Tuesday, February 14, 2017

Black History Month: The Italo-Abyssinian War (1889-1896) | The Royal Gazette:Bermuda Opinion

  Make text smaller Make text larger
  • Fighting fit: Ethiopians in the first Italian-Ethiopian war
    Fighting fit: Ethiopians in the first Italian-Ethiopian war

February is Black History Month. Throughout this month The Royal Gazette will feature people, events, places and institutions that have contributed to the shaping of African history.
After the Partition of Africa during the Berlin Conference of 1885, Prime Minister Francesco Crispi, of Italy, began his nation’s colonisation in Africa. Italy focused on the Red Sea because of its trade routes to Asia and East Africa, and subsequently stationed troops in the port of Massawa in Eritrea, then part of the Ethiopian nation. Ethiopia’s King Yohannes fought back against this Italian invasion. Although initially unsuccessful, they eventually defeated the Italian troops in a battle that took place on January 26, 1887, which would be known as the Dogali Massacre.
This battle left 430 Italian troops dead and injured 82. King Yohannes’s forces did not dislodge the Italians from Eritrea, but they did limit their control to that coastal province. Nonetheless, with the Dogali Massacre, Ethiopia became the first African nation to defeat a European power after the partition.
After the death of King Yohannes in 1889, the new monarch, King Menilik II, realising the Italians would seek to conquer all of Ethiopia, began to assemble a modern arsenal for his army by opening up trade with French-controlled Djibouti, and ironically with Italian merchants at Massawa. After developing a friendly relationship with Italians partly because of this trade, Menilik in 1889 signed the Treaty of Wichale with the Italian Government.
While Menilik and the Ethiopians understood the treaty would give them the option to use Italian assistance to communicate with other European powers, the Italians interpreted the treaty as giving them authority over all Ethiopian trade and communications with other nations, thus effectively stripping Ethiopia of its sovereignty. This deliberate mistranslation by the Italians caused tensions between Italy and Ethiopia, which led to the Italo-Abyssinian War of 1889–1896.
In preparation for the oncoming conflict, Menilik II assembled an army of 196,000 men to take on both the Italian army of 25,000 men composed of European troops and of askari — Eritrean fighters — led by the Italian governor of Eritrea, General Oreste Baratieri. To the surprise of the Italians and their African allies, 82,000 Ethiopian troops were armed with modern rifles, another 8,000 were on horseback and had 40 rapid-fire mountain guns.
After a series of surprising defeats by Ethiopian forces between 1889 and 1895, the Italians and their allies withdrew to the town of Mek’ele and there met a 45-day siege. The Ethiopian forces occupied nearby Adwa to outflank the Italians, causing a stalemate until late February 1896. By this point, both armies were running low on rations, but the Italians decided to go on the offensive. Because of their smaller numbers, the Italians and their Eritrean allies on February 29 planned to attack the Ethiopians in the middle of the night, and from higher ground. However, spies informed Menilik of the mobilisation of the Italians, with enough time to rally his own troops. Italian forces were scattered and their initial formation fell apart as the Ethiopians met them before they were prepared to engage in combat.
This conflict, known as the Battle of Adwa, cost about 5,200 deaths for Italian forces, while 7,000 Ethiopian troops died. Through this victory, King Menilik II demanded the abolition of the Treaty of Wichale and recognition of Ethiopia as a sovereign nation by Italy and other European powers. Ethiopia became the only African nation successfully to resist the partition of Africa. The victory at Adwa is still celebrated today as an Ethiopian holiday on March 1.
• Sources: Raymond Jonas, The Battle of Adwa: African Victory in the Age of Europe (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 2011); Paulos Milkias and Getachew Metaferia, eds. The Battle of Adwa: reflections on Ethiopia’s historic victory against European Colonialism New York: Algora Publishing, 2005; “First Italo-Abyssinian War: Battle for Adowa,” Military History Magazine, June 2006
You must be registered or signed-in to post comment or to vote.
Published Feb 13, 2017 at 8:00 am (Updated Feb 13, 2017 at 8:10 am)

Black History Month: The Italo-Abyssinian War (1889-1896)

What you

Need to

1. For a smooth experience with our commenting system we recommend that you use Internet Explorer 10 or higher, Firefox or Chrome Browsers. Additionally please clear both your browser's cache and cookies - How do I clear my cache and cookies?

2. Please respect the use of this community forum and its users.

3. Any poster that insults, threatens or verbally abuses another member, uses defamatory language, or deliberately disrupts discussions will be banned.

