Category: Geopolitics

What Trump’s fall, Biden’s Presidency mean for Africa

By Sitati Wasilwa

The November 2020 US presidential election was a unique moment in the global post-Cold War epoch; it came at a time when the world battled the COVID-19 pandemic and also ushered in the post-Trumpism era.

The pandemic and Trumpism threatened globalisation. Shrouded in the foggy sentimental expression of “Make America Great Again”, Trumpism sought to cut back on the gains made through globalisation as evidenced by the US-China trade war, America’s withdrawal from the Paris Climate Agreement, and pulling out of the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) and World Health Organisation (WHO) among other policy faux pas.

The International Monetary Fund (IMF), in late 2019, forecasted a loss of about $700 billion for the global economy by the end of 2020 as a result of the trade war. The situation may have worsened with the COVID-19 pandemic.

Accordingly, a report published by the United Nations Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD) – “Impact of the COVID-19 Pandemic on Trade and Development: Transitioning to a New Normal” – the global economy was bound to contract by 4.3% in 2020 with 130 million people pushed into extreme poverty due to the pandemic.

A few months after the outbreak of Coronavirus, global supply chains were massively disrupted prompting debate about the future of globalisation. For some, such large-scale disruption was bound to trigger relocation of enterprises back to their home countries. For others, globalisation was still the fulcrum for global economic recovery post-COVID-19. In fact, in an article I wrote in April 2020, I noted that globalisation will still be fashioned by state and non-state actors as key in the recovery of the global economy.

Fast forward, the victory of Joe Biden and Trump’s exit have several geopolitical implications for Africa in terms of security, trade, foreign aid, vaccine diplomacy, and others. But the concern is whether African states are formulating the necessary strategies and policies to address the complexities presented by this critical juncture.

Growth of Global Multilateralism: A More Globally Integrated But Less Economically Powerful Africa

So far, there has been a global approach towards addressing the pandemic and its effects especially in terms of vaccine development and financial support for the needy economies. This, coupled with the election of Joe Biden, will accelerate global multilateralism.

More importantly, Biden’s administration is expected to openly support global trade unlike Trump’s which was hell-bent on making America great by fashioning autarky.

In essence, Biden’s administration will renege on Trump’s policies meant to scuttle global multilateralism. This will enhance Africa’s global integration.

The Trump administration’s policy for Africa promoted bilateral engagements between Washington and African states. The US-Kenya free trade agreement (FTA) is an example of the carrot-and-stick method meant to scuttle Africa’s plans to implement the African Continental Free Trade Area agreement (AfCFTA). The FTA was to serve as a model for America’s bilateral dealings with other African countries.

Under Joe Biden, it is highly unlikely that Washington will continue with the bilateral policy approach in Africa due to two major reasons. First, Biden’s administration will be obsessed with countering China’s growing influence in Africa with Beijing having expressed support for the AfCFTA. As such, Washington may consider backing up the AfCFTA and other collective initiatives. Second, it will be more convenient for Biden’s administration to holistically support Africa’s recovery post-COVID-19 rather than adopt piecemeal bilateral engagements.

The growth of global multilateralism under Biden’s administration means that Africa will be more integrated globally, but this will not necessarily translate to improved economic fortunes on a grand scale. Fundamentally, global trade is about national interests; more of knavish and less of knightly behaviours and notions.

Historically, trade interests advanced by Washington work more in favour of Americans than Africans. Biden’s administration will be no different in enhancing these ‘Bad Samaritan’ policies – to borrow Ha-Joon Chang’s description of the flawed, biased economic policies that work in favour of developed economies and disadvantage developing ones.

Make Foreign Aid Great Again: More and More Aid for Africa

Trump’s administration slashed foreign aid and this affected various social and economic initiatives in Africa.  Nonetheless, Trump’s “New Africa Strategy” appeared to be an “America First” politically correct document, kind of nebulous in some foreign policy issues, while clear-cut on some.

For instance, while Trump’s administration endeavored to facilitate stability of African economies through foreign aid assistance, its insistence on the efficient and effective use of U.S taxpayer dollars for aid, withdrawing support for “unproductive, unsuccessful, and unaccountable U.N. peacekeeping missions”, and targeting “U.S. funding toward key countries and particular strategic objectives” set the tone for scaling down one of Washington’s age-old foreign policy instruments in Africa.

