is a sub- theory within one of the Political Science theories known new institutionalism theory- a Political Science theory that explain institutional persistence and change using concepts such as path dependency, critical moments, critical junctures, layering, drifting, and displacement, Acemoglu and Robinson arguments are more or less those of historical institutionalism. History determines whether nations fail or succeed. This is because institutions follow the path created at a certain historical point. I do not even understand how  could the authors maintain that their theory is not based on historical determinism while they use historical examples to explain the success stories of the Western world and failures of Latin America and Africa.  In connection to this, when the authors talked about critical junctures that only resulted to the re-creation of similar institutions (i.e. vicious circle), I think it would have been best if they would classify those moments as critical moments rather than critical junctures. This is because the events were not critical junctures as institutions keep the same path that recreates similar trends.  In addition, it would be more helpful if the authors could define institutions. There is no doubt that most scholars, especially in Economics or Political Science, would understand what kind of ‘institutions’ Acemoglu and Robinson are talking about, but other readers might not understand. In fact, the theory of new institutionalism (which I think it informs Acemoglu and Robinson’s arguments) takes a great deal in defining institutions.

Nevertheless, Acemolgu and Robinson work is a classic piece that can be read and understood by scholars, policymakers, and any person who is interested in development and economic prosperity.  The book is especially useful for policy makers as they can use its main concepts for policy analysis. For example, Tanzanian policymakers can analyze our country’s policies to see whether they are extractive or inclusive. They can use the arguments in the book to explore if our institutions allow for creative destruction and how we can improve our situation by making policies that will embrace inclusiveness and so prosperity to all.

 All in all, this is a must read book for everyone in the developing country who wants to change the situation in his/her country for sustainable growth. It is also enjoyable with great historical examples. Even if someone does not agree with the authors’ institutionalism arguments, the book is almost a history book with good accounts of major historical events.

As Americans are voting today, one of the things that is worthy asking is if the US as a global hegemony (if still is) is able to maintain the status quo and for how long.  What is intriguing, for me, is the reasoning behind this debate- whether the hegemony is on the decline or not. David Sanger, in his detailed yet easy to grasp book, Confront and Conceal, successfully presents key areas that I think they have led to emergence of such debates and whether the US can keep sustaining its global power.  These areas include the baffling Afghanistan War, the ambivalent relations with Pakistan, Iran Nuclear issues, Drones and Cyber attacks, the Arab Spring, and finally China and North Korea.  Although Sanger focuses on the period of Obama’s administration, he does it within the context of US’ foreign policy in the last 10 or so years.

With the exception of the chapter on cyber attacks on Iranian Nuclear programme, which I must admit is an intensive chapter with sensitive intelligence information, the book is mostly an expanded analysis of what had been reported in international news. Sanger himself is honest about this, as in the ‘notes about sources’ he acknowledges that this is a reporting book.  Nevertheless, this should not demean the book. Sanger tried to put into context the reasoning behind key foreign policy decisions that Obama and his different teams made concerning Afghanistan, Iran, Arab Spring, and US’ relations with China.  This he did through gathering information from different reliable sources that are primary. He, for example, interviewed a number of policy makers in the inner circle of foreign policy making in the White House and State Department. In addition, Sanger did a fieldwork such as going to Egypt after the revolution and interviewed activists. As a person who believes in academic research, I am impressed with the Sanger’s incorporation of academic analysis of some of the issues pertaining US’ foreign policy.

 Throughout the book Sanger consistently maintains the main theme of the book – which I think is to explain Obama’s doctrine- throughout all chapters. The book tries to elaborate Obama’s doctrine, which is for the US to have ‘a lighter footprint around the world and a reliance on coalitions to deal with global problems that do not directly threaten American security’. The goal is to enhance and preserve American power. This is further simplified by the title of the book ‘Confront and Conceal’.  In the book it is clear that Obama is a pragmatic realist leader. He critically analyses situations with adequate information, evidence, and advice before he makes decisions. Sanger cleverly illustrates this by highlighting the key questions behind Obama’s decisions- can we afford this? What is the price tag?  This may partly explain what I term ‘double-sided’ response to the Arab Spring, in particular when we compare Libya and Syria. At least the book gave me some relief when it exposes the awareness in the side foreign policy decision makers of the US’ double standards when dealt with the Arab Springs.

Due to his pragmatism and realistic view of the status of the US power as probably best fit into ‘first among equals’ rather than sole superpower, Obama is trying to shift emphasis from long-term wars and tensions in Middle East to focus more on ‘pivot’ Asia.  The aim of Obama, opposed to what many may think, is to enhance US’ power in a changing world.

Obama is rational about the status of American power in a changing world especially considering the nascent Chinese economic prowess.  In respect to that Obama is trying to refocus on Asia partly as an effort to rebalance and constrain Chinese influence.  The (unexpected) rise of Chinese power is probably a single main factor that has facilitated the discourse and the debates on the US hegemonic status quo.  Academicians, politicians, and journalists have debated on the rise of China and its impact in the US superpower ability with varying conclusions. Whether the US is still stronger than China or not, it cannot afford to keep fighting and intervening in every situation as an all-powerful global police. It has to calculate. Sanger, despite his analysis, he is still optimistic about American power. In his acknowledgement, which is at the end of the book, he says the following about his research assistants ‘ anyone worried that America is in decline would be disabused of the notion after a day of working this assemblage of young intellect and energy’. This is good but the truth remains that the hegemonic status can no more be taken for granted.

 As Americans are voting today, it’s my hope that they will make a right decision to choose a leader who is realistic about America’s power. If America does not play its cards right it might start witnessing an uncontrollable diminishing of its power and remain only with the history…once a superpower.