Fuzzy Variables in Iran – P5+1 Nuclear Negotiations

Introduction

The nuclear negotiations between Tehran and Washington DC has dragged on to its final day 24/11/2014. In the interim both sides have sized each order up and made strategic calculations regardless of the negotiation end game. While Anglo mainstream media dominate the information war with misinformation, a number of variables missing from the geopolitical equation indicate that in the long term, unfolding forces will favour Tehran’s position. Select treatment of these factors/variables is presented below.

US Internal Incoherence

Credit must be given to interlocutors on Tehran and Washington DC sides that pressured and successfully convinced both parties to agree and engage in negotiations. One must equally express clear surprise that the negotiations lasted the current duration without complications. It is a victory of sort that these negotiations took place however it will be myopic to anticipate a comprehensive agreement between 2 hegemons of pride and juggernauts of pig-headedness.

One of the fault lines of potential failure of US position is fissures within its political leadership with clear absence of coherence, diminution of national interest below intangible proxies and lack of dedication to defining and maintaining unsubordinated US position. Despite all the wealth of human and material resources, current US leadership is divided to pursue a consistent position in foreign affairs. The gap between the presidency, the legislature and interest groups is so huge that prospective opponent is bound to receive conflicting and confusing messages that only succeeds in hardening minds in Tehran.

Even within the narrow field of domestic political participation, between and within Republican and Democratic Parties, various dynamic views continue to evolve with no concrete structure, dominance of immature discourses and above all detest any room for generating a package of national interest limited to US aspiration. Rather US position is represented as an evolving amalgam of internal and external interests which more or less hold Washington DC hostage on its hamstring foreign policy.  

Economy stupid

States need positive economic growth and progressive economic development in peace time to successfully engage in complex international relations project vis-a-vis hard/soft power projection. The last few years has exposed US economy through deliberate mismanagement, myopic deployment of narrow interest policy and illusory pursuit of unbalanced geopolitical projects. Despite possessing potentials for dominating the global economy, the adoption of counter-productive and regressive policies is gradually eroding US influence which manifest domestically in growing unemployment, huge underemployment and declining productivity.

Externally, illusory pursuit of global domination through deployment of hard power with declining economic growth domestically has contributed to the rise of other economies befitting massively from producing for and targeting US market. These outflows of capital from US to emerging economies without serious counter-balance/moderation diminish her ability to manoeuvre in the world stage and Tehran is watching with keen interest.

Abuse of economic warfare through misapplication of economic sanctions against Tehran succeeded to the point of eliminating Tehran from direct US attack and opening opportunities for her engagement with other capitals. For any economy imposed with US sanctions, US products and US currency are the first victims contrary to western media spin. Other powerful currencies naturally fill the vacuum. It is obvious that Tehran’s bilateral trade and balance of payment in basket of currencies is boosted by US economic warfare. Ongoing sanction by US against Russia has eliminated Visa and MasterCard as payment system players with Moscow’s development of home-grown alternative. In addition the SWIFT international payment system, a US dominates financial architecture is currently being replicated by alternative structure which may be favourable to Iran.   

Europe Divide Weakness

Nearly 2 generations after the 2^nd world war it is evident that Europe remains to all intents and purposes a colony of United States. The potent political weakness, absence of robust geopolitical identity in a changing world and disappearance of a molecule of independence has convinced Tehran that not only is the US the only player of stature in the West, that European capitals are unworthy of trust and dependence especially London and Paris. Emerging divisions in Europe with regard to Russia relations only allows Tehran room to review erstwhile policies.

Lack of political ambition and poverty of leadership has effectively eliminated Europe as a serious progressive player in a rapidly changing world that includes Iran. Ubiquitous and under-performance of Berlin is a testament of geopolitical weakness in the global arena. One must not forget that US military bases are still in effect in Germany post-cold war unification. Such weakness and division allow Tehran room to exploit favourable interests elsewhere towards meeting her strategic objectives.

East Drift

In view of issues raised on US under-performance on the global economy, members of the Global South are emerging as the new economic powerhouses including China, India, Brazil and so on. These and many other economies are not only growing economically but geopolitically as well which cannot be dismissed, reversed or ignored by United States. The recent past APEC, ASEAN and G20 summits that all took place in Asia sent a single message; Asia/Global South has arrived. With Russia already on a favourable seat on the non-Atlantic and non-European configurations, these constellations of geopolitical power possess potentials for accommodating Tehran.

One must appreciate that the gap between United States and Iran is not about possession of nuclear technology or potential acquisition of nuclear weapons. The crux of the matter is Tehran desire to appreciate in the ranks of human, technological and resource developments. The idea of limiting, containing or controlling Tehran’s development ambition by United States resonates negatively & strongly in the formerly colonised Global South coupled with increasing evidence of US undermining effort among various Global South capitals. Most Global South countries will never challenge US but are fully aware that only in equitable development can their societies be stabilised.

Devoid of coherent position on every issue, Global South members are disposed to seek alternative routes collectively or otherwise for economic growth, economic development and geopolitical engagement. Concentration of global wealth and power in this group of countries only limits ability of United States to suppress and emasculate Iran.

Cuba, an island in the Caribbean, has survived 50+ years of US sanctions and is unlikely to give up her independence and sovereignty.  Iran can afford to wait, Tehran can afford to do nothing, can afford to manage stalled negotiations and bid her time with the emerging geopolitical heavyweights in the Global South since the new wind of geopolitical reconfiguration is blowing in that direction. It will be a realistic conjecture for Tehran to walk away from the deal which will be a perfect epithet of US era and a favourable signpost of East/Global South initiation on the world stage.  

