Thursday 31 August 2023

The Bongo Family’s 56-Year Rule Over Gabon

 Elections in the country during the dynasty’s decades in power were  followed by protests, then security force crackdowns and ultimately silence, writes Douglas Yates. Until Wednesday, when the Bongo regime was finally overthrown. 

Sept. 18, 2022: Gabon’s President Ali Bongo Ondimba signs a book of condolence in London, following the death of Queen Elizabeth II. (Jonathan Hordle/PA Media Assignments, Foreign & Commonwealth Office, Flickr, CC BY 2.0)

By Douglas Yates 
American Graduate School in Paris (AGS)

A military intervention appears set to end the Bongo family’s 56 years hold to power in Gabon. A group of senior military officers announced on Wednesday that they had seized power shortly after President Ali Bongo Ondimba was declared winner of the country’s recently held presidential poll.

The coup leaders claimed the Aug. 26 general election was not credible. They announced a cancellation of the election result, closure of all borders and dissolution of all state institutions including the legislative arm of government.

[Related: Another Regime in ‘French West Africa’ Is Toppled]

Ali Bongo was said to have won 64.27 percent of votes cast in the election that the opposition described as a sham. According to the electoral umpire, Bongo’s main challenger, Albert Ondo Ossa, came second with 30.77 percent. 

Ali Bongo, (son of former president Omar Bongo who ruled the country from 1967 to 2009) contested the election on the platform of the ruling Parti Démocratique Gabonais (PDG), founded by his father. The party has monopolised power in the oil-rich central African country for more than half a century.

The Bongo family held onto power for 56 years. It did so through single-party government, corruption in the mining and oil sectors, and political kinship. According to some estimates Ali Bongo personally controls $1 billion in assets, much of that secreted overseas, making him the richest man in Gabon.

In addition, the constitution has been changed several times in the past decades to ensure the Bongos’ continued rule.

First, term limits were removed from the constitution in 2003, ensuring that Bongo could serve as president for life.

Second, traditional two-round ballots were changed into single-round ballots, also in 2003. This was to ensure that Bongo’s opponents could not rally around a single challenger in a run-off.

Third, instead of requiring that the winner obtain a majority, all that is needed for Bongo to be re-elected is a plurality. This means a majority could be less than 50 percent, as long as the winner has the most votes. Had he been required to win a majority of votes, Ali Bongo, with 49.8 percent in the 2016 election, would not have won. 

March 31, 2016: Ali Bongo chats with French President François Hollande at the Nuclear Security Summit dinner held at the White House in Washington, D.C.  (GPA Photo Archive, Public domain)

Fourth, in April, the presidential term was reduced from seven to five years, ensuring the presidential elections would occur at the same time as legislative and local elections.

In the past, after presidential elections, opposition parties would organise against Bongo’s ruling party to capture seats in the legislative and local elections. The change made it much more likely that all the institutions of government power would have been taken by Bongo and his party in one single election.

Bongo’s party increased its seats in the National Assembly, holding 63 out of 120 seats in 1990 and most recently 98 out of 143 in 2018. The ruling party has also increased its share of seats in the Senate from 52 out of 92 in 1997, to 46 out of 67 in 2021.

The continuous rule by the Bongos was not good for a country of just 2.3 million people. Gabon is a resource-rich country and was once heralded as the “Kuwait of Africa.” Because of its small population and large oil reserves, per capita income is at least $13,949.16. In neighbouring Cameroon, per capita income is only $3,733.

But Gabon’s “average” is belied by a population where a third of the citizens live below the poverty line and unemployment stands at about 37 percent among young people.

Dynastic Republic

Aug. 26, 1988:  Omar Bongo thanks participants in Gabon Medflag 88, in which American military personnel provide medical assistance and training to citizens of his West African nation. (U.S. National Archives)

Gabon is not a monarchy but a “dynastic republic.”

In dynastic republics, presidents have concentrated power in their hands and established systems of personal rule. They transmit state power through nepotism to their family and kin. This includes sons and daughters, wives and ex-wives, brothers and sisters, half-siblings and step-siblings, cousins, uncles and aunts, nieces and nephews, in-laws, illegitimate children and so on.

Under this system, the classical ideal of a legal-rational state — where position and rank are distributed based on merit in the name of the rational (efficient and effective) functioning of government — is corrupted.

