Sunday, March 26, 2023

As The Awakening Continues, MAGA Continues to Grow


President Trump's Chief Spokesperson Liz Harrington appears on the Steve Bannon War Room to discuss the status of the America First movement. {Direct Rumble Link}

As Harrington accurately notes, the people who build stuff, create stuff, innovate and bring physical stuff into reality, these are the people within the MAGA movement.  The esoteric pontificating thinkers, the politicians, those only contribute opinion to the system of creation, are not connected to MAGA or worthy of consideration.  WATCH:



Bannon also gave a big picture overview below.


X22, And we Know, and more- March 26

 



Been feeling off all day. Hope it's not an omen for tonight's NCIS LA episode, because this may very well get the ball rolling on a chain reaction of events that'll result in bringing Hetty home in time for the 2 part finale!

Here's tonight's news:


Who Says That Chance Rules in the Affairs of Men?

Our foresight is always an adventure, 
practiced at the pleasure of the unpredictable.


Some years ago, while driving into Boston to attend a conference on “Changing and Unchanging Values in the World of the Future,” I noticed a billboard advertising not the latest consumer gadget but a sage observation attributed to Winston Churchill.  “The farther backward you can look,” it said in large black letters, “the farther forward you are likely to see.” 

It seemed more than a coincidence that the conference I was attending was at the Frederick S. Pardee Center for the Study of the Longer-Range Future at Boston University.  Had some representative of that institution contrived to place Churchill’s fortifying admonition at the city gates?

I was disappointed to learn that the message had been arranged, not by the Pardee Center, but by some other civic-minded entity or individual. Nevertheless, if Churchill’s observation is not the motto of the Pardee Center, perhaps it should be.

The past does not provide a window overlooking the future, exactly; nothing short of clairvoyance can promise that. Nor is it even quite true, as George Santayana famously remarked, that “Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.” (I recently had something to say about that in this space.)

History is not a form of prophylaxis. But knowledge of history does acquaint us with the permanent moral and political alternatives that mankind confronts in its journey through time.

It reminds us, for example, how regularly tyranny masquerades as virtue, how inhumanity is apt to cloak itself in the rhetoric of righteousness. (This is not, as St. Paul’s second letter to the Corinthians reminds us, a new insight: “Satan himself is transformed into an angel of light. Therefore it is no great thing if his ministers also be transformed as the ministers of righteousness; whose end shall be according to their works.”)

Above all, perhaps, knowledge of history can serve to temper our presumption. As I reflected on Churchill’s observation and the subject of the conference, I was struck anew by the large quota of optimism that language budgets into our lives.

There is a sense, I suppose, in which the fact that it was felt necessary to establish a center for study the “longer-range future” betrays a certain anxiety. A carefree future needn’t be studied, merely enjoyed.

Still, in the larger sense it can be said that any institution that presupposes “the longer-range future” is an institution conceived in hope and consecrated to a cheerful view of mankind’s destiny.

And it is worth noting how regularly, in ways small and large, such hopefulness insinuates itself into our plans and projects. Consider only that marvelous phrase “the foreseeable future.” With what cheery abandon we employ it!

Yet what a nugget of optimism those three words encompass. How much of the future, really, do we foresee? A week? A day? A minute? “In a minute,” as T. S. Eliot said in “The Love Song of J. Alfred Prufrock,” “there is time/For decisions and revisions which a minute will reverse.”

So much of life is a juggling with probabilities, a conjuring with uncertainties, that we often forget upon what stupendous acts of faith even the prudent conduct of life depends. Had I been asked, on September 10, 2001, whether New York’s Twin Towers would continue standing for “the foreseeable future,” I should have answered “Yes.”

And so, in one sense, they did.

Only my foresight was not penetrating enough, not far-seeing enough, to accommodate that most pedestrian of eventualities: an event.

An event is as common as dirt; it is also as novel as tomorrow’s dawn. “There is nothing,” the French writer Charles Péguy noted in the early years of the 20th century, “so unforeseen as an event.”

The particular event Péguy had in mind was the Dreyfus Affair. Who could have predicted that the fate of an obscure Jewish Army captain falsely accused of spying would have such momentous consequences? And yet this unforeseen event, as Proust observed in his great novel, suddenly, catastrophically “divided France from top to bottom.”