Changing ‘Middle East’

The epicentre of US foreign policy attention and interventions in the last 50 years is the ‘Middle East’.  Apparently the reason for multiple interventions is inadmissible US policy failures. Years of opportunities for resolving some of the issues are dismissed with expectation in deployment of military force and advanced weapon systems. Evidence of weakness in the United States geopolitical project is manifesting in ‘Middle East’. The list is numerous to count but they include failure to contain Iran, failure to moderate Tel Aviv, failure to support feasible Palestinian self-determination, failure to justify/explain Iraq destruction and current inability to destroy & regime change in Syria.

With defying solidity in Tel Aviv, intransigence in Ankara and profound uncertainty in Riyadh; US is leading a house built with cards. It is very clear to Washington DC that an emerging Middle East is a surprise and an uncertainty it wants to certainly control strategically but is equally aware that this cannot be accomplished without Tehran. With Iran as the sole stable territory in a sea of intergenerational instability, the die cast. Iran is not going to do Gorbachevian error/naivety via toxic doses of glasnost and perestroika in casting off allies in Hezbollah and Damascus for illusion while it is surrounded.

With United States unwilling or unable to deal with the above named capitals and their diverging interests, Tehran may be best placed to limit concessions, delay and rejuvenate her strategic interest to fully align with the East in the long run while Washington DC continues to battle the demons it unleashed in Tel Aviv, Riyadh, Baghdad, Erbil and Ankara. US State Department will have her hands filled.

Conclusion

In the final analyses, Iran – US nuclear negotiations can only be comprehensively addressed when both capitals focus on their sole strategic interest rather than one carrying multiple baggages of irrelevant policies, expectations and design with time regressing aggressively.

Africa and Emerging Flexibility in the Geopolitical Economic Infrastructure

Africa - Epicentre of Geopolitical/Geoeconomic Battle/Rivalry/Struggle

Introduction

Geographically African continent seats comfortably at the centre of the world. This centrality is part of its attractiveness and enduring interest of outsiders from antiquity. Abundant human and material resources from Africa built Europe and North America; these almost infinite resources continue to drive external geopolitical designs for continued odious exploitation. In the last 2 decades geopolitical and geoeconomic perceptions have started changing despite massive reactionary resistance. This change brings to a point where a timely review of the status quo and the emergence of new geopolitical economic infrastructures impacts on Africa.

Emerging Midfield

The biggest myopic geopolitical conclusion is that United States is on a free fall. Attention should rather focus on the reality that United States global economic dominance petered out in less than 3 decades ushering in new global economic competitors. This fact is the engine driving new geopolitical reconfigurations as the future progresses and with it the power structures. The time when Washington Consensus with its colossal arrowheads of World Bank and International Monetary Fund (IMF) dominated multilateral funding and foreign investment in Africa is over. This is an important lesson not only for United States, her acolytes and clients; rather it is crucial for African leaders, African intelligentsia, African elite and African peoples.

New Geo-Economic Structures

The last 2 decades have opened up a new vista on the African economic space ushering in China in a bold move towards maintaining her internal security and control of power in Beijing through meeting tactical and strategic economic interests. The idea that Beijing presence in Africa is motivated by altruism is preposterous and displays intellectually amateurism. Communist Party of China can only maintain strong grip on power not by delivering democracy rather by pragmatically investing in real economic growth and progressive economic development.

Her bulging monetary reserves offers huge opportunity to identify, secure and sustain new supply lines of strategic mineral resources of which Africa possess huge commercial deposits. As a new competitor in the continent, China is naturally playing a rival’s game to obtain the best outcome in line with her strategic interest. African countries are wily enough to respond positively to Chinese overtures despite profound gaps in strategy have maintained the ability to attract, benefit and pragmatically manage Chinese expectations vis-a-vis Washington Consensus requirements. Comparative evidence between Washington DC and Chinese funding in Africa in the last 2 decades shows clear Beijing majority. Most importantly and for now, Chinese investment is positioned to provide real development through huge infrastructure projects to both the national economic and Chinese strategic interest.

China is driving diversification of new multilateral funding structures and the timing of these developments is crucial. In addition to dodged determination of United States to refuse credible reforms in World Bank and IMF allowing other countries especially emerging economies greater say points to loss of their legitimacy. At a time the West is barely registering positive economic growth, when some economies are shrinking, where many economy ministries have run out of ideas; China struck. 

Before the end of the decade BRICS New Development Bank will be up and running. In addition China is spearheading a new development bank, Asia Infrastructure Investment Bank (AIIB), targeting huge Asia market. Increased trade between emerging economies naturally diminishes preponderance of US dollars as many countries opt for national currency swaps for bilateral trade. What do these developments portend for the African economic space?

Theoretical Statics

Beyond the rhetoric of Chinese ‘peaceful rise’ and spearheading new geopolitical alternatives, theoretically China and partners in the new alternative are not different. They share the crux of action with their opposite/competitors in that the foundation of capitalism remains unchanged or unshaken. The basic element of capitalism which is depression of cost for maximum profit by any means necessary remains reinforced and unchallenged in the argument. And this is where African interlocutors will run into potential problems.