Of course foreign aid, in a blanket sense, has undermined Africa’s socio-economic and political development. The U.S., for instance, has a tainted history of supporting vicious, inhuman, and fantastically corrupt politicians and governments in Africa for geostrategic reasons. As such, foreign aid is a carrot that Washington has dangled in Africa for decades, and even Trump’s politically correct strategy for Africa is not fundamentally different in any way.

Fast forward, Biden’s administration is highly likely to reverse Trump’s approach to the issuance of foreign aid for African countries. In essence, a strong case for Biden’s administration to increase foreign aid for Africa is premised on the need for strong global economic recovery given the effects of the COVID-19 pandemic and attempts to rival China’s growing influence on the continent.

Additionally, Biden’s administration may direct more foreign aid towards the growth and development of Africa’s democratic space, but this could be effectively slowed down by America’s recent struggle with democracy, heightened and almost ruptured by Trumpism.

Primarily, the next four years in Africa will be a period of making foreign aid great again. How African national governments, and extensively the AU, are prepared to handle the nefarious effects, or otherwise positive, of an increase in aid is a different discussion, but one that points out to the lack of strategies to address the changing times.

Geopolitics and Geostrategic Interests: The Race for Africa is Still On

Apart from the common foreign policy issues such as military engagement, counter-terrorism activities, and trade, the footprints of Biden’s administration in Africa will also be defined by the COVID-19 diplomacy and geopolitics of 5G technology.

Nothing much is expected to change given Washington’s military engagement with African states except for the Biden administration to cut back on Trump’s plan to withdraw support for the costly U.N. peacekeeping missions.

But a hostile domestic environment in the U.S. characterized by a contracting economy as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic could be a game-changer concerning Washington’s military priorities in Africa. However, the history of America’s foreign policy is as instructive as ever before with the reality that the military-industrial complex fuels the U.S. economy. As such, the military-industrial complex is expected to be a crucial growth frontier given the recovery of America’s economy, and existing military markets in Africa especially in strategic regions such the Horn of Africa, the Niger Delta and West Africa, the Congo, and North Africa will lay a case for an aggressive strategy by the Biden administration.

The COVID-19 diplomacy will shape Biden’s policy for Africa in terms of foreign aid assistance as earlier explained, and more categorically, the distribution of the COVID-19 vaccine. In mid-2020, Donald Trump vowed to cut relations and eventually have the U.S. withdraw her membership from the WHO, a move which would have weakened the global health body considering that America is its biggest funder. The repercussions in terms of vaccine accessibility would have been profound especially in Africa.

Biden’s administration is expected to scale back on America’s withdrawal from WHO as a sign of offering leadership in global health, thereby countering China’s support for the Organisation voiced during the China-Africa Extraordinary Summit.

How Biden’s administration will measure up to Beijing’s vaccine diplomacy in Africa will determine its resilience in enhancing cooperation. China declared her support for African countries to access the vaccine during the Extraordinary Summit convened in May 2020 and reiterated the same in October 2020 when fifty-one African diplomats visited Sinopharm – a leading manufacturer of the COVID-19 vaccine.

Under Biden, Washington may look to enhance its vaccine diplomacy in Africa by shoring up support for WHO; by increasing its funding and budgetary allocation to the COVAX facility.

Geopolitics of 5G technology will be a top priority for Biden’s administration, and Africa will be a key front. As it stands, it is a tall order for the U.S. to convince African governments to shun the China-based Huawei, and it is highly doubtful if Biden’s administration will win this war. The South African Institute of International Affairs (SAIIA) notes that hampering China’s 5G ambitions in Africa is limited because the Chinese government provides funding to Huawei’s data operations across Africa, in addition to the company building most of the data networks across the continent. In effect, the U.S. must be ready to bear the financial implications demanded by African governments in exchange for abandoning Beijing’s 5G ambitions.

During the China-Africa Extraordinary Summit, China outlined her areas of cooperation, and as stated by President Xi Jinping: “China will explore broader cooperation with Africa in such new business forms as digital economy, smart city, clean energy, and 5G to boost Africa’s development and revitalization”. Notably, Beijing has a head start in the 5G race in Africa, and the reaction of the Biden administration will be interesting to watch.