We plan, stockpile, second-guess, buy insurance, make allowances, assess risks, play the odds, envision contingencies, calculate interest, tabulate returns, save for a rainy day . . . and still we are constantly surprised. Just ask the former managers—to say nothing of the former employees and depositors—of the Silicon Valley Bank.

In a thoughtful essay called “What is Freedom?” the philosopher Hannah Arendt noted the extent to which habit—what she disparages with the name “automatism”—rules life. We are creatures of habit, schedules, and conventions.

And yet we are also creatures who continually depart from the script. Human beings do not simply behave in response to stimuli. We act—which means that our lives, though orchestrated largely by routine, are at the same time everywhere edged with the prospect of novelty.

“Every act,” Arendt wrote, “seen from the perspective not of the agent but of the process in whose framework it occurs and whose automatism it interrupts, is a ‘miracle’—that is, something which could not be expected. . . . It is in the very nature of every new beginning that it breaks into the world as an ‘infinite improbability,’ and yet it is precisely this infinitely improbable which actually constitutes the very texture of everything we call real.”

Every moment of every day presents us with the potential for what Arendt calls the “miracle” of human action, so familiar and yet ultimately unfathomable. This is why we find phrases like “the foreseeable future” indispensable. They declare the extent of our confidence, the reach of our competence.

But they also serve to remind us that our competence is revocable without notice. Which is to say that our foresight is always an adventure, practiced at the pleasure of the unpredictable.

This is something that P. G. Wodehouse, a philosopher of a somewhat merrier stamp than Hannah Arendt, put with his customary grace when his character Psmith (the “P” is “silent, as in phthisis, psychic, and ptarmigan”) observed that “in this life . . . we must always distinguish between the Unlikely and the Impossible.”

On September 10, 2001 it seemed unlikely that a small band of murderous fanatics should destroy the Twin Towers and fundamentally alter the political landscape of the world. It was not, alas, impossible.

The eruption of the unlikely is an affront to our complacency, an insult to our pride. We tend to react by subsequently endowing the unlikely with a pedigree of explanation. This reassures us by neutralizing novelty, extracting the element of the unexpected from what actually happened.

I well remember the many sages who told us that it was impossible that Donald Trump should be elected 2016. After he was, most of them retrieved their disused rationalization machines to explain that his election had, as a matter of fact, been inevitable. 

I think again of Churchill. Summarizing the qualities that a budding politician should possess, he adduced both “The ability to foretell what is going to happen tomorrow, next week, next month, next year”—and “the ability afterwards to explain why it didn’t happen.”

Today, surprising events like Donald Trump’s 2016 victory or 9/11 seem almost inevitable. Reasons have been furnished for every detail. Plausible itineraries have been repeated until they seem like predictions.

All of those reasons and explanations were available beforehand. A look at the literature shows that some had been propounded for years. But they lacked the traction that events give to hindsight.

They were not part of the foreseeable future until that future, unforeseen, overtook us.




When It Comes To The Left’s Radical Agenda, No One Is Safe

Aversion to the wokeness that has swept the nation didn’t protect Canyon or WTAMU from leftism sneaking onto their home turf, and it won’t stop it from reaching your beloved institutions either.



A town in the Texas Panhandle is likely one of the last places you would expect the left’s radical LGBT agenda to surface, but because no one is safe from the left’s ideological advances, a conservative community and university is now the epicenter of a fierce battle over on-campus drag queen shows.

Tucked far away from the blue takeovers and policies that plague places like Dallas, Houston, and Austin is Canyon, a 15,221 populated town that acts as a gateway to the renowned Palo Duro State Park. Canyon is one of America’s most conservative towns, evidenced by its voters’ overwhelming embrace of Trump in 2020.

More importantly, Canyon is home to West Texas A&M University, which considers itself the Lone Star State’s “most conservative 21st-century public university.”

Approximately 87 percent of WTAMU’s students are from within the state. In fact, many come from the farmer and cattle rancher communities that make up Texas’ prairies and plains and are responsible for keeping the state under Republican control.