With exception of Russia most the countries of BRICS and AIIB emerged from Western colonialism or rather seat within western neo-colonialism since the last 100 years. Presentation of ‘peaceful rise’ by Beijing is carried along ‘developing’ countries lines which doesn't attempt to depict the full story. With the destruction of the erstwhile 3 or 4 tier global economic development classification, there is no basis for Beijing to sustain those claims any more than isolating examples of solidarity with former colonies during the colonial times.

It cannot also be suggested that China move is a serious threat to United States as the evidence is patchy in view of the fact that United States is not conquered or defeated by China in a conflict demanding her full submission as was the case for Germany and Japan post-WW2.

Capitalism Conditions Stupid

Before making the case that alternative multilateral funding to Africa will focus minds on inherent conditions, it is important to revisit basic understanding of Western capitalism and summarised its practice in Africa in the last 500 years. Capitalism is a method for wealth acquisition, wealth creation and wealth maintenance. Its raison d’être is profit. It is the highest expression of dehumanisation and social atomisation that reduces all material/immaterial to tradeable values as commodities.  

Capitalism (and particularly the neoliberal version) cannot thrive without violence and destruction towards extraction of profit. Read Liberal Virus by Samir Amin. By neoliberal capitalism, we express the method of pursuing economic growth/profit entailing movement/exchange of goods, services and capital (modes of production) with less/reduced state involvement/regulation versus more (few) private/market participation in a national economy.

For Africa this is vividly expressed starting with European imposition of Trans-Atlantic Slave Trade in the 15^th century. The structure of European power including pre-Westphalia religious establishments accentuated the devaluation of African peoples which among other things enabled full scale dehumanisation and civilisation-stripping through violence that sustained over 300 years of slave trade which provide the riches now ring-fenced by Europe and North America. Slavery in its crude form was not abolished as a result of any semblance of humanitarian or moral acquiesce rather by economic priorities especially technological advances. Read The Counter Revolution of 1776 by Gerald Horne & The Deepest South: The United States, Brazil, and the African Slave Trade by Gerald Horne.

The natural by-product of slavery is colonialism. It was not a system of political imposition alone, it was a methodical application of industrial violence to appropriate peoples, domains and strip civilisation of their real and ontological existence. No amount of historical revision or sanitisation will delete this fact.  By act of foreign law, former slave zone were designated private properties of foreign sovereigns while the peoples, everything on the territory and continental shelves became commodities. Read How Europe Underdeveloped Africa by Walter Rodney.

Comparatively, there is no evidence that the brutal impact of capitalism on Africa become excruciatingly pain only at the stage of neo-colonialism as alluded by Nkrumah in his Neo-colonialism-The last stage of Capitalism. Capitalism as an aggregate or as a disaggregated phased experience as present by Lenin in Imperialism – The Highest Stage of Capitalism is brutal, violent, destructive and inhuman wherever it is implemented and later dissected.

State Capitalism Par Excellence 

One of the main characteristics of China-led alternatives is the preponderance of state role in the various economies in contrast to US neoliberal agenda with its devastating impact on Africa currently and since the 1970s. Read Maldevelopment by Samir Amin. What is even more interesting is that the blueprint for successful management of capitalism is spearheaded by communists in Beijing. There is an important lesson apparently for African strategists and policy makers who are mostly drenched in western ideologies and ‘dogmas’. In any case action for reversing the role of the state in African economies, a Washington Consensus staple needs to be put on ice. Europe is a now a classic example of a failed neoliberal economic policy.

There is no empirical evidence to back the mantra that private sector provides better/quicker solutions or that private sector generates higher productivity. The case against public sector contributor is its obstruction to elitist control and minority monopolistic tendencies. While United States is erroneously held up as top example, the contradiction lays bare when centuries of racial discrimination against Africans, minorities, women and the poor is magnified. Read The Peoples History of United States by Howard Zinn. African leaders have the chance to review policies and strategic positions to assume important ground between depleting Washington Consensus and rising BRICS ND_Bank and AIIB.

As the new geopolitics of multilateral funding is emerging, it presents an architecture run and managed by post-colonial entities despite complex interlocking relationship between them, with the West and Russia. For the first time in many centuries, geopolitical power and density of monetary values/income no linger reside in the West. It is a profound outcome which seems unlikely to be torpedoed or reversed.

While the alternative developments offer Africa new opportunities, African cannot be blind to each country’s economic and institutional contradictions.  China, India, Russia and etc possess serious contradiction among doubtful state of readiness to play global role of such magnitude. Dismissal of Beijing’s power calculation or flexing of influence is a dangerous option because these funds carry associated conditions which may not be as odious and onerous as the West, nevertheless Chinese power will be projected forcefully devoid of military intervention.

Therefore Chinese Yuan loans for triggering state productive sector & infrastructure expansion in Africa provides strategic alternatives for chain-reaction development within national spaces and the continent at large.  Infusion of these funds should be guarded to prevent subversion toward massive privatisation of remaining state concerns in various African countries for Chinese interest. Privatisation is mostly skewed towards elites and corporations while the net result is massive loss to the state/citizens. Read State Resistance to Globalisation in Cuba by Antonio Camona Baez.

Crucially a new kind of leadership is need from Africa. Post-colonial leaders with full knowledge of colonialism and appreciation for emerging world nuance are ever critical. Strategists, analysts, managers and leaders with wider capacities to navigate through the geopolitical and foreign policy labyrinths of both West and East cannot be dismissed. Ethiopia is trending an example worthy of deeper review. Botswana continues to thrive with stability and limited resources.