All eyes are on the actions of Biden’s administration in Africa, and one thing is for sure; Washington will be more visible in Africa than it was during Trump’s presidency. But, how are African governments preparing to engage Washington especially in an era defined by post-Trumpism, COVID-19 vaccine diplomacy, and 5G geopolitics? 

The writer is a political economist. Twitter: @SitatiWasilwa LinkedIn: Sitati Wasilwa Facebook: Sitati Wasilwa Podcast: Sitati Wasilwa

0

September 11 (9/11): Anarchy, Imperialism & War

By Sitati Wasilwa

The 2001 September 11 attack on the World Trade Center in New York, the USA, is highly recorded but the 1973 September 11 attack and overthrow of the legitimate government of Chile is less known to most people. This is largely due to narrative control propagated by the so-called liberal media which sieves the kind of information fed to the public.

In this piece, I highlight some of the commentary and analysis by some authoritative sources on what we need to know in reference to the two September 11 attacks.

September 11, 1973 Attack: Imperialism & Tyranny by Any Means Necessary

To explain the basis and tyranny of the 9/11 attack of 1973, I draw reference to Noam Chomsky’s book, Who Rules the World?

“As we all should know, this is not a thought experiment. It happened. I am, of course, referring to what in Latin America is often called “the first 9/11”: September 11, 1973, when the United States succeeded in its intensive efforts to overthrow the democratic government of Salvador Allende in Chile via the military coup that placed General Augusto Pinochet’s ghastly regime in office. The dictatorship then installed the Chicago Boys – economists trained at the University of Chicago – to reshape Chile’s economy. Consider the economic destruction and the torture and kidnappings, and multiply the numbers killed by twenty five to yield per-capita equivalents, and you will see just how much more devastating the first 9/11 was.”

Historical Significance of the 1973 9/11

First, USA’s violent overthrow of a democratically elected and popular Chilean government happened at the height of the Cold War. By overthrowing the socialist government led by President Salvador Allende, the notorious USA government believed it was a primary way of expanding its capitalistic ideals across Latin America, a region which America has ravaged for decades under the dictates of the Monroe Doctrine. One of the leading economists invited by the murderer Augusto Pinochet was Milton Friedman, an intellectual who proved instrumental in the Chicago Boys programme. His meet-up with Pinochet is described by Robert Reich in the book, Supercapitalism:

“In March 1975, economist Milton Friedman accepted an invitation to Chile to meet with Augusto Pinochet, who some eighteen months before had toppled the democratically elected government of Salvador Allende. Friedman was criticized in the American press for making the trip, but there is no reason to suppose he approved of Pinochet. Friedman went to Chile to urge Pinochet’s Junta to adopt free-market capitalism – to trim the business regulations and welfare state that had grown under Chile’s many years of democratic government and to open itself to trade and investment with the rest of the world. In a series of lectures he delivered in Chile, Friedman reiterated his long-held belief that free markets were a necessary precondition to political freedom and sustainable democracy. Pinochet took Friedman’s free market advice, but Pinochet’s brutal dictatorship lasted another fifteen years. The men died within weeks of each other in late 2006.”

I am not sure if Reich’s excerpt of Friedman’s belief and ideology makes sense because taken with a pinch of salt, it best qualifies as an expert’s tyranny! Why did he work with a tyrant if he believed that democracy was the way to go? Your guess is as good as mine. For further reading, check: here, here, here and here.

Second, the 1973 9/11 attack took place when the so-called Golden Age of Capitalism was tanking and an alternative was needed (Please note that African countries endured economic, social and political ruin during the Westernized ‘Golden Age of Capitalism’ as a result of colonialism). The answer, to some, was neoliberalism which has turned out to be cataclysmic in view of social and economic inclusivity. Was the attack an experiment on neoliberalism? I think so.

Third, the 1973 9/11 attack, as a neoliberalism experiment, was extended or experimented in other countries around the world as a model for advancing America’s imperialism. Such economic ‘shock therapy’ experiments were administered in the form of the infamous structural adjustment policies whose records across Africa and Latin America are astonishingly ridiculous. Further reading: here, here and here.

A Quick Through

Two articles can offer some quick insight of the 1973 9/11. One is titled, “1973 Chile coup: The first 9/11 attack allegedly backed by the USA” by Republic World, and the other is titled, “The Coup in Chile” by Jacobin.