Despite their long-held reputations for being quiet, rural refuges for conservative Texans, the WTAMU and Canyon communities became embroiled in what the corporate media tried to paint as a national scandal this week when university President Walter Wendler announced the cancellation of a student drag queen event on campus.

With the aid of several other student organizations, Spectrum, WTAMU’s primary LGBT student group, planned to host an on-campus drag show at the end of the month. Proceeds from the event would be funneled to The Trevor Project, an activist organization that touts the chemical castration and mutilation of minors.

In a letter to WTAMU administrators and students on Monday, Wendler declared that the show must not go on because “Drag shows are derisive, divisive and demoralizing misogyny, no matter the stated intent” and “a person or group should not attempt to elevate itself or a cause by mocking another person or group.”

“No amount of fancy rhetorical footwork or legal wordsmithing eludes the fact that drag shows denigrate and demean women — noble goals notwithstanding,” Wendler wrote. “A harmless drag show? Not possible. I will not appear to condone the diminishment of any group at the expense of impertinent gestures toward another group for any reason, even when the law of the land appears to require it.

Before encouraging students to “skip the show” and instead “send the dough” to The Trevor Project, Wendler accurately noted that men costuming themselves with women’s clothing is reminiscent of blackface.

“As a university president, I would not support ‘blackface’ performances on our campus, even if told the performance is a form of free speech or intended as humor. It is wrong. I do not support any show, performance or artistic expression which denigrates others — in this case, women — for any reason,” he continued.

Even though the conservatives, who are the majority of WTAMU and its surrounding communities, praised and supported Wendler’s response, protestors flocked to gather outside the WTAMU presidential office, and several alumni pledged to cut off their donations to the university. With help from corporate media coverage and national LGBT activist groups, Spectrum also circulated a petition calling for the drag show’s reinstatement.

On Friday, even though Spectrum still plans to hold the drag show using an off-campus location come March 31st, the president and vice president of WTAMU’s Spectrum chapter are now suing Wendler, WT Student Affairs Vice President Christopher Thomas, Texas A&M University Chancellor John Sharp, and the Texas A&M University System Board of Regents for “openly defying the Constitution.”

“Our little school in Canyon, Texas, we never thought it would be on the map,” Spectrum Vice President Lauren Stovall told The Washington Post.

The people of Canyon and WTAMU probably thought the same thing.

Conservatives may have once been able to count on Republican refuge states, cities, and institutions to protect them from the rampant leftism wreaking havoc on blue cities, government institutions, and schools. That’s no longer the case.

By all measures, Canyon and WTAMU are small, conservative, mostly Christian communities that don’t care to tolerate the left’s ideological advances. Yet, even the most conservative towns and universities are not safe from the clutches of radical leftist ideology.

Aversion to the wokeness that has swept the nation didn’t protect Canyon or WTAMU from leftism sneaking onto their home turf, and it won’t stop it from reaching your beloved institutions either.

Gone are the days when passivity and seclusion were enough to preserve the Christian and conservative values so many in the country hold. To win the culture war, every conservative community, even those who think they are safest, must be ready daily to fight battles against the dangerous ideology that quietly creeps into American lives.



Why This MAGA Republican Is Now On Team Vivek

A former Trump partisan says, 
“I am still MAGA, but now I am on team Vivek.”


When I voted for Donald Trump in 2016, I thought he had no chance of beating Hillary Clinton. When I voted for him again in 2020, I was sure he would. I was obviously wrong in both instances. Now, as I look to 2024, I am still MAGA, but now I am on team Vivek.

Vivek Ramaswamy is a self-made man. He personifies the American Dream and has the right vision for America. I recently had a conversation with Ramaswamy that was supposed to be centered on the U.S. supply chain. Unlike many people with whom I have discussed policy, Ramaswamy was prepared. He had done his research and asked insightful questions. I was taken with how personable he is and how he was actually interested when I showed him pictures of my children. Our one hour discussion went over the scheduled time and ended up covering a wide range of topics, on which he was extremely well versed.

But let’s examine his policy positions. Ramaswamy does not believe in victimhood. He wants Americans to be victors, not victims. He champions equality of opportunity over equality of outcomes which, he understands, only serves to tear down the best and brightest. Ramaswamy wants to repatriate our supply chain from China, wants our children to be able to speak freely at school without fear of repercussions, and most importantly, he truly believes in the American Dream.