These investments offer greater incentive for the main thrust of African development, which is African integration.  Read Africa Must Unite by Dr Kwame Nkrumah. Decline and weakening of the West may upset their ability to micro-manage their fronts in the continent as such gradual withdrawal of influence opens opportunities for seeking new partners in the continent. This is particularly obvious in the French colonised parts of the continent. Example shows that Portugal is more or less economically dependent on Angola (& Brazil).

At the End

China will be powerful and may be the most powerful country in the world. It will not be a dominant power with full spectrum control of global affairs rather counter weights will be strategically positioned in renewed geopolitical deployment of balance of power. Africa is poised to take advantage of this emergence of alternatives with increased vigilance against becoming accessories of internal conflicts and destabilisation. Events in Libya, DRC, Rwanda, Cote d’Ivorie and Mali are examples of conflicts sparked by geopolitical actors to control natural resources and in some cases to curtail supply to China.

It will be naive and dangerous to project a future with less conflict without adequate preparations. United States ambivalence on Africa is legendary and Washington DC has never countered the fact that its projection of power in Africa is mirrored in military conflicts. This form of foreign policy is far entrenched to be reversed.  Africa resource nationalism is important especially in the management of downstream activities within productive countries to ensure greater control of the benefits and greater transparency/equity in wealth distribution.

Above all African capitals must refrain from full opening of their markets in the form of free trade to other countries which will put the final nail in the coffin of economic development and subtle economic independence. China has become notorious with dumping of cheap products which eviscerated local industries. In the long run Africa must strategically position to seek full access to other markets around the world including Europe and North America. 

United States in a Bind over Iran Nuclear Negotiations

Introduction

As nuclear negotiations between Iran and P5+1 countries is sluggishly grinding towards the end, a number of patterns have emerged which present contrasting positions between rhetoric and praxis, prior to and during the negotiations. It is important to stress that these negotiations to all intents and purpose is between Tehran and Washington DC and as things are shaping up, it is crucial to move away from bombastic reductionist geopolitics and focus on the realpolitik considering other interconnected events.

Pre-Status Quo

For the past 3 decades United States has used any means to demonise Islamic Republic of Iran even though the latter is no match on her huge material and intellectual resources. One may surmise that it will be difficult to find a US citizen/resident/official with a positive of the country and her citizens. Of course there are a minority who appreciate and respect Iran beyond altruistic reasons; nevertheless their views may carry little weight beyond perception as ‘noise’.  Since Shah of Iran was overthrown in 1979, Washington DC have found it excruciatingly difficult to accept the reality that the ancien regime is gone.  The mental template of realpolitik inflexibility has allowed Washington DC to consistently boxed itself into an unfavourable corner with the possibilities of even subverting her national interest.

Misinformation Incorporated

It is apparent that in geopolitics, misinformation is a huge investment against ‘unfriendly’ countries. United States used misinformation weapon to distort Iran image around the world especially in Western Europe since the Islamic Republic came into being in 1979. One of the mantras of misinformation against Tehran is that the leadership is irrational hence depicting the country as unstable, uncertain, fragile and a threat in its neighbourhood despite lack of evidence. On the contrary one would notice Iran is a democracy with centrality of power in Tehran received as a heritage of the Shah. 

It was the Shah, then a US ally, who centralised power under his rule. Demographically one appreciates that while most of the population is Shia by religious disposition, the most populous ethnic nation, Farsi, is less than 60% and are mostly found in the centre of the country. See map below. Iran has a population necklace of minorities all around its borders with co-ethnic nation community in neighbouring countries offering tempting potentials for insurrection/irredentism. See map below.

Iran Demographic Distribution

Instability and uncertainty driven by irrationality is not a recipe for surviving for more than 3 decades in a turbulent neighbourhood including prosecuting a defensive war against Iraq between 1980 and 1988. With another necklace of foreign military bases around the country, Tehran will be most foolish to let down her guard. See map below. US investment around Iran challenges her earlier commitment not to invade or attack Iran in the 1980 Algiers Accord. Misinformation can be the vehicle for bilateral expression of grievances and deeply entrenched misgivings. It is essential to stress that Iranian nuclear programme was commenced with US approval under the Shah of Iran.

Necklace of Surrounding Foreign Military Bases

Prudent Reactions and Windfalls

It must be testified that Tehran never had time and resources to export its revolution beyond her borders for a number of reason including but not limited to purging the population of those associated with or suspected to be favoured/benefited from the ancien regime politics, bureaucracy, economy and social fabric; and then the long 1980-1988 Iran-Iraq war which really set the country back almost a generation. Iranian geopolitical footprint is spatially limited in Middle East although in its realpolitik, relations with Oman and United Arab Emirate has been stable & viable among the Gulf States and other regional players.

Despite the above mentioned items, Iran invested heavily in Lebanon (conflicts) with a 2-pronged geopolitical strategy of supporting Hezbollah internally and externally through enhancing strategic relationship with Syria then under President Hafez Al-Assad (a policy unchanged by President Bashar Al-Assad). This strategy was deployed to foil any attempt to have Lebanese governments leaning toward United States/Israel in Beirut. (Read Syria and Iran Diplomatic Alliance and Power by Jubin Goodarzi). Over the decades Hezbollah has risen in profile and stature as an indispensable & strategic geopolitical player in Lebanon and Middle East respectively to the consternation of Washington DC and regional players.