September 11, 2001 Attack: A Clash of Civilizations, Imperialism & Mission Failure

The 2001 9/11 attack has its roots in the Cold War era during the Soviet War in Afghanistan from 1979 to 1989. The Mujahedeen rebels who fought against the Soviet Union were supported by the American and Saudi Arabian governments in terms of supply of weapons and cash among other effects. Through this, Osama Bin Laden found his way into Afghanistan from Saudi Arabia. The end of the Soviet War saw withdrawal of both Soviet and American troops from Afghanistan and meant that the Mujahedeen fighters no longer had guaranteed sources of income.

As a consequence, most of them resorted to creation of territorial units (informal governments) and levied taxes on the Afghanistani people. A few notable leaders of the Mujahedeens aimed to restore sharia law and order in Afghanistan on the account that some of the territorial units were meting violence and harsh rules on civilians. But the shrewd leaders of the Taliban were soon overpowered by radicals mainly from Pakistan who infiltrated the movement and purposed to spread their ideology around the world.

An intriguing account of the Taliban and Afghanistani society is documented by James Fergusson in his book, Taliban: The Unknown Enemy. It’s a definitive account of a clash of civilizations. Tim Weiner also wrote an article titled, “History to Trump: CIA was aiding Afghan rebels before the Soviets invaded in ’79”, published by the Washington Post which presents a fair view of this clash of civilizations.

Historical Significance of the 2001 9/11

First, it was the genesis of the War on Terror era which USA fashions as a mechanism to stamp out terrorism. As stated, bombing of the World Trade Center and the War on Terror have roots in the Cold War as illustrated by an excerpt from Tim Weiner’s article.

“I traveled through Afghanistan again in 1994. Jihadis from all over the world were gathering there. The first World Trade Center bombing was on their minds. The talk was that they’d knocked off one superpower — the Soviets — and they could knock off the next. America was nowhere to be seen. Not a penny of its aid was to be had.”

Second, it laid the basis for America’s enhanced interventions across the Middle East, first in Iraq before wrecking the civilizations of the Libyan and Syrian people through the much-famed ‘Arab Spring.’ Basically, America’s foreign policy in the post-Cold War era has largely been driven by nonsensical interventions which Michael Mandelbaum notes in his book, Mission Failure, as failed missions.

Third, the War on Terror has sucked African countries into the failed missions with notable social, economic and political costs. Kenya’s invasion of Somalia to fight the Al-Shabab has been a costly proxy war. Mali, Mauritania, Nigeria, Cameroon, and Uganda among other countries have faced several terrorist attacks. This has necessitated increase in public spending on security while also prompting America to strengthen its military activities through increased financing and establishment of military bases across the world including in Africa.

Fourth, the supposed War on Terror has aided Russia’s resurgence with the Russian state now actively participating in the Syrian and Libyan conflicts.

Fifth, the War on Terror has also significantly pushed the Chinese to largely invest in their military and as a positive externality, somewhat offered an incentive for China to set up military bases in strategic regions of the world.

Conclusion

Both 9/11 instances exemplify anarchy, imperialism and war and offer crucial lessons why foreign interventions will always fail. This failure is based on the clash of civilizations in view of conflicting cultures and societal orientations.

The writer is a political economist. Twitter: @SitatiWasilwa LinkedIn: Sitati Wasilwa Facebook: Sitati Wasilwa Podcast: Sitati Wasilwa

0

How Not to Run a Country: Of the Dangerous Confidence of Demagogues

History is replete with examples of political leaders who are narcissistic, incompetent and have a penchant for demagoguery. Although such characters tend to be charismatic, they often create misery by suppressing fundamental rights and freedoms or barely achieve anything substantial while in office apart from occasional bluffing.

Such individuals include Pombe Magufuli, Donald Trump, Boris Johnson, Jair Bolsonaro and Narendra Modi among others. And the list is not just limited to politicians since we encounter such personalities in our daily lives.

But what makes such individuals appealing? Organizational psychologist, Tomas Chamorro-Premuzic notes that most incompetent people get to the top due to three reasons. Firstly, they are rewarded for their confidence with majority of the people confusing confidence for competence. Secondly, the love for charismatic individuals who tend to be entertaining or simply charming. Thirdly, the inability to resist the grandiose nature of narcissists fond of chest-thumping or regarding themselves as immortals and know-it-alls.

