China has almost completed a railway line to Laos. Some claim it is a bad deal for Laos, but Laos has only two options - connectivity with the second largest economy on Earth, or isolation.

I think it is best for them to choose the former.
The completion of the railway connecting China to Laos, means that one day, Kunming in Southern China could be a hub connecting the rest of China with Thailand, and other South East Asian nations, by rail.

Someone in Beijing is thinking ahead.
I'm struck by the difference in how China approaches South East Asia, and how US approaches Central America.

As far as Washington is concerned, Mexico is where its interests end. Central America is an irritation, or at best, a distraction.
Thousands of migrants troop from Central America to the US border. This is seen as an opportunity for grandstanding by politicians. The assumption is that Central America is, and will always be strategically irrelevant. So the conversation never moves beyond that point.

• • •

Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to force a refresh
 

Keep Current with Onye Nkuzi

Onye Nkuzi Profile picture

Stay in touch and get notified when new unrolls are available from this author!

Read all threads

This Thread may be Removed Anytime!

PDF

Twitter may remove this content at anytime! Save it as PDF for later use!

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

how to unroll video
  1. Follow @ThreadReaderApp to mention us!

  2. From a Twitter thread mention us with a keyword "unroll"
@threadreaderapp unroll

Practice here first or read more on our help page!

More from @cchukudebelu

12 Apr
By 2010/11, Boko Haram's murderous ways shocked the world.

But instead of working to solve this problem, some people told themselves, "let us sell a narrative of marginalization & neglect to gullible Americans & their government, & thus facilitate our return to power".
So a particular narrative of Boko Haram, "marginalization", with hacks like John Campbell implying it was a "peasant revolt in an Islamic context against a Christian dominated government at Abuja" was sold;

The Obama Administration fell for it; hook, line and sinker.
In 2015, power changed hands - and many gullible people, both within and outside Nigeria were convinced this heralded "the birth of a new Nigeria".

We understood Nigeria & knew that 2015 was just another ethnic power squabble with wide ranging implications for Nigeria's unity.
Read 4 tweets
9 Apr
By 1982, it was clear that for Nigeria to be sustainable in the long-term, it had to reform/restructure away from the petro-state model.

Almost 40 years later, there has been basically no movement in the direction of the required reforms.

The same people are still in charge.
All the heartache, problems and the violence we experience today was preventable; but our leaders were/are mentally lazy - incapable and unwilling to make the necessary changes.

From where I sit, it is easily to plot Nigeria's trajectory. I can predict what our leaders will do.
Some of you thought that the Covid-19 Pandemic would be a "wake-up call".

I am sorry.

The political elite have all received their vaccination shots.

They are now free to seek medical attention outside Nigeria.

They will not reform our healthcare system.
Read 4 tweets
7 Apr
People from Nigeria's Middle Belt and Northern minorities might wonder why no serving or ex US diplomat has referred to Northern Nigerian Christians as "marginalized" - should understand that in the US, you get what you pay for.

If you don't pay lobbyists, nothing for you.
Under the Trump Administration (which was ostensibly backed by Evangelicals), US policy didn't change - apart from one or two words uttered by Trump in passing.

And the reason why is very simple;

Nobody has invested money on lobbyists.
Many of us from the South and Middle Belt tend to be naïve on these matters. No US academic, think tanker or policy maker is going "to tell your story" - if you don't spend money "on the right people".

This is how the game is played.
middleeasteye.net/news/qatar-uae…
Read 4 tweets
7 Apr
The British were so scared by the Mahdist Uprising in Sudan, that they embarked on a program of educating upper class Sudanese - "to free their minds from such backward thinking".

But the educated Sudanese developed other "dangerous ideas", like independence from British rule.
When the British discovered that education didn't produce "pliant, obedient colonial subjects" in Sudan, they reverted to the familiar; "indirect rule".

But it was too late.

You can't "uneducate people", Sudan still has a significant educated middle class.
As for South Sudan, throughout colonial rule, the British treated them as sub-humans - didn't really bother how they ended up, or whether they died in large numbers. Very little infrastructure was built there, and almost no attempt at effective governance.
Read 6 tweets
21 Mar
The point of the 1884-85 Berlin Conference convened by Bismarck was to prevent Europeans from fighting each other over Africa.

(Africans lives didn't matter to Europeans, but they didn't want to fight a war over Africa).
The British wanted colonies that extended from Cairo to Cape Town, but they didn't get this, as German claims in East Africa stood in the way. They sought an alternative in Eastern Congo - but brushed aside Portuguese claims to Zambia & Zimbabwe.
The French on the other hand, wanted colonies that extended from the Mediterranean, to the Atlantic to the Indian Ocean - but the British plans for Cairo to Cape colonies stood in the way. So the French held on to Djibouti, but there was a gap in Sudan.
Read 7 tweets
20 Mar
I remember Samuel Huntington who wrote the "Clash of Civilizations" - had never visited Africa south of the Sahara, for a day, in his entire life.

Yet proclaimed that all the people who lived in that area were "part of the same civilization".
He was never challenged at the upper echelons of power in the US about his thesis on Africa, because let's be frank, who among them knows the first thing about Africa?

Today, a "superstar US geopolitical analyst" claims "terrain", not funding is why "Africa lacks infrastructure"
If his "terrain thesis" were to hold water, why does South Africa, with some of the most mountainous terrain has probably the best road and railway network in Africa?

Could it have something to do with South Africa's high tax to GDP ratio (almost 30%).
Read 5 tweets

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Support us! We are indie developers!


This site is made by just two indie developers on a laptop doing marketing, support and development! Read more about the story.

Become a Premium Member ($3/month or $30/year) and get exclusive features!

Become Premium

Too expensive? Make a small donation by buying us coffee ($5) or help with server cost ($10)

Donate via Paypal Become our Patreon

Thank you for your support!

Follow Us on Twitter!