Geopolitical windfalls to Tehran must have handed Iran a form of ‘shock and awe’. The twin invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq in 2001 and 2003 respectively were inverse or reverse rewards to Iran by United States. What was the calculation of Washington DC in the preparation and implementation of these policies mirrored actions based on historical amnesia. An Iraq without Sadaam Hussein in the shambolic manner of its invasion and post-invasion can only allow any political vacuum to be filled by Iran. 

Even without direct Tehran influence, physical and violent destruction of her western and an eastern neighbours plus presence of an unstable eastern neighbour automatically makes her the stable patch in the neighbourhood. See map below. Her profile should surely increase; it becomes a centre of demand and supply for those areas in the neighbourhood with huge lacks in goods and services. In essence United States cannot blame Tehran for taking advantage of the gain or even wish to reverse those gains.

Neighbourhood of 'Fire'

Sanctions Long Duree

The Islamic Republic has been placed under economic sanction by Washington DC since 1979 and there is limited flexibility or withdrawal along the lines of 1980 Algiers Accord. Tehran has been under economic sanctions of various stripes for over 3 decades and in a sense have developed dependable social, economic, political and geopolitical projects as a result. Sanctions serve many purposes for the party placing the sanction and elicit different reactions from the party suffering the sanction. Despite the hollow glorification of economic sanctions by its imposers, sanctions are not wholly adhered to because of the complexity of interests and interlocking relationships between various stakeholders within the imposing country including huge resources required to monitor its effectiveness.

Iran neighbours have benefited from the economic sanctions as they naturally became entrepots for transferring various goods and services desperately needs of Iranian market. Even some US allies in the region turned blind eye when necessary to benefit their economic interests. The complexities of economic sanction present various kinds of strategic opportunities within and beyond the country. Internal interests that benefit from the sanction would fight against its elimination. Some foreign interests that boldly flouted the sanction hence developing pseudo-monopoly in the Iranian economy are bound to recalibrate their investment against potential competition if and when sanction is lifted. A high profile example is United States feigning ignorance/blind-eye while her Afghanistan project purchase petroleum products from Iran.

With this background the suggestion by section of western observers that sanction prompted Iran to accept negotiation is wholly preposterous. What these sentiment express is lack of information and ignorance of an array of Iran assistance and cooperation with United States including Taliban overthrow with United States on various strategic issues of importance to Washington DC. Washington DC has long spurned Tehran offers for diplomatic engagement. (Read Going to Tehran by Flynt Leverett & Hilary Mann Leverett). Negotiation between strong parties cannot be imposed rather strategic interest of both parties guide response and agreement.  On both sides various expectation and strategic initiatives have failed and both sides are privy to inevitable geopolitical changes around the world and in the neighbourhood.

It is important to stress that the nuclear negotiation commence under the former president, Dr Mahmoud Ahmedinajad, an individual savagely demonised by the western media. He and members of Islamic Republic leadership were and are not irrational after all. The fact that the negotiation started in secrecy, with US allies in the region kept in the dark by Washington DC says volumes. In addition, despite bombastic hyperboles of revolutionary propaganda, Tehran was fully aware of its vulnerabilities and opportunities. Its core strategic political and geopolitical objective remains nationalistic. For this ideal majority of the population are willing to make huge sacrifices in addition to playing for the long haul. Similar description can be made of the Cuban revolution.

There was something lacking in the western context of (Iran) Others, Other peoples and Other countries. Deliberate ignorance of information and attention to proximate data on others are dismissed. While Iran may lack parity in economic, technological and military department with US; Iranians are ready to die for their revolution. Above all Iran was not and was never isolated physically. Even Cuba, an island in the Caribbean, was placed under economic sanction by Washington DC for the past 50 years, has survived.  Despite the 50+ years sanction, Havana is stable, certain and developed impeccable anti-imperialist and medical geopolitical credentials. Expectations that collapse of USSR will drive her underground remains a dream for its antagonists.

End of Battle of Red Lines

Going beyond rationality of diplomacy and engagement of Iran, it is apparent and certified that Tehran is a credible party for tough negotiations, a party open and willing to make compromises and is equally a ‘demon’ that can negotiate with ‘Satan’. Beyond the rhetoric the last year has produced important milestones based on mutual respect along the project time line while various redlines remain immovable, changing and shifting.

Amplification of trust is evident in the measures adopted by both parties to advance the negotiations. One can surmise that Tehran has not only displayed flexibility but conducted its diplomacy with coherence. Various centres of power in Iran have coordinated and cooperated to advance a unifying ‘grand strategy’.

It is obvious that a deal may not be clichéd for a simple reason. United States centres of power including its strong influencers/lobbyists may not be ready for Washington DC rapprochement with Tehran. Incoherent foreign policy, inconsistent implementation of strategy, misreading of geopolitical reconfigurations and insertion of wishful variables may force the negotiation to end in a stalemate. The ease with which sanctions were enacted may force the hand of those who enacted them as they struggle existentially to come to terms with an ill-fated 'dogma' that all sanctions cannot be removed at once.  

Tehran has concluded that extension of the current negotiation time-table is not in her interest. President Obama has given a number of mixed reactions to current ‘progress’. So until Washington DC resolved its internal crisis which only diminishes its geopolitical capital not surprisingly, Tehran can only sustain business-as-usual of the previous 3 decades of US ambiguity and ambivalence. Nevertheless it remains obvious that things are not going economically well with P3+1. A pattern of geopolitical pattern to come!