Tanzania’s president, Pombe Magufuli, has never been short of drama when making decisions. He began his tenure with so much gusto and was applauded in the manner which he dealt with the supposedly corrupt or lazy government bureaucrats and employees.

But his tenure is rife with cases of impunity, manifested through gagging of dissenting voices and making irrational decisions such as denying teenage mothers the opportunity to complete their education, a ruling which he recently reversed. His narcissism is also evident in the way he fires government employees without consideration for detailed information.

Donald Trump, Jair Bolsonaro and Boris Johnson behave more or less the same like the tin-pot despot from Tanzania. This trio of demagogues has clashed with senior officials in their administrations who’ve had to resign and some fired.

Even though politics demands that you dismiss courtiers who publicly defy a leader’s directions or collective agreements, the case is different with revered narcissists. They are usually dismissive of contributions from other team members and firmly but stupidly believe in the validity of their thoughts and decisions which often results in a chaotic work environment or country as well as failure to achieve the desired goals.

These demagogues fall short of traits such as competence, emotional intelligence, and the ability to have perspective which enable one to be a great leader as noted by Jonathan Powell in his book, “The New Machiavelli.”

The COVID-19 pandemic has laid bare the demagogues’ incompetence, lack of emotional intelligence and inability to have perspective while addressing the ongoing crisis.

Several heads of states and governments have failed to effectively address the pandemic but some like Magufuli, Trump, Bolsonaro, Modi and extensively Boris have been ridiculous in their approach and pronouncements.

Populist rhetoric by Trump, Magufuli and Bolsonaro are hinged on the need to seek for popularity as their countries prepare for elections. Tanzania is set to have a general election in October 2020 while the United States of America will have a presidential election in November this year. Brazil will hold its elections in 2022. For this bunch of demagogues, averting economic crises will secure them another term in office.

But what comes first, economic recovery or protective measures to slowdown the virus? While economic recovery is necessary, protective measures are more than necessary. Although lockdowns are economically destructive and not sustainable for poor economies like Tanzania’s, protective measures must be observed to contain the spread of COVID-19. However, Magufuli believes that the economy comes first and offers some valid justifications though other piety reasons, for instance, the eventual decline and cessation of church offerings demean his intellect.

Magufuli’s pious nature makes him believe that COVID-19 can be cured by prayers! To have a scientist and head of state making such dangerous statements reeks of incompetence and ignorance. That Tanzanian churches have to remain open in the wake of Coronavirus is simply Magufuli’s strategy to win support from a society obsessed with religion. But such is the language used by demagogues.

Trump has remained defiant on the need to open up the American economy, worst hit by the COVID-19 pandemic in the world. So far, more than 40 million Americans have filed for unemployment in the world’s most unequal and unsafest country. The pandemic has exposed America’s realities of mega inequality and the lie that is ‘American Exceptionalism.’

Recently, Trump ordered state governors to open places of worship amid opposition from some religious leaders who content that it is not the right decision. But Trump is obsessed with being reelected risking lives of ordinary Americans by encouraging them to stage protests against restrictions imposed by governors while he enjoys the benefits of belonging to the oligarchy. This is the epitome of class warfare.

Ignoring advice from experts and firing them is a script in the demagogues’ playbook. Richard Bright was fired by Trump after rejecting most of the unscientific claims made by his administration regarding Coronavirus. Dr. Anthony Fauci, Director of America’s National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, has clashed severally with Trump over issues such as the origin of Coronavirus, opening up of schools, and generally relaxing the safety measures put in place.

The clownish antics of Jair Bolsonaro cast him as a personality obsessed with power and not the welfare of the people. His presidency has poorly responded to the pandemic in terms of mitigating the economic and social crises occasioned by the COVID-19 scourge.

Bolsonaro has actively participated in the anti-lockdown protests demanding state governments to get rid of physical distancing and lockdown measures citing the threats of unemployment, hunger and misery. Under the leadership of Boris Johnson, the response to the pandemic has been less effective.

So, what is the best way to run a country? Heads of states and governments should learn to listen to professional advice and develop perspective on critical policy issues. Obsession with profits seems to drive political leaders but we need to come to terms with the reality that the economy is about people. We tend to disentangle people from the functioning of an economy. Ideally, economic policies need to fashion people over profits.

