51吃瓜

Reading the news over the past week, I couldn鈥檛 avoid asking myself an unexpected question: What鈥檚 going on with our understanding of Africa鈥檚 geography these days?  

Two curious, unrelated incidents concerning Africa and the West made the headlines. The first may appear trivial but turns out to be symptomatic of a longstanding trend. The second, if examined in its details, has the potential to be monumentally consequential. Taken together these two events tell a story of ingrained ignorance, capable one day of resembling incidental comedy, and the next, tragedy.

Let鈥檚 begin with the comic. It a banal but legitimately embarrassing moment for 鈥渢he Blob鈥� (the US State Department) in a presentation of Washington鈥檚 funding for HIV related programs at an international conference that took place in Rio de Janeiro. The presenter, a senior US official overseeing the President鈥檚 Emergency Plan for Aids Relief, sought to highlight the seriousness of US funding for Africa. What better way to convey the seriousness and breadth of the endeavor than by graphically indicating the location of the six African nations that benefit from US aid?

All might have gone swimmingly had not an audience member taken a photo of the slide in question. It showed an AI-generated map of the African continent featuring the territorial outline of the target countries highlighted in color. Alongside the countries shown on the map were figures representing the allocated funding.

Though the presenter apparently hadn鈥檛 even noticed, there was a serious problem. Not only were the contours of the nations incorrectly drawn, but the nations appeared randomly redistributed across the map. Imagine how the same presenter might have reacted if an African presenting actions undertaken by his nation in the US placed Massachusetts among the Great Lakes, Utah on the east coast and Oregon on the Gulf of Mexico (my apologies鈥� I meant, the Gulf of America!).

As expected, once this egregious mistake went public, the State Department apologized, describing it as 鈥渁n unfortunate error鈥� due to a team member who 鈥溾�榟urriedly altered鈥� the slide deck before the event.鈥� Even on that score, we have nagging doubts. claimed that the slide was 鈥渕ade with OpenAI tools.鈥� Who was to blame? Was it an unnamed 鈥渢eam member鈥� blissfully ignorant of geography or the State Department鈥檚 lazy habit of confiding 鈥渦nimportant issues鈥� to AI, without ever bothering to verify the result?

Following the conference, the world learned about this comic episode only because, as the BBC informs us, 鈥淗IV/Aids expert Emily Bass shared a photograph of the slide on her Substack .鈥�

In her newsletter, Bass helpfully indicates the title of the presentation: 鈥淭ransforming health assistance: Implementing U.S. government MOUs for sustainable HIV programs.鈥� If anything, this throws some light on how seriously the Trump administration takes the MOUs, it signs. But that should already have been obvious after the farcical results of the MOU US President Donald Trump signed in June to end the Iran war. The title may also reveal how seriously the US government takes the notion of sustainability.

State Department鈥檚 history of comedy

I couldn鈥檛 process this comic interlude without recalling another State Department blunder that took place in 2009, long before the Blob had AI to rely on for messing things up. I鈥檓 thinking of that deliciously revealing moment when newly appointed Secretary of State Hillary Clinton brought out her 鈥淩eset Button,鈥� an impressive prop 鈥� a plastic toy probably made in China 鈥� which she presented to Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov as a gage that under the newly established Obama administration, Russia and the US could 鈥渞eset their relationship.鈥�

The two dignitaries proceeded to place their two hands on the button. Magically, it would cancel all the nonsense that had been perpetrated by George W. Bush, the former president, who famously insisted the previous year 鈥� against the advice of European leaders and his own to Moscow 鈥� that Ukraine would be groomed to join NATO. With Bush no longer in the White House. Hillary wanted the world to know that a new age of fellowship and common prosperity was about to dawn.

If US foreign policy were crafted in Hollywood 鈥� which it sometimes seems to be 鈥� we might conclude that the 鈥淩omcom鈥� (romantic comedy) was instantaneously rescripted to become a screwball comedy at this precise instant of the dialogue:

Clinton: 鈥淲e worked hard to get the right Russian word. Do you think we got it?鈥�

Lavrov: 鈥淵ou got it wrong, it should be 鈥榩erezagruzka,鈥� this says 鈥榩eregruzka鈥� which means 鈥榦vercharged.鈥欌��

It doesn鈥檛 stop there. Clinton even misunderstands the meaning of 鈥渙vercharged,鈥� taking it to be a demand for payment rather than a reference to electricity or energy: 鈥渙verload.鈥� That misunderstanding is equally revealing of an obvious cultural gap.

Knowing what happened between the US and Russia over the next 17 years, the irony should escape no one.

Spain鈥檚 African colony

The second incident concerning Africa was anything but comic. It turned out to be a major event, with possible long-term repercussions for Europe. These two events taken together 鈥� one seemingly trivial, the other resonating with geopolitical gravity 鈥� throw into visible relief a deeper problem the prosperous, enlightened West has never resolved, possibly because it has never seriously sought to address it head on: waking up to the reality of Africa.

When 19th-century Europeans carved up the continent to distribute the spoils among Europe鈥檚 dominant colonial powers, they condescendingly referred to Africa as the 鈥渄ark continent.鈥� That label was their way of admitting they hadn鈥檛 yet mapped its interior in their rush to exploit its immensely rich resources 鈥� but equally that they took no interest in understanding the continent鈥檚 human cultures. Joseph Conrad famously exposed that hypocrisy in his novella, Heart of Darkness. Framing his story on the River Thames, Conrad pushes the imperial project to its emotional climax through the dying words of the enigmatic Kurtz: 鈥淭he horror! The horror!鈥�

We are often taught that during the 1950s and 鈥�60s, European empires smoothly decolonized the globe, ushering in a modern world order overseen by the United Nations 鈥� a system built on the sovereign equality of all nations, except, of course, for the five veto-wielding powers of the Security Council. To the world鈥檚 surprise, we learned last week that Spain had never decolonized a small patch of Africa called Ceuta.