Complicated Dimensions & Manifestations of Compaore’s Burkina Faso Geopolitics

Burkina Faso - The Land of Upright People

Introduction

The purpose of the article is to extract the juice of Ouagadougou’s geopolitical machination of almost 3 decades. Beyond the ‘frenzy’ of recent past peoples’ revolt in Burkina Faso which in itself is not spontaneous that led to the resignation of erstwhile president, Blaise Compaore, a number of important issues remain in the geopolitical black box.  

While French media among Western outlets refer to him as a mediator, and refer to Burkinabes secondarily as poor probably based on a devalued and devaluing US dollar; on the contrary the measure of events indicates that those contested labels are red herrings. Lastly the non-spontaneous response of Burkinabes is not for democracy; it is for something far deeper than Western media constructed outcomes. This is essential mostly for African observers who doggedly refuse to reconstruct ill-fated political views received under violent impositions of imperialistic assumptions.

In the Historical Wider Beginning

Then Upper Volta (Haute-Volta) was part of colonial French West Africa manipulated from Paris with a combined initiative to extract her human & natural resources for the sustenance of the empire while holding the people down with civilisation-stripping policy of assimilation. Assimilation as a policy can be summarised as a strategic ploy to institutionally eliminate Africans historically, culturally and civilisationally to be recreated with new imposed French civilisation which is constructed as the raison d’être of French deluded mission of civilisation. For the French Africans including Upper Voltans were only as good as what can be extracted from them by violence and not in the essence of usefulness to their people and as a people.  See map below.

Map of Colonial Africa

When WW2 eliminated French pretension of empire, Paris reconstructed her strategic initiative to run and maintain an empire based on her colonial possessions. French political elite understood perfectly well that without Africa the essence of France evaporates. Georges Clemenceau was the embodiment of this policy earlier at the end of WW1 and fought tirelessly against naive Woodrow Wilson’s post-WW1 geopolitical infatuations. (Read A Shattered Peace by David Andelman). Empire was the crux of WW1 and as one winner, Paris held fast to her prized possessions. 

Post-WW2 finally lifted the veil of geopolitical intransigence which among other things stripped France and United Kingdom of any clout and coupled with entry of new geopolitical players in town. So the 2^nd fiddler, France, cemented her colonial credentials in Africa and Asia. By the time General Charles De Gaulle arrived in Paris of course with a panache for racism against Africa(ns) initially displayed in public after the liberation of Paris in his refusal to allow African troops who contributed to partake in the parade, the die was cast. Better understanding of his geopolitical initiatives and designs on Africa is better presented in a biased 2-volume biography by Jean Lacouture, De Gaulle: The Rebel 1890 – 1994 & De Gaulle: The Ruler 1945 – 1970.

 Conakry & Sekou Toure’s ‘Non'

By the time of De Gaulle’s 2^nd ‘missionary journey’ at Elysee Palace, there is little room for France to project power in Europe. USSR is already at the door slicing off eastern half of Europe while United States is dominant on the West. Some of French colonial possessions including Algeria and Vietnam are becoming restive and combustible from long inhuman imperialist policies in addition to war pacifications ordered by De Gaulle which resulted in the genocide of many Africans in various parts of French colonial Africa. (Read Wretched of the Earth by Franz Fanon). 

So by 1958 as the so-called negative ‘wind of change’ blew across Africa, De Gaulle crafted a carrot & stick policy of holding down African colonies. De Gaulle didn't refrain at using unchecked violence to forestall Africa’s self determination. (Read Algeria: France Undeclared War by Martin Evans).

One must appreciate that the level of French economic, social and infrastructural investments across her possession where pittance. This is even acute in landlocked areas like then Upper Volta. Mind you with assimilation, the best and promising Africans like Cote d’Ivorie’s Houphouet Boigny are shipped to Paris to become French in all things, so these lands where hamstrung to take any independence initiative in geopolitical isolation and economic limitation. Ideologically the world was bifurcated between communism and not-so-free market.

Independence of former French Colonies (in red F)

When in 1958 De Gaulle deceptively offered independence to African colonies with onerous conditions including unfettered exploitation of natural resources, only Amadou Sekou Toure of Guinea jumped at the offer with a categorical ‘Non’ to French rule. See map above for pattern of independence and Guinea’s temporal isolation. De Gaulle did everything in his power including rabid reconstruction of history, using violence to destabilise, attack and reverse Guinea’s vote for self-determination via his African Czar, Jacques Foccart & his Foccart Network. Guinea was perceived as reactionary to Paris designs therefore needed to be cut to size. The rest of African leaders including Maurice Yameogo (later the first president) and Houphouet Boigny played for time.  Houphouet Boigny, a man of means and influence for the French project was married with daughters.

Neocolonial Independence and Underlings

Independent African Countries

By the time Upper Volta gained independence in 1960 it was already in a position of political and economic weakness due to unfavourable terms of independence which include but not limited to dependence on Paris, a military pact that stationed French troops in Ouagadougou, subjection of internal, foreign, and economic affairs to Paris oversight. Coupled with the fact of having a smaller population, being landlocked with 6 neighbours, part sahelian, part desert and left alone as French sphere of influence by other Western powers, Ouagadougou was stymied for a while.