In a bold move, and a show of unity within the Republican Party, Ramaswamy just called on all Republican candidates to denounce Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg’s planned arrest of former President Trump. Alvin Bragg, in a move reflective of Stalin’s head of the Soviet Secret Police, selected his man and then went looking for a crime . . . a “crime” that occurs in almost every campaign and is adjudicated with a fine, not a federal charge. Ramaswamy was the first candidate to say this is wrong. Ramaswamy does not believe in persecution through prosecution. He recognizes that the integrity of our constitutional republic is at risk if the ruling class can simply arrest its political opposition.

Ramaswamy believes in America and Americans. He is “Reaganesque” in his optimism and in the way he no longer wants Americans to live in fear. He will put the swagger back into America. Under his leadership we will once again strut with the confidence of Mick Jagger during a Rolling Stones concert. He will focus both on what is amazing about our country, but also on what we can become. Ramaswamy will unleash the American economy, keep us out of endless wars, and most importantly to me—as a father—he will teach our children to see the art of the possible, not teach them to be victims.

So, I am on team Vivek. He is the man to reinvigorate the nation, inspire entrepreneurialism, and ensure that America always comes first.



The Answer to Who Watches the Guards, Is Not Within The Question

For his weekly monologue, Neil Oliver ponders the collapse of checks and balances. The framework of new democratic norms where the government ruling elite police themselves and their conscripts for violations created by their own conduct.

Encapsulated within the question, “Who guards the guards,” Oliver outlines the answer is not within the question.  It is not a matter of watching the guards, it is now time for people throughout the west to change the guards and throw out the self-policing bums.  WATCH:


[Transcript] – Who watches the watchers? Who guards the guards?

The question was posed by the Roman satirist Juvenal 2,000 years ago, but it has never been more relevant. It’s applied now to remind us of the need to keep a watchful eye on those in power.

This should be our paramount concern now, when lies and liars are everywhere.

This week, former PM Boris Johnson told the House of Commons privileges committee he had not lied when he told the House that his own Covid guidance was being followed in No.10.

Note the word guidance – made especially interesting by the fact ordinary members of the public were, as I seem to recall, arrested, charged and fined for sitting together on park benches or on the beach. I’m not sure that’s how guidance normally works.

In any event, I honestly don’t care whether he lied or not to parliament. I don’t care if they were having cake or coke. This is a red herring, a sleight of hand, a tactic to distract the gullible. The point that must neither be overlooked nor forgotten is that neither Johnson nor anyone else at those gatherings was demonstrably afraid of Covid.

We know that because we have seen the photos of them standing together without masks. Standing apart and wearing masks was for the little people. We might also assume that we were being laughed at by those who knew there was nothing to fear and therefore no reason not to party.

Keir Starmer’s Labour party was the same – we saw those pictures too. He and they called for earlier, longer, harder lockdowns and all the rest, and then met for curry and beer and cosy chats.

Fear was for the little people and so Left and Right, Blue and Red and all positions and team colours in between laughed up their sleeves as the nudge units and the paid propagandists told us anyone breaching the regulations – sorry, I mean guidance – was a granny killing Covidiot and Pandemic Denier.

Look me in the eye and tell me it wasn’t so.

So, who guards the guards, who watches the watchers?

Let’s notice, among much else, that this is the Commons sitting in judgment on the Commons, which is to say politicians sitting in judgement on politicians. This is the guards, judging the guards. This is the same Commons whose inhabitants worked together in unquestioning lockstep to impose policies that ruined lives, wrecked livelihoods and upended the economy. This is the same Commons that, far from accepting responsibility for the carnage, is actively seeking to have us look the other way while they get about the business of doing nothing more than playing politics, all they’re fit for, fiddling while Rome burns. The is the same Commons that empties when one of their own stands to speak up on behalf of people killed or harmed by medical products pushed as vaccines. And trust me, I’ll get back to that safe and effective nonsense they pushed in a moment.