4. Users who violate the Terms of Service or any commenting rules will be banned.

5. Please stay on topic. "Trolling" to incite emotional responses and disrupt conversations will be deleted.

6. To understand further what is and isn't allowed and the actions we may take, please read our Terms of Service

7. To report breaches of the Terms of Service use the flag icon

Wednesday, January 18, 2017

Donald Trump’s team has questions about China in Africa. Here are answers. - The Washington Post

Monkey Cage

President-elect Donald Trump’s transition team has circulated a list of questions on Africa to the State Department and Pentagon. At the top of the list are two queries about the United States and China and their relative presence on that continent: “How does U.S. business compete with other nations in Africa? Are we losing out to the Chinese?”
Peter Navarro, who will lead Trump’s National Trade Council, provided his own answers in his book “Death by China.” He writes, “[China’s] million-man army is moving relentlessly across Africa … locking down strategic natural resources, locking up emerging markets, and locking out the United States.” Navarro says this is part of China’s strategy to boost its factories back home and undermine the U.S. manufacturing base.
China’s engagement in Africa does affect the United States, but the reality is more nuanced. Our research at the China-Africa Research Initiative rigorously investigates Chinese trade, investments and loans to African countries and offers insights into how China’s interests across Africa will actually affect the incoming Trump administration.
Chinese exports dwarf U.S. exports
Trump proposes imposing a 45 percent tariff on Chinese imports to the United States to protect U.S. manufacturers and harm Chinese ones. But the United States is not China’s only export destination.
Between 2004 and 2009, China-Africa trade grew at an annual rate of over 40 percent. In 2009, China surpassed the United States as Africa’s top trade partner. We observe that since then, Chinese exports to Africa have grown steadily, reaching about $103 billion in 2015. In contrast, U.S. exports to Africa the same year amounted to only $27 billion.
Today, Chinese exports to Africa are mostly manufactured products: machinery, electronics, automobiles and textiles. These are absorbed by the continent’s rapidly growing middle class, which has a strong demand for consumer goods. Although definitions differ, the World Bank estimates the middle class makes up 34 percent of Africa’s population, and its consumer spending is expected to reach $2.2 trillion by 2030.
For now, Chinese goods will continue to flow into expanding markets in Africa. This will offset, even if slightly, Trump’s intention to block the global movement of Chinese products through a trade war.
Manufacturing jobs are moving to Africa
On the campaign trail, Trump pledged to bring Chinese manufacturing jobs back to American soil. But with wages rising in China, Chinese industries are upgrading: Knowledge-intensive services and information technology are replacing labor-intensive manufacturing firms. Jobs that once migrated from the United States to China are now offshoring to Africa.
With low-end manufacturing on the way out, what was “Made in China” is now “Made in Africa.” The Huajian Group, one of the largest shoe manufacturers in China, employing 25,000 workers, opened a factory in Ethiopia in 2012; the company will invest $2 billion over five years to build a “shoe city” in Addis Ababa. Supply chains now span the United States, China and Africa: Huajian produces for U.S. brands such as Tommy Hilfiger, Guess and, ironically, Ivanka Trump’s eponymous shoe line.
Our research at such firms across Africa reveals Chinese managers increasingly implement technical skills-training programs for their African workers. African workers frequently make up over 80 percent of the factory workforce. Some receive further training in China. This investment in local workers indicates a serious commitment to the longevity of Chinese manufacturing operations in Africa.
‘China model’ vs. ‘U.S. model’ 
Africans rank China second as “a development model” after the United States. So how does the “China model” differ from the “U.S. model” in Africa?
President Obama and Hillary Clinton have suggested that the United States, unlike China, will “stand up for democracy and universal human rights” rather than simply “extract minerals” in Africa. Washington has viewed its own model in Africa as promoting good governance and environmental responsibility.
That could change under Trump. Observers argue that his support for undemocratic regimes threatens human rights around the world. Trump claimed global warming was created by the Chinese to disadvantage U.S. manufacturing, and several of his Cabinet nominees deny climate change and hold special interests in the oil-and-gas industry. In departing from the “U.S. model,” Trump may come to embody the characteristics that Obama and Clinton attributed to the “China model.”
But this isn’t new. China has previously called out the United States for being hypocritical on human rights issues. And research reveals Chinese firms aren’t any more environmentally destructive in Africa than Western ones. Perhaps Trump will reveal that the United States and China are more similar than different in Africa, after all; the dichotomy between the two “models” may dissolve.
As Trump continues to break with U.S. policy set by his predecessors, the effects will reverberate in Africa. When he breached protocol by taking a call from Taiwan’s president and openly questioning the one-China policy, Beijing responded by calling the policy “nonnegotiable.” In fact, Beijing takes the one-China policy seriously, everywhere: Our database reveals the three African countries that recognize Taiwan — Burkina Faso, Sao Tome and Principe, and Swaziland — don’t receive any Chinese loans. Each time Trump acts to change the status quo on U.S.-China relations, African countries are watching what it means for themselves.
Trump’s “America First” outlook largely promotes protectionist, isolationist policies. But matters are more complex in a globalized world. Driven by internal economic upheaval, China has its own agenda for engaging with the rest of the world on trade, manufacturing and other economic affairs, and its relationship with the developing world will only continue to grow. To understand the future effect of Beijing’s policies on the U.S. economy and its workers, Trump would be wise to look at China’s role in Africa.
Janet Eom is the research manager at the China-Africa Research Initiative at the Johns Hopkins University School of Advanced International Studies.

Quick Linker

Amazon SearchBox

About the Bloger

My photo

Prof. Muse Tegegne has lectured sociology Change &  Liberation  in Europe, Africa and Americas. He has obtained  Doctorat es Science from the University of Geneva.   A PhD in Developmental Studies & ND in Natural Therapies.  He wrote on the  problematic of  the Horn of  Africa extensively. He Speaks Amharic, Tigergna, Hebrew, English, French. He has a good comprehension of Arabic, Spanish and Italian.