Devoid of ethnic conflict, political power remained partly stable over time. However within the sub-region, Cote d’Ivorie rose to become the dominant power in the French area. Senegal under Leopold Senghor chose a path of sublime radicalism without disrupting relationship with Paris. President Houphouet Boigny saw his country as the epicentre of West African affairs and hub of French interest as a keen product of assimilation. Read Black Skin White Mask by Franz Fanon. With French collaboration and assistance Cote d’Ivorie gradually became an economic hub based on cocoa, other agricultural produce and natural resources.

In addition Cote d’Ivorie felt constrained by the perception that Guinea and Ghana on the eastern and western borders, who shared ideological and geopolitical positions were potential flashpoints of stability & higher geopolitical profile. The reason for this disposition was the fact that these countries sought the assistance of Moscow & Peking for economic development. These countries never tilted politically towards communism. So to advance Abidjan ambitions, relationships with Paris and Washington DC were elevated and in return CIA found fertile ground to culminate regime change in Accra which was successfully accomplished in 1966 while Nkrumah was on official visit to Vietnam.  History will take catastrophic revenge decades later on Cote d’Ivorie.

Structural Adjustment West African Branch

By the 1980s a number of events converged to challenge power structures of Upper Volta. Under the singular influence of Paris, it suffered the 1970s destructive Sahelian drought and with limited scope for developing the productive sector ran up massive foreign debts under Paris Club/World Bank. With a gradual reversal of French economic fortunes and de-linking of erstwhile economic relationship against an isolated country, the leadership was faced with complicated problems. 

Various army factions took power at various times until Captain Thomas Sankara arrived Ouagadougou in 1983 with fresh air at the age of 34. His emphasis was economic development and political solidity based on independence in internal affairs, free hand in foreign policy, foreign debt rejection/repudiation, prioritisation of local industries, zero-tolerance to corruption and increased political awareness of citizens. The debt repudiation suggestion made him enemies in the West.

His government tried within 4 years of his administration to redirect Upper Volta which he now renamed Burkina Faso (Land of Upright People) along the above stated lines and these policies upset powerful domestic and foreign interests. His popularity across Africa and many other parts of the world who have been chaffing under the weight of Washington Consensus was overwhelming. His policy of non-alignment including perceived closeness to Havana was not welcomed by Washington DC and Paris. In West Africa, Cote d’Ivorie was alarmed by this development moreso for the increasing geopolitical profile of a small country and a younger leader. Even the then French President Mitterrand publicly expressed concern at Sankara foreign policy choices.

From a geopolitical viewpoint there are missed dimensions in the Burkina Faso discourse. Given the fact that it is landlocked, given the fact that its economic footprint is small within the region and within French West African sub-region, given that it is expected to orient unwavering towards Paris direction; a mental image developed that quarantined this country in the minds of statesmen and diplomats. Nevertheless the fact remains that geopolitically and temporally, Burkina Faso and Captain Thomas Sankara were isolated. 

Sankara was exposed seriously and he expressed his impending mortality without restriction. Positive political and economic developments are imperfect and the suggestion that an international revolution can be sustained in isolation is far-fetched.  His murder in 1987 by his successor was not triggered by internal affairs errors rather by power hunger (with foreign encouragement) of his trusted ally, then Captain Blaise Compaore whose wife is one of Cote d’Ivorie president’s (Houphouet Boigny) daughters. With the coup, the coup leader’s wife became the First Lady of state for nearly 3 decades.

Post-Sankara and Jewel of Landlockness

2 important developments accompanied post-Sankaran rule in Burkina Faso. The first was reconstructing erstwhile alliance dismantled by President Thomas Sankara. These policies reflected in the promotion of Paris & Washington Consensus, and recalibrating relationship with regional power, Cote d’Ivorie, of whom the new leader is a son-in-law. The second strategy was repositioning Burkina Faso in a new geopolitical environment that allows it enhanced visibility especially when the opportunity arrives. 

Let us expand our view of the second strategy. Every neighbourhood consist of hierarchy of powers and no two countries share the same relative power. All cannot be weak and all cannot be strong. Some weak states will feed off the powerful ones far and near. The new government with filial relationships between the leader of the most powerful country (Cote d’Ivorie) in the sub-sub-region was bound to reflect some the latter’s potency. Not only that, it was also disposed to reflect even stronger influence from the higher powers (Paris & Washington DC) from which the strong regional power draws legitimacy.

Operationalisation of opportunistic projection of influence is effected at the behest of stronger power far and near who identify, plan, implement and monitor most of an influencing project in the sub-region.  These opportunistic influences enabled by distant powerful states allows Ouagadougou to play reflexive 2^nd fiddle, deliver its bargain, consolidate power and maintain unchallenged power by any means necessary including maintaining semblance of deoxygenated democracy  so far the distant powers continue support and assistance.  

As a landlocked country, civilian and military air transport is the only means allowing it to implements its phase of any project. It is also important to dismantle the myth that desert is an obstructer of movement. There is no evidence of such rather this mental disposition has enabled in many quarters total dismissal of actual huge movement of men and machines across desert borders between countries.

 Epicentre of Regional Destabilisation

While French media imposed its own of reflexive corruption in referring to Blaise Compaore as a regional ‘mediator’, what is missing is the true narrative of conflicts that enabled his erstwhile ‘peacemaking’. Although in such byline, France24 only confirmed what is already know in public about French collusion to maintain its fading illusion of empire in Africa.  He was a merchant of death!