We never quite got to mandated jabs for all, but people all over the world were sacked for opting to live by the ideal of my body my choice, the notion enshrined in the Nuremberg Code that states that a person should at all times: “Have legal capacity to give consent; should be so situated as to be able to exercise free power of choice, without the intervention of any element of force, fraud, deceit, duress, overreaching or other forms of constraint or coercion …”

We didn’t quite get to mandates for the jabs for the general population, but I say it was a damned close-run thing. I say they were itching to mandate the vaccines. I say mandates weren’t pushed across the line in the end because enough of us made plain it would mean civil disobedience if not full-on civil war. I maintain that while they’ve gone quiet about lockdowns and face-masks, it can only be a matter of time before that playbook is brought out for the next crisis they can cook up. More and more are queuing up to distance themselves from the harms done during the last three years, while still priapic on account of all that unbridled power over the everyday lives of the tax-paying public.

Who watches the watchers, who guards the guards?

There are calls for a war crimes trial for Putin. What about a war crimes trial for Tony Blair while we’re at it? We hit the 20th anniversary of his unlawful war in Iraq last week – that unlawful war that led to over a million deaths, that destabilised the entire region to this day and gave birth to Isis. Wouldn’t the moral way to mark that birthday be a war crimes trial for all the people who took us there? And while we’re considering war crimes trials, shouldn’t we look again at precisely what successive United States administrations did in Korea, in Vietnam, and more recently in Libya, and in Syria and in Afghanistan and other sovereign nation-states too numerous to mention? Shouldn’t we look at what was done, and by whom?

US libertarian think tank the Cato Institute recently looked again at the behaviour of successive US presidents in relation to the Saudi Arabian horror show in Yemen. They reported, and suggested the appropriateness of war crimes trials for Barack Obama, Donald Trump and Joe Biden:

“Whose administrations serviced the US-provided warplanes, supplied munitions used to bomb weddings, funerals, schools.

“Whose administrations serviced the US-provided warplanes, supplied munitions used to bomb weddings, funerals, school buses and other civilian targets, gave intelligence used for targeting and for a time refuelled Saudi and Emirati aircraft.”

“US officials could not claim to be surprised at their culpability,” they added. “The state department warned that they could be held responsible for war crimes.”

“George W Bush is another good candidate for a trial on his aggressive unjustified attack on Iraq based on manipulated and fabricated intelligence. His war ended up killing hundreds of thousands of civilians as well as triggering years more of conflict. Former UK Prime Minister Tony Blair today spending his golden years profiting after acting as Bush’s poodle would be an appropriate co-conspirator.”

Who watches the watchers, who guards the guards?

We are trained to fear Global warming … the warming of the planet … while that world burns still on account of the fire Tony Blair helped light in the Middle East with UK taxpayer-funded missiles and bombs.

Who watches the watchers, who guards the guards?

Let’s look again at the banks and the simmering chaos there … in that world in which banks are secretive, privately owned businesses, in which central banks have the power to create money out of thin air and lend the same sums over and over and over again while growing fatter and fatter on more and more interest and debt. Another former PM, Gordon Brown traded on and perpetuated a myth of being a safe pair of hands when it came to money matters. This is the same Gordon Brown who sold off half of the UK’s gold reserves at a knockdown price so low it was remembered ever after as the Brown Bottom and one of the worst deals in recorded history.

In 2008 Brown bailed out the banks with billions and billions of pounds worth of our money and those banks duly stayed open, the bankers kept getting their bonuses and nothing changed when it came to stopping their reckless games with fantasy money. We were sold down the river and now the banks are shaking on their fantasy foundations once again and for more of the same reasons.

Who watches the watchers, who guards the guards?

The MHRA – the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency is supposed to monitor the information we get about health and the safety and effectiveness of the drugs we are offered. But the MHRA gets 86 percent of its funding from the pharmaceuticals industry. Is that the recipe for unbiased behaviour always and only in the interests of the people? I’m only asking.

It’s the same the world over: 65 percent of the US Federal Drugs Administration comes from Big Pharma. Between 2006 and 2019, nine out of 10 FDA Commissioners went on to secure jobs with pharmaceutical companies. 89 percent of the European Medicines Agency funding comes from Big Pharma. 96 percent of the funding for the Therapeutic Goods Administration in Australia comes from Big Pharma. In Japan, the relevant agency gets 85 percent of its funding from Big Pharma.

