The Alleged Political Analysis and the Floating Iceberg
* Fathi Osman
What we witness today regarding the so-called political analysis resembles a person stumbling in the dark, tripping once, and stumbling again, all the while in a predicament. His predicament turns into a catastrophe if he attempts to enlighten people and illuminate their path.
The practices of those who call themselves journalists, analysts, and strategic experts contribute to the darkness and the misleading of people. The events surrounding us are significant, or as they say, "high-pitched sermons," and the darkness is intensified by the stargazing and the stoning of the unseen called political analysis.
The late political analyst specializing in Africa and former professor at Kings College, London, Patrick Chabal (1951-2014), has a key and enlightening book on the analysis of post-colonial states in Africa. In his book, Chabal discusses the conditions of power and authority in Africa through the analysis of several crises. In the eleventh chapter of the book, titled "The Crisis of Violence and Survival," he states that the crisis of violence and survival is linked to several factors that increase its intensity. These factors include the economic situation of Africa in relation to the global market, i.e., economic dependency. Secondly, the deteriorating environmental situation, and thirdly, the vicious circle of conflicts. Finally, the readiness of leaders to commit various forms of violence against their people without hesitation or accountability.
This book, which spans 311 pages with twenty-one pages of footnotes and references, was first published in 1994, and I am not aware of its translation into Arabic.
Regarding the deteriorating environment and its contribution to wars and conflicts (and here, the creative effort of Dr. Mohamed Suleiman Mohamed and his book "Sudan: Resource Wars and Identity" comes to mind), Chabal argues that the roots of famine and poverty are more human-based than natural disasters (drought and desertification). He adds that the famous famine of the 1970s in Ethiopia was caused by a feudal system that believed that famine was a divine fate (p. 186) and emphasizes that the imperial system in Ethiopia suppressed nationalities within limits that only served the Amhara nationality.
To understand the power of political analysis based on a complex accumulation of geographical, historical, economic, legal, and international relations knowledge in drawing "prospective" conclusions and assumptions that can predict the future is what the nonsensical statements we hear and see every day lack.
To illustrate this, I have excerpted a citation from Chabal regarding an idea from the writer Tony Hodges from his book "Western Sahara: Roots and Causes of Conflict." This book was published four years before the state disintegration in Ethiopia and was released by La Découverte in Paris in 1987. Chabal quotes Hodges saying: "Since the Organization of African Unity (at that time) cannot redraw borders (in the African century), this will ignite the flames of conflict. The possible disintegration of the Ethiopian Empire may lead to changes in borders and the formation of a federal union consisting of several independent nationalities."
The noteworthy aspect of the above quote is the use of words like "possible" and "may lead," which negate certainty and reliability in analysis despite presenting relevant causes and motives. This cautious use of language by the author indicates that the relationship between cause and effect is not deterministic, a quality lacking in the daily rhetoric we hear.
Hodges seems knowledgeable about international relations, the obstacles facing international organizations, history, and geography. Thus, history proved the accuracy of his intuition. After a few years, the regime in Ethiopia collapsed, and the new forces adopted a new constitution allowing regional division of the country, enabling, at least legally, the nationalities independence, reaching the point of self-determination. The once dominant Ethiopian Empire turned into a federal state exactly as Hodges and other experts predicted.
The political analyst and expert in political geography, Michael Klare, studies resource wars, especially oil. In his bestselling book, "Blood and Oil: The Dangers and Consequences of Americas Growing Dependency on Oil," he examines Americas increasing dependence on fossil fuels, its challenges, and how wars are instrumental in strategies to obtain more oil.
In the realm of international competition, Klare points to China with its rapidly growing economy, which needs oil and emerges as a fierce competitor to the United States in Central Asia, the Gulf, and Africa. Klare cites several studies on China to conclude that Western China, specifically the Xinjiang region inhabited by the Uighur minority, represents a vulnerability for China in its security strategies toward Central Asian countries.
This region witnessed the establishment of an independent state for the Uighurs (which was entirely new information to me). Their state, known as East Turkestan, existed for a short period and was supported by the Soviet Union. However, Mao Zedong incorporated it into China with autonomy, and China still maintains comprehensive security control over it, bringing about demographic changes through the settlement of Han ethnicities in the region. These factors cause significant concerns for China. The spread of American bases in some Central Asian republics further diminishes Chinas chances of competing for the oil in the Caspian Sea. To support his hypotheses, Klare presents current and future Chinese fuel needs and Chinas policy options in this regard.
Analysts today may argue that books differ from television interviews in that they must provide sufficient support for their hypotheses. However, these analysts and strategic experts, when they speak, not only offer political analysis but also an art of interpretation, argumentation, and enlightenment that may exceed what they present in entire chapters of their books.
Also, for analysts today, reaching the threshold of the future is challenging, if not unnecessary. What is required of their superficial analyses is to "respond" to at least the questions generated by their statements. The following two examples illustrate this.
The first is from Sudan, and the second is from Eritrea. The first involves a Sudanese journalist known for his exceptional analyses on major channels, referred to as a political analyst. This analyst once stated that one of the warring parties in Sudan achieved a "comprehensive and complete military breakthrough," forcing the second party to accept negotiations "in submission." The crucial question not asked by the interviewer is: If the first party has achieved a "comprehensive and complete military breakthrough," meaning not tactical but unquestionably significant, why would they agree to negotiations from the outset? Especially since describing a comprehensive and complete breakthrough implies decisive victory. It is known that victors do not easily negotiate to avoid diluting their gains on the battlefield. The word "will force" is an indication of complete certainty and trust, even though this analysis was made in the first three months of the conflicts in Khartoum.
As for the Eritrean example, it involves a journalist and analyst associated with the recent statements from the U.S. and U.K. foreign ministries on the anniversary of the peace agreement between Eritrea and Ethiopia. Both statements praised the agreement, emphasizing that it should guarantee the sovereignty of the signing parties. The statements expressed the readiness of both countries to support its implementation.
The journalist argues that the two parties reached the same conclusion as the Eritrean position over twenty years ago. However, the journalist-analyst avoids the effort to answer the question: Why did these two positions come out now specifically, and why did they coincide despite one being issued in Washington and the other in London? Instead of reiterating what is already known, the journalist-analyst cannot discern the motive behind issuing these statements.
Recycling what we know adds nothing but continuous chatter, a waste of time, and a clouding of vision. I recall one of our professors in media editing during university telling us a story. He was the editor-in-chief of a prestigious and highly regarded newspaper. He assigned a novice journalist to go to the airport to write a report on the visit of a high-ranking minister to the country. After hours, the journalist returned to the office, and when asked about the news and the report, the journalist replied that the minister did not show up. The professor screamed at him, saying, "This is the news!" You have to know why he did not show up and prepare your report accordingly. Replicating what we know is akin to reinventing the wheel.
Journalists and analysts who speak for hours without providing valuable information harm greatly due to their lack of understanding of political analysis and its arts. The art in this field, like in other areas, is achieved after mastering and possessing the cornerstones of the craft. It transforms into a unique art reflecting the characteristics of each analyst, showcasing their ability to link, infer, appreciate, and disclose. On the contrary, their analyses reflect desires, wishes, and biases towards certain entities at the expense of others, veiled in ambiguity and reluctance to reveal true intentions. Politicians actions are enough to be compared to floating icebergs, where only the summit is visible. Our political analysts lead us directly towards a strong collision with their alleged and feeble analyses.
--
* Former diplomat from Eritrea residing in France