Voters also need to set the bar high enough and allow for the election of competent people. But the reality is that most voters – members of the general public – have poor judgment to differentiate between confident and competent individuals, and have a high affinity towards supporting charismatic but narcissistic politicians who are often demagogues.

Sitati Wasilwa is a political economist and consultant on governance, geopolitics and public policy, and a youth leader at YMCA Kenya. Twitter: @SitatiWasilwa. Facebook: Sitati Wasilwa. LinkedIn: Sitati Wasilwa.

0

Africa Needs to Revisit its Relations with China Post-COVID-19, But is this Possible?

The COVID-19 pandemic has unraveled the nature of the relations between African states and the People’s Republic of China, at least in a superficial sense; China is the master and Africa is the neocolony.

A few weeks ago, the Chinese government racially segregated Black Africans, choreographed as a strategy of containing the spread of the Coronavirus disease. A number of African states such as Nigeria were bold enough to call out the racial acts of the Chinese government. Others, like Kenya, coiled their tails and even unashamedly stated that citizens who wanted to be evacuated would have to foot their own bills. Sounds obnoxious! This is a characteristic of a failed government.

Therefore, the racial harassment of Black Africans by Chinese authorities should serve as an inflection point for African governments to revisit their relations with Beijing. But is this possible?

The Belt & Road Initiative (BRI) is a geopolitical masterpiece that would curtail the efforts by the African countries to revisit relations with Beijing. Only 14 African countries haven’t signed up for BRI; Eritrea, Mauritius, DR Congo, Central African Republic, Benin, Equatorial Guinea, eSwatini and Botswana. The BRI would lead to construction of massive infrastructural projects in Africa but this will occasion an increase in debts for African countries. China stands to benefit with its rush for global power status and will go out of the way to even buy out the African political leaders.

What is Africa’s selling point to China? The Africa-China relationship is skewed towards benefiting Beijing more than African countries. Statistical data compiled by the China Africa Research Initiative indicates that China benefits more from trade between Africa and China. In 2018, China’s exports to Africa amounted to $104.95 billion while its imports from Africa amounted to $80.34 billion. The nature of trade between Africa and China is further illustrated by the graph below.

Undoubtedly, China benefits more from Africa as indicated by the reported statistics. We do not really know to what extent China benefits from Africa from the clandestine economic activities such as illegal trade that Chinese entities engage in. African governments have full knowledge of this. Perhaps the bilateral deals between African countries and Beijing are laced with elements of corruption.

What is the role of the African Union (AU) in whipping African states towards revisiting their relations with Beijing? Well, the AU is a toothless institution that does little to protect and promote the interests of the African countries. It has for long suffered from a lack of bold leadership. Nothing is expected to change in the near future. China largely financed and built the new AU headquarters valued at $200 million with a significant proportion of the building materials imported from China. This is a disgrace. African governments cannot fund the construction of their own continental offices. The AU, later on, complained that China spied on the African states. But the late Thomas Sankara stated that whoever feeds you controls you. As such, the AU is also responsible for the neocolonial antics advanced by Beijing.

AfCFTA: Africa’s Only Ray of Hope

Operationalization of the African Continental Free Trade Area agreement (AfCFTA) should be Africa’s masterstroke in reforming or revisiting its relations with Beijing. Unbalanced economic relations between states such as skewed trade in favour of China can only be rectified by African states committing themselves to the ideals of realizing economic freedom for the African people.

Successful implementation of the AfCFTA would mean that any foreign entity should collectively negotiate with African countries based on a holistic framework. The potential of the intra-African trade is massive and hence the need to effectively roll-out the AfCFTA.

The AU should be proactive in setting the agenda for the continent while engaging with Beijing and not act as a secondary party in stamping initiatives originating from China. But in all this, the strength of the financial muscles calls the shots and Africa is not prepared for the current and future geopolitical duels against Beijing.

Sitati Wasilwa is a political economist and consultant on governance, geopolitics and public policy. LinkedIn: Sitati Wasilwa. Twitter: @SitatiWasilwa

0

COVID-19 Pandemic: Disheveled Economies, Disarrayed Polities & the Future

By Sitati Wasilwa

What matters? Welfarism? Free markets? Democracy or just efficient governance systems? Individualism or communalism? The essentialism of the COVID-19 pandemic cannot be underestimated.