Ali Bongo receiving Greek officials in January. (Greek Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Wikimedia Commons, CC BY-SA 2.0)

In all dynastic republics around the world — including Togo, Equatorial Guinea, Syria, Azerbaijan, North Korea, Turkmenistan and most recently Cambodia — an institutionalisation of traditional family power through the modern vehicle of a single ruling party has been critical.

In Gabon, this is the Parti Démocratique Gabonais. The party held the Presidential Palace and has a majority in the National Assembly (98/143 seats) and in the Senate (46/67 seats). It also controls the courts, and the regional and municipal governments.

It is critical to understand that no man rules alone. Only with a large party apparatus can a man and his family rule a republic with millions of people.

But why was the rule by one man and his family tolerated?

The answer is the political elite needed him to keep their own positions.

The economist Gordon Tullock hypothesised back in 1987 that dynastic succession appeals to non-familial elites who are wary of a leadership struggle. In 2007, professor of government Jason Brownlee tested this theory by looking at 258 non-monarchical autocrats. He found that

“in the absence of prior experience selecting a ruler through a party, regime elites accepted filial heirs apparent when the incumbent had arisen from a party and his successor predominantly emerged from that organisation.”

Political scientists Bruno Bueno de Mesquita and Alastair Smith argue that

“essential supporters have a much greater chance of retaining their privileged position when power passes within a family from father to son, from king to prince, than when power passes to an outsider.”

Omar Bongo founded the PDG in 1967 as a de jure one-party system. After constitutional reforms in 1990, he permitted the existence of opposition parties. But because he never held free or fair elections, the democratic opposition has never managed to wrest power from either the Bongos or their ruling party.

In the past, elections in Gabon were followed by protests, which were followed by security force crackdowns and ultimately silence. But the 2023 election may turn out to be different as it appears to have been followed by a military coup.

This article was updated on Aug. 30 to reflect the coup in Gabon.The Conversation

Douglas Yates is professor of political science at American Graduate School in Paris (AGS).

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

The views expressed are solely those of the author and may or may not reflect those of Consortium News.

https://consortiumnews.com/2023/08/30/the-bongo-familys-56-year-rule-over-gabon/

Kiev worries West might renege on F-16 deliveries – NYT

 

Ukraine wants to have received the advanced fighter jets before elections in the US, the outlet has reported

Kiev worries West might renege on F-16 deliveries – NYT

Ukrainian President Vladimir Zelensky is scrambling to complete the agreement for delivery of F-16 fighter jets to his country as soon as possible, fearing that shifting political sands in Western countries could undermine the campaign to support Kiev in its fight with Moscow, the New York Times reported on Wednesday, citing sources.

According to serving and former US and Ukrainian officials interviewed by the paper, Kiev “senses a ticking political clock” as it continues to ask its partners for US-designed F-16 aircraft. Zelensky apparently wants to get as many jets as possible before elections in the EU and the US “could bring a change of heart in the governments that have promised the planes,” the report said.

The international coalition to help Kiev procure F-16s and train Ukrainian pilots was first announced by the UK and the Netherlands in May, with a total of 11 countries backing the effort. However, Ukraine does not expect to receive the first of the promised warplanes until 2024.

While the administration of US President Joe Biden has signaled that it would allow Denmark, Norway and the Netherlands to send their F-16s to Ukraine, a new president could reverse this policy if the delivery has not yet been completed by the time they come to power, an unnamed American official told the paper.

Another former US official suggested that Zelensky also wanted to secure the deliveries in case “a sluggish counteroffensive erodes political support among allies.” Ukraine has been unsuccessfully trying to breach Russian lines since early June, losing more than 43,000 service members, according to Moscow.

The scramble to secure the fighter-jet assistance comes as Republicans in the US Congress become increasingly skeptical about sending further military support to Kiev, with many citing a lack of financial transparency and strategic vision on part of the White House. This growing chorus of discontent has also been echoed by former US President and current GOP presidential candidate frontrunner Donald Trump.

Trump has repeatedly slammed the Biden administration’s handling of the Ukraine conflict, noting that Washington is “giving away so much equipment” to Kiev while it does not have enough munitions for itself.