No lesser publication than the British Medical Journal asked, in a headline over a recent article:

“From FDA to MHRA – are drug regulators for hire?’

Obviously, I couldn’t possibly say one way or the other. A recent report from Australia’s TGA – the Therapeutic Goods Administration – equivalent to our MHRA – a report made available only by a Freedom of Information Request – makes plain that in January 2021 it was known to anyone privy to Pfizer’s own data that the lipid nanoparticle was widely distributed all around the body.

All of this was known before the so-called vaccines were approved for injection into billions of human beings, from babies up. Those entrusted with our health care knew, in advance, that the tiny oily bubbles carrying the making of the toxic spike protein could and would go to brains, hearts, livers, ovaries, testes, everywhere, and they went right ahead and did it anyway.

Safe and effective they said, over and over and over. Misinformation, anyone?

If they were doing their jobs and reading reports like this, then Chris Whitty would have known, Patrick Vallance would have known, Antony Fauci would have known.

This information is out there now, in the public domain, though heavily redacted – and God alone knows what remains redacted – and so why isn’t this front page and main TV news all around the world? Why not?

Who watches the watchers, who guards the guards?

The answer is as stark as it is depressing:

Westminster awards itself the power to make laws, enforce those laws and decree the punishment for any transgressions of those laws. This is a textbook definition of the tyranny that our constitution, enshrined in Magna Carta 1215, was specifically shaped to prevent. And yet here we are – with the watchers watching the watchers, the guards guarding the guards.

It is as obvious as Boris Johnson’s estrangement from the truth that this tyranny should never have been allowed to evolve and that, since it has, we must not tolerate it a moment longer.

Decisions of importance must be made by those with skin in the game, but with no means to profit either directly or indirectly from the decisions they come to.

Who guards the guards is a 2,000-year-old question. Older by 500 years is the Tao Te Ching, The Book of the Way, by Laozi, the Old Master.

Last week a friend reminded me of words that sound as though they might have been written this morning:

“When rich speculators prosper while farmers lose their land. When government officials spend money on weapons instead of cures. When the upper class is extravagant and irresponsible while the poor have nowhere to turn. All this is robbery and chaos.”

Robbery and chaos – that’s what our leaders and their little wizards have inflicted upon us. It was true two and a half thousand years ago and it’s still true now.

That old book also warns us about:

“Those who try to control, who use force to protect their power … They take from those who don’t have enough and give to those who have far too much.”

This is how we will beat them, how we will win – by remembering what our ancestors learned long ago and finally, finally doing something about it.

Here’s the thing: it’s long past time to watch the guards. What we need, all over the West and once and for all, is a changing of the guards.

[Transcript End]


Kamala Harris Africa trip: Can US charm offensive woo continent from China?

 

First it was the US secretary of state who went on a trip to Africa, now it is the vice-president and later in the year the president himself is expected to come.

This flurry of visits by top figures in the US administration reflects a growing awareness that the US needs to deepen its engagement with the continent.

This all comes in the face of growing competition from other global powers, especially China and Russia.

Vice-President Kamala Harris started her nine-day trip in Ghana on Sunday, where she was greeted by drummers and dancers at Kotoko International Airport. She will later go to Tanzania and Zambia.

Ghana, with its focus on strengthening ties with the African diaspora as well as a record of several peaceful democratic transfers of power, provides an ideal launchpad for Ms Harris.

Her trip, according to an official statement, is intended to "build on" December's US-Africa summit in Washington where President Joe Biden said the US was "all in on Africa's future".

But it is that future, boosted by a youthful and growing population as well as the continent's immense natural resources, that have attracted a lot of other powerful nations vying for influence.

While Secretary of State Anthony Blinken's recent visit to Ethiopia and Niger focused on these countries' security challenges, the vice-president's tour will take her to nations facing serious economic problems.

Ghana's once-thriving economy is going through its most difficult financial crisis in decades.

The country is seeking to restructure its debt amid surging inflation of over 50%. Finance Minister Ken Ofori-Atta has just been in Beijing leading negotiations with the Chinese government.   