The COVID-19 crisis has raptured globalization, disheveled economies, disarrayed polities and reorganized societies on massive scale. Pristinely, a global economic recession is looming.

Economic recessions or crises have always led to fundamental change in politics and thence a revision of the social and economic policies adopted to transition to the next chapter. The COVID-19 pandemic manifests itself as a social, political and economic crisis.

Socially, norms and routines have been altered. People are forced to adjust to unfamiliar lives: working from home; no more feeling of camaraderie from social gatherings; for others, it’s doomsday with their jobs wiped out by the monstrous virus; for some, readjusting to realities of life in the countryside is the new normal; and certainly, worries about the fate of tomorrow dominate our lives more than ever before.

Politically, the frivolous nature of greedy politicians has been exposed. Politicians are now familiar with policies and terminologies of a functional healthcare system. State capture by big business is in plain view; financial bailout programmes are mainly targeting large corporations and not small and medium-scale enterprises. Democracy and authoritarian classifications no longer matter. It is how efficiently governments around the world respond to the crisis.

Economically, it’s evident that people should matter more than profits and this ought to be the primacy of policy. Global supply chains are disrupted. Organizations are scaling down their operations and unemployment is set to rise. Living standards are bound to fall and manacles of poverty are primed to handcuff more people. Developing countries are set to rack up more debts. In short, the COVID-19 pandemic has orchestrated a reversal of economic gains.

A Reflection of the Past

History matters, and it matters a great deal! In modern world history, economic crises or pandemics of human nature have often led to political, economic and social reforms. For instance, the deadly Spanish flu that ravaged parts of the world between 1918 and 1920 occasioned public healthcare reforms.

According to Laura Spinney, the aftermath of the Spanish flu prompted governments to adopt policies seeking to provide healthcare for all. Spinney notes that the post-Spanish flu period saw Russia become the first country to establish a centralized public healthcare system, a policy imperative adopted by some Western European countries. Such a healthcare system was fully financed by a state-run insurance scheme. Creation of Sweden’s modern welfare state is significantly credited to the depredations of the Spanish flu.

Across the Atlantic, the federal government of the United States of America opted for employer-based insurance schemes as part of the post-Spanish flu healthcare reforms. In Canada, the topsy-turvydom created by the Spanish flu pandemic led to the establishment of the federal Department of Health in 1919 with the state playing a primary role in advancing public healthcare.

Although information about the origin of the Spanish flu is still unclear, the first official cases were recorded at USA Army’s Camp Funston in Kansas. Large-scale mobilization of troops during World War I is thought to have catalyzed the spread of the flu.

A report published by the Federal Bank of St. Louis in 2007 documents about the economic effects of the 1918 Spanish influenza such as closure of grocery stores, an increase in drug store activities, a rise in demand for beds and mattresses, long hours of work for physicians, and closure of mines among others.

Despite the fact that the report entirely focuses on the American state, its praxis on the significance of the nexus of the 1918 Spanish flu and a modern-day pandemic is engrossing.

Africa also bore the brunt of the Spanish flu with a research study highlighting that in the coastal region of Kenya the virus paralyzed administrative operations, created food shortage, occasioned commercial losses and overstretched the healthcare sector. In South Africa, the flu led to the death of 300,000 South Africans representing 6% of the total population.

In an article published by Reuters Magazine in 2013, Begley warns of how a flu pandemic could trigger a global recession. The news feature is based on a 2008 World Bank report highlighting that the SARS pandemic of 2009 shredded global GDP by $33 billion.

Major economic crises always spark calls for reforms. Notably, the Great Depression resulted in the formulation of the New Deal which largely aimed at addressing the plight of the common Americans. In Western Europe, the economic crisis occasioned by World War II actuated the European Recovery Programme (the Marshall Plan). These two reforms laid the foundation for the Golden Age of Capitalism although Robert Reich in his book, Supercapitalism, refers to it as “Not Quite the Golden Age” since political and economic inequality was evident among women and minority groups.