Meanwhile, Moscow has repeatedly warned the West against supplying Ukraine with F-16s, arguing that the move could be interpreted as a nuclear threat as these jets can potentially carry atomic weapons.

https://www.rt.com/russia/582132-ukraine-f16-deliveries-elections/

Former CIA Analyst Says Zelensky Could Face Military Coup Soon

 • AUGUST 30, 2023

I’ve long been saying that it’s shocking that the Ukraine people are willing to continue dying in these numbers, and it’s shocking that there is not some kind of revolt.

It seems like if they were going to do it, they would have done it already.

RT:

Failures on the battlefield could push the Ukrainian military to move against President Vladimir Zelensky, retired CIA analyst Larry Johnson has said.

“Zelensky very well could be ousted in a coup within the next three to four weeks, because of the great disgruntlement among troops on the eastern front,” Johnson told Redacted host Clayton Morris in an interview posted over the weekend.

This seems ambitious.

So far, none of these predictions have come true – on either side.

Obviously, the left has made the more insane predictions, constantly saying “the Ukraine is on the verge of taking Crimea” and so on. But the right-wing predictions have not really been much better, constantly predicting the Ukraine will collapse.

In some ways, we’re already entering into a “frozen conflict” type situation. The line is static and no one is really doing anything.

Ukraine’s grand offensive in Zaporozhye, launched in early June with Western-trained troops and NATO-supplied tanks and armored vehicles, has failed to achieve a breakthrough anywhere. Additional brigades, intended to exploit the intended breach, have been deployed to continue the frontal attacks instead, to the point that the US and its allies are publicly airing their frustrations with Ukrainian tactics.

Johnson told Redacted that the way the conflict is going, Ukraine’s survival as a country was “in great doubt.” Kiev is already entirely dependent on the West, and its needs will only grow while its capabilities will continue to shrink, the former CIA official said.

The US strategy for the conflict was to trap Russia in an unwinnable war and induce regime change in Moscow, according to Johnson. Instead, “that’s going to happen to Ukraine,” and Washington will have to figure out how to “back away” from the conflict, because it has massively underestimated Russia’s economic and military strength.

Russian talk shows have consistently taken a favorable stance towards Valery Zaluzny, the head of the Ukraine military. I always assumed this was because they expected him to either lead a coup, or to be put in charge of the Ukraine post-war.

It’s sort of obvious at this point that the only way the Ukraine is going to be able to stay together as a rump state when this war is over is under military rule. Military governments tend to be practical, rather than ideological. They are less reliant on narratives.

It’s unclear what kind of narrative Zelensky could even have after surrendering in this war. He would eventually have to admit that hundreds of thousands of young (and, in fact, middle-aged) men were sent to die, and the whole country was destroyed, with tens of millions displaced, for literally no reason. So for Zelensky’s part, it now makes logical sense that he needs this to keep going.

That said, Zelensky has been looking incredibly exhausted. He is drunk/high all the time, he’s getting fat, he looks angry and confused as he slurs his speech. And he has untold billions of dollars in offshore accounts. So, I think if there was a real threat of a coup, he would probably flee to Israel.

It feels like something is going to have to happen. The lines have not changed at all since June, while the Ukraine has lost tens of thousands of troops and who knows how many billions in equipment. At some point, the Ukraine military is going to be depleted enough that Russia is going to be able to make a serious push, either on Odessa or Kharkov (probably the latter, it seems).

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_dMmbf5rD2U

For a long time, it’s felt like the Biden Administration – at least Jake Sullivan – had a plan to just keep this going until after the 2024 election, at which point they would turn it into a real war.

But then, if that was the plan, why would they do this suicidal “offensive” right now? They could do it a year from now, and then say “well, the Ukraine is losing, so we have to send in the troops.”

Despite the fact that it always feels like nothing is really happening with this war, I think when you’re talking about a year and a half in the future, something will have happened. Again, if they wouldn’t have done this offensive, the Ukraine could have just dug in like Russia is dug in, and it would effectively be a deadlock. But the Ukraine has burned through most of their population at this point.

(Republished from The Daily Stormer by permission of author or representative)[
https://www.unz.com/aanglin/former-cia-analyst-says-zelensky-could-face-military-coup-soon/

US seeks to base its nuclear forces in UK – media

 

Washington will reportedly place dozens of F-35 jets and possibly nuclear weapons at RAF Lakenheath

US seeks to base its nuclear forces in UK – media

The United States could seek to station nuclear weapons on British territory for the first time since 2008, according to Pentagon budget documents analyzed by a US think-tank and British media. American fighter jets capable of nuclear bombing raids are also slated for the same UK air base, the files suggest.