As stated earlier the construction of a geopolitics based on opportunity for influence projection in the sub-region allowed Ouagadougou to flexibly punch above her weight while dynamically assuming various roles aside from 2^nd fiddle between her and her handlers in Washington DC and Paris. A number of conflicts in the region established Blaise Compaore as the enfant terrible of West Africa geopolitics. 

Outflows of Instability from Burkina Faso Under President Blaise Compaore

It is a fact that Burkina Faso under Compaore facilitated, assisted and hosted Charles Taylor in his bid to take power in Liberia which resulted in the death of hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians. This assistance was coordinated in full knowledge and at times with cooperation of the French government. Interestingly Compaore used the good offices of his father-in-law to transfer rebel troops and equipments through Cote d’Ivorie territory into Liberia.

Following the demise of President Houphouet Boigny instability descended on his beloved Cote d’ Ivorie and this country reverted to destruction. His exit from the political landscape and lack of credible successor opened the door wide open for Ouagadougou to reconstruct new alliances with potential leaders of the country. As Cote d’Ivoire boiled in 2000s, Compaore exploited and aligned with former Prime Minister Alasanne Ouatarra and New Forces rebels to seek for power through the barrel of the gun.  Houphouet Boigny must have rolled in his grave!

Ouagadougou facilitated, assisted and directed resources towards the country’s instability in connivance with Paris including arranging stop-gap peace summits to allow the rebels breathing space until the final push by the French who violently removed Laurent Gbagbo from power. It is no surprise that the new Cote d’Ivorie president is firmly under Paris thumb print. Alasanne Ouattara welcomed Compaore immediately after his exit.  

There are evidence that Blaise Compaore used his office to contribute to Sierra Leone instability by sponsoring, facilitating, assisting and providing training and equipments to Foday Sankoh in return for illicit diamond and other natural resources. This was finessed with another ally rebel-turned-president of Liberia, Charles Taylor. Sierra Leone continues to suffer from the genocide that took place in the war. It must be asserted that wars in Cote d’Ivorie, Liberia and Sierra Leone were outcomes of collapse of internal leadership and poverty of strategic initiative which was exploited by various rebels which in turn were exploited by Blaise Compaore.

Lastly, it is a known fact that Boko Haram is not an isolated group and an allegation by Nigerian government against Burkina Faso's alleged sponsorship and to have their bases in Burkina Faso closed was rebuffed vigorously by Blaise Compaore. It is equally interesting to observe how among other sly operations under the rubric of US Africa Command (USAFRICOM), United States in the name of ‘war on terrorism’ established military/drone bases in West Africa; in Niamey Niger and in Ouagadougou Burkina Faso. These are subtle manifestation of Asia Pivot against China which is implemented across Africa wherever China has strategic investments to forestall Beijing mineral resources supply from Africa. 2011 NATO’s violent destruction of Libya and murder of his leader and peoples calls to mind.

Phased Peoples Opposition

While the people of Burkina Faso have been chaffing under the erstwhile administration for almost 3 decades and finally boiled over for him to give up, BBC and French media continued to deny their agency and ability rather paint an inglorious picture of a conflict-maniac as peace maker. Above all, Western media has taken a dodged position in referring to Burkinabes as poor. This is repeated over and over again. Burkina Faso people are rich economically, culturally and historically and probably on a good day will refuse subordination to foreign powers.

The critical element which may be the main outcome of this situation as the dust settles is acknowledgement of losses. Of course Burkina Faso military cannot assume any legitimate claim to power since the overthrow was people-instigated and people-executed. Since Burkina Faso is not and has not engaged in civil war, her potential is higher. Their key to the future is avoiding such conflict whenever it is imposed and excluding France from her strategic decision making. This is stated clearly because the main loser of this phase is France. The language will remain but other vestiges of French institutional influence need to decline. The military pact is regressive and outmoded for the times although the US base will survive. If African democracy of the 21^st century must flourish, then it doesn't require French military legitimacy, an instrument of cold war ideological strategy.

Dynamic Final

Furthermore, despite Paris pretences she can no longer afford its hand-on approach to African politics because of its continuing economic weightlessness. Paris aggressive choices on the African continent be it in Cote d’Ivorie, Libya, Mali and Central Africa Republic are staples of unstoppable haemorrhage. While the disposition of illusory friendship mirrors elite observation, Africans see no friend in Paris. Over time Paris will throw in the towel because she has become poor. Quai d’orsay expectation that the strategy of ‘playing from the front for US to lead from the rear’ will be rewarded is foolhardy. US don’t reward countries unless there is total subservience.

Curiously beyond France losses, United States have moved closer to and away from her previous ambivalence toward Africa with a new direct military geopolitics as part of recolonisation of Africa’s mineral resources geostrategy a la Asia Pivot against China. With US military bases in Bamako, Ouagadougou and Niamey, progress is made towards final preparation of potential show down with Beijing in Africa. On this point future administrations in Ouagadougou cannot resist US overtures.

In the final analysis, Burkina Faso will be active and vibrant in the neighbourhood albeit with a reduced profile. It will have stable profile where many countries in the neighbourhood have been disabled by internal conflicts her former president contributed to. The only concern is how future administrations will manage the economy file and the strategic China file, as these policies will be the contentious potential for combustion more so if Burkina Faso possesses commercial quantities of mineral resources.