The economic recession of 1973 changed the global political economy in fundamental ways. Economist and historian Marc Levinson writes that the early 1970s marked the end of the Golden Age of Capitalism with politics moving to the Right. The decline of the Golden Age resulted from stagnated productivity growth. The shift of politics to the Right resulted in a loss in social benefits such as health insurance mostly provided by governments across Western Europe among others. As such, the implications on public healthcare were significant.

The fundamental shift in the global political systems was also embraced by the Bretton Woods institutions which embarked on missions to spread the Washington Consensus gospel in Africa through the infamous Structural Adjustment Policies (SAPs).

Failure of SAPs is evident especially in public healthcare and education systems leading to revision of the Washington Consensus with focus directed to a number of policy issues including provision of social safety nets and poverty reduction.

Financial crisis that precipitated the Great Recession in 2008/2009 led to advocacy for more government intervention in the economy with calls for provision of healthcare for all especially in developed economies. The austerity measures adopted by governments following the recession were germs for emergence of radicalized political movements across the global north.

William Davies contends that the financial crisis of 2008 failed to provoke a fundamental shift in capitalism but the COVID-19 crisis is set to bring about a sea change in the systems of global political economy based on high levels of international connectedness and the spatial nature of the pandemic. Retooling of social and economic life is certain with the pandemic serving as an inflection point “for new economic and intellectual beginnings.”

A Vision for the Future

Economic and political movements will emerge after the pandemic to vouch for reformation of healthcare systems all over the world. Governments and multi-lateral institutions will have to change their priorities and increase spending on public healthcare. Therefore, universal healthcare will emerge as a policy priority for state and non-state actors.

Governments and multi-lateral institutions reluctant to embrace healthcare for all will encounter opposition from social justice movements and disgruntled members of the public.

A paradigm shift in the systems of political economy is also bound to happen. Neoliberalism is set to reform or undergo decapitation. Political and economic ideologies that fashion people over profits will dominate public discourse. Could there be a re-emergence of democratic capitalism or will social democracy be the norm? Will the Chinese political economy model inspire states?

What is the future of big business in the global economy and national politics? Reformation of the healthcare system will most likely be derailed by the Big Pharma. Big Pharma may take hostage global politics and economics. The intricacies of the medical-industrial complex could go a notch higher.

Globalization will still be fashioned by state and non-state actors as a crucial step towards economic recovery and prosperity.  

Immigration to the most affected countries especially the developed ones is set to take place. The Western world may review its immigration policies and make them friendly. But this will depend on the pace of economic recovery.

Is a new world order in the offing? Too close to call but possibilities are within the horizons; evolution and dominance of the world by the medical-industrial complex and not the military-industrial complex; the dawn of a multi-polar world; dissipation of democratic ideals and enchantment of political pragmatism; and establishment of welfare states.

This article was first published by The African Executive, a publication of the Inter-Region Economic Network (IREN Kenya).

Sitati Wasilwa is a political economist and consultant on governance, geopolitics and public policy. Twitter: @SitatiWasilwa

0

Dawn of the Russia-Africa Summit and a Dimmer Future for Africa

By Sitati Wasilwa

The first ever Russia-Africa Summit was held on October 23rd and 24th, 2019 in the city of Sochi. This was Moscow’s outward projection intending to be a major player in global geopolitics.

The primary goal of the Summit is to counter the influence of the United States of America, China, the European Union, Japan and other foreign powers in Africa through partnerships touted to promote social, economic and political development.

However, it is important to consider that the partnership for development between the Russian Federation and African states is underpinned on the latter’s resources and its potency as a captive market and a polity with visible fault lines that could be exploited for the former’s benefit.

According to the Declaration of the First Russia-Africa Summit, the Russian Federation and African states seek to enhance political cooperation; security cooperation; trade and economic cooperation; legal cooperation; scientific, technical, humanitarian, and information cooperation; and cooperation in environmental protection.

Brief History of Russia’s Interest & Involvement in Africa

Arnaud Kalika documents that Moscow’s interest in Africa has its origins in the late nineteenth century following the Congress of Berlin held in 1885 when European powers divided Africa into colonial combs. With Russia’s exclusion from the annexation process, Moscow never colonized any African territory.

Following the establishment of the United Soviets Socialist Republics (USSR) in 1922 and the convention of the fourth Congress of the Communist International, Kalika notes that Moscow set grounds to wrestle with the capitalist world with discussions on three fundamental issues: “the African question”, slavery, and the