In a March funding request to Congress, the US military sought $50 million for a new “surety dormitory” at the Lakenheath Royal Air Force base in Suffolk, north of the British capital, the Telegraph reported on Wednesday. 

According to the Federation of American Scientists, the term “surety” is frequently used by the Pentagon to refer to “the capability to keep nuclear weapons safe, secure, and under positive control.” While the budget document made mention of a NATO project to construct “secure sites and facilities” to store “special weapons” in the UK, officials have yet to confirm any new deployments at the base in question.

RAF Lakenheath was one of three sites in Britain to house US nuclear weapons throughout the Cold War, holding 110 American warheads until a drawdown in 2008. Washington also supplied atomic bombs to UK forces under an initiative dubbed ‘Project E’ until 1992, soon after the fall of the Soviet Union.

Hamish de Bretton-Gordon, a former commander of the UK-NATO Joint Chemical, Biological, Radiological and Nuclear Regiment, told the Telegraph the new surety facility is likely to store nuclear arms.

“In this case, a surety dormitory is a bunker used to house nuclear missiles and warheads. It needs to be hardened and a secure place – if the Russians wanted to drop a bomb on them it wouldn’t create a nuclear accident,” he said.

Construction of the dormitory is scheduled to begin next summer and end in early 2026, the documents say.

The same Pentagon budget request also shows that Washington plans to station two squadrons of F-35 A fighter jets – capable of tactical nuclear bombing missions – at RAF Lakenheath. Unnamed British military sources reached by the Telegraph said 54 F-35s are set to replace older US F-15s at the base sometime in the coming months.

The prospect of a fresh nuclear deployment in the UK has triggered anxiety among some critics, with the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament stating the move would be “beyond irresponsible.”

“The deployment of the new B61-12 (gravity bombs) to Europe undermines any prospects for global peace and ensures Britain will be a target in a nuclear conflict between the US/NATO and Russia,” said the campaign’s general secretary, Kate Hudson. She added: “It's increasingly clear that Lakenheath is once again a vital cog in Washington's overseas nuclear machine.”

Asked about the possibility of nuclear weapons returning to the base during a recent briefing, Deputy Pentagon press secretary Sabrina Singh said it was US policy to “neither confirm nor deny the presence or absence of nuclear weapons at any general or specific location.”\

https://www.rt.com/news/582119-us-nuclear-force-uk/

Dozens Killed By Fighting Among Washington’s Syrian Allies


by  | Aug 30, 2023

sdf

Over thirty people were killed in a battle between the Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF) and the Deir el-Zour Military Council (DEMC). Both the SDF and DEMC are supported by the US. 

Fighting erupted between the two groups when the SDF captured the leader of the DEMC, Abu Khawla, during a meeting on Sunday. In total 32 people, including three civilians, were killed amid the clashes. Sources now report that fighting between the SDF and DEMC has ceased as Khawla has agreed to step down as the group’s leader. 

On Wednesday, the SDF claimed Khawla’s detention is due to committing “multiple crimes,” including drug trafficking, and “coordination with external entities hostile to the revolution.” The statement suggests the SDF was unhappy with Khawla’s outreach to the Syrian government. 

The SDF and DEMC are just two out of a multitude of militias that the US backs in Syria. The White House primarily relies on the SDF to govern the region of Eastern Syria that 900 American soldiers occupy. Washington initially seized the territory in Syria amidst the campaign against the Islamic State. 

However, the IS has largely been eradicated in Syria by Bashar al-Assad along with his Shia, Iranian and Russian allies. Washington has since admitted it keeps its forces in Syria to steal resources and diminish Iranian influence in the Middle East. The policy of occupying eastern Syria has prolonged the war in the Middle East nation, intensifying the suffering of the Syrian people. 

About Kyle Anzalone

Kyle Anzalone is news editor of the Libertarian Institute, opinion editor of Antiwar.com and co-host of Conflicts of Interest with Will Porter and Connor Freeman

https://libertarianinstitute.org/news/dozens-killed-by-fighting-among-washingtons-syrian-allies/