The country is seeking to restructure its debt amid surging inflation of over 50%. Finance Minister Ken Ofori-Atta has just been in Beijing leading negotiations with the Chinese government.

"So far, very positive and encouraging meetings in China," the finance minister tweeted as he expressed optimism that it would secure external assurances "very soon".

It needs the assurances to unlock financial support from the International Monetary Fund (IMF).

It is not clear what, if any help, Ms Harris can offer, but it will be under pressure to act like a willing partner in the wake of Mr Ofori-Atta's China visit.

'US a friend - like China and Russia'

Economist and professor of finance at the University of Ghana, Godfred Alufar Bokpin, does not think the visit will deliver "an immediate dividend" to help alleviate the country's financial woes.

"Having China on board is complicated," he said, while noting that Ms Harris' visit was "a very important" one for Ghana as it "elevates our relationship with the US to another level".

He told the BBC the interest the US is showing in the country and its debt crisis "is good" but he is worried about what he described as "unfavourable terms of trade" with creditor nations. 


Zambia finds itself in a similar position to Ghana.

The copper-rich nation became the first African country to default on its debt when the Covid pandemic hit.

It is in prolonged discussions with China to restructure its debt and has also sought financial support from the IMF.

The Reuters news agency quotes a senior US official as saying Ms Harris "would discuss the best ways for the international community to address debt challenges faced by Ghana and Zambia".

Like Prof Bokpin, Zambian analyst Dr Sishuwa Sishuwa thinks China holds more influence when it comes to restructuring debt. But the US wants to be seen as the more reliable partner.

There is a growing sentiment on the continent that Africa should have a free choice in its relationships with the rest of the world.

"Zambia sees the United States in the same way as it sees China and Russia - a friend," Dr Sishuwa told the BBC.

"When a country turns to China, or Russia, or the US for support, this should not be seen as snubbing one major power bloc or the other."  


He said attempts to seek exclusive relationships with African countries may be counterproductive and unsustainable.

This echoed South African President Cyril Ramaphosa's comments during a visit to Washington last year when he said: "We should not be told by anyone who we associate with."

Senior US officials have told the BBC it is not their intention to tell African countries who they can be friends with.

The US has however been keen to emphasise its focus on democracy in its relationships with African countries, something the vice-president is also expected to discuss during her visit.

President Hakainde Hichilema of Zambia is due to co-host a virtual Summit for Democracy, along with four other heads of state including President Biden, shortly before receiving Ms Harris in the country.

 

Scepticism in Africa

China has a non-interference policy in countries' internal political affairs - something that has smoothed its engagement with autocratic leaders.

And Russia's presence in African countries that have experienced coups recently - Burkina Faso and Mali - has led to a souring of relations between them and the West, especially France, the former colonial power which had maintained close ties to both countries.

Russia's invasion of Ukraine has no doubt given Western nations an added sense of urgency in winning over more African countries. UN votes to condemn it divided African nations which accounted for half of all abstentions, including Tanzania which is also on Ms Harris' itinerary. 

 

 

The US vice-president - the first woman to hold that position - will meet President Samia Suluhu Hassan, her country's first female head of state.

This shared experience of being pioneering women is creating a buzz in Tanzania.

Many are also touting the visit as an endorsement of the progress the country is making and its growing visibility on the global map.

It was not that long ago that Tanzania was something of an outcast under the presidency of John Magufuli, who was seen as having autocratic tendencies, curtailing the activities of the opposition and independent media.

Ms Harris is the most senior US official from the Biden administration to visit Africa and the fifth since December's US-Africa summit.

Others have been the Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen, US ambassador to the UN Linda Thomas-Greenfield, First Lady Jill Biden and Mr Blinken.

But with the renewed interest comes a demand from the continent to be treated fairly.

Ghana's Prof Bokpin said there was a level of scepticism about the heightened interest in Africa.

"There's a belief that a new Scramble for Africa is in play," referring to the subdivision of the continent by European nations in the late 19th Century which led to decades of colonialism and exploitation.

"This engagement needs to emphasise mutual respect," he added. 



https://www.bbc.com/news/world-africa-65062976