This suddenly became when tens of thousands of Moroccans, in one fell (and apparently well-orchestrated) swoop, poured across the border to invade the enclave. Immediately the cry rang out: 鈥淣ew migration crisis! Close the borders! We must protect our valued civilization!鈥�

If you read the Western press, you will have no reason to believe that this story is anything other than the latest 鈥渂arbarians at the gate鈥� narrative. Instead of arriving as threatening organized armies, we perceive them as the uncounted and uncountable millions of desperate victims of backward societies seeking a place in our evolved system that promises prosperity for ambitious individuals.

Just to change the perspective, here鈥檚 a much fuller from investigative journalist James Li of what鈥檚 behind the Ceuta situation. If you follow any of the multiple threads you discover a complex geopolitical reality. Just the sort of things motivated professional journalists might want to dig into.聽 But today鈥檚 legacy media landscape in the West has given up digging and apparently put its reporters on a leash. Don鈥檛 expect to see any illuminating insights on any of these threads from your mainstream media sources. The genuinely curious will have to look elsewhere for more clues.

Keeping us in the dark about the dark continent

Western coverage both in the US and Europe 鈥� with the possible of Al Jazeera English (which is more European than Middle Eastern in its editorial outlook) 鈥� persists in defining this fascinating, multi-dimensional tragic episode as nothing more than a banal immigration crisis, despite the significant number of deaths on land and sea. Al Jazeera dares what most Western media have been instructed to avoid: mentioning a possible connection to Israel. Compare The Guardian鈥檚 that, despite its respectable length, studiously navigates away from analyzing any of the strategic elements. At the same time, it uncritically reports the European Commission鈥檚 President Ursula von der Leyen鈥檚 precious insight into the deeper meaning of this: 鈥淔rom this incident, it is clear that we must do more to further strengthen our borders at critical points.鈥�

What I found even more astonishing, but at the same time almost predictable, is the daring gambit of The Guardian where it invented a pretext for throwing in this total non sequitur: 鈥淓U states also spoke about the threat of Russian disinformation and how it could exploit the crisis to heighten tensions across the bloc, the source added.鈥� This random speculation based on a Ukrainian official鈥檚 complaints occupies the three concluding paragraphs of the article. No need to mention Israel, who has a well documented manipulative relationship with its ally in the Abraham accords, Morocco, but the paper feels compelled to ring alarm bells about how Russians might develop talking points about the issue. That鈥檚 what鈥檚 known as focusing on the facts. 

Evoking the enemy Western media most loves to hate, even when there鈥檚 no objective reason to do so, avoids mentioning an established fact that provides a material clue to what was really going on. There were multiple reports by eyewitnesses that Moroccan intelligence agents were among the invading crowd and that they appeared to be managing the event. Because no news agencies appear allowed to report it, I addressed two AI chatbots to find out more. When I interrogated Google鈥檚 Gemini on that question, I received this response: 鈥淭here is no public evidence or official intelligence reporting confirming that Moroccan intelligence agents were physically present among the crowd crossing into Ceuta.鈥� Deepseek didn鈥檛 agree. It stated that 鈥渢he Spanish Civil Guard identified Moroccan intelligence personnel disguised among the crowd of migrants.鈥� Note that Gemini is correct in highlighting the absence of 鈥減ublic evidence or official intelligence reporting鈥� because, as everyone should now be aware, the truth is never 鈥渙fficially鈥� reported.

The BBC, while that at least 75 people died on the Spanish side of the border and 11 on the Morocco side, predictably fails to see the need to investigate. Those numbers might justify the idea considering this a human tragedy worth investigating. Instead, on August 5, the BBC insisted that we shouldn鈥檛 trouble our minds about such speculation. 鈥淚t is unknown exactly what led the tens of thousands of migrants to cross from Morocco into Ceuta in a span of just a few hours last week.鈥� Should we remind the BBC that what is today 鈥渦nknown鈥� can become known if the responsible press did its job?聽

So what about The New York Times, the paper of record that prefers to focus on facts and 鈥渁ll the news that鈥檚 fit to print?鈥� The Gray Lady makes the story about Spanish Prime Minister Pedro Sanchez鈥檚 weakness on immigration! It offers this distracting headline: 鈥淪pain鈥檚 Leader Is Seen as Soft on Migrants, but He Acted Fast on Ceuta.鈥� Its subtitle shamefully contains a false promise: 鈥淭he reality is more complex.鈥� Not only does the NYT avoid even glancing at the complexity it claims to reveal, it concludes with this judgment of Sanchez: 鈥淲e have heard from different sources that he is willing to accept more immigrants 鈥� but we don鈥檛 know how many or when.鈥�

It鈥檚 a sign of progress that both the BBC and NYT conclude by telling us what they don鈥檛 know鈥� or are even allowed to be curious about! That makes things genuinely a lot clearer.

*[The Devil鈥檚 Advocate pursues the tradition 51吃瓜 began in 2017 with the launch of our 鈥淒evil鈥檚 Dictionary.鈥� It does so with a slight change of focus, moving from language itself 鈥� political and journalistic rhetoric 鈥� to the substantial issues in the news. Read more of the 51吃瓜 Devil鈥檚 Dictionary. The news we consume deserves to be seen from an outsider鈥檚 point of view. And who could be more outside official discourse than Old Nick himself?]

[ edited this piece.]

The views expressed in this article are the author鈥檚 own and do not necessarily reflect 51吃瓜鈥檚 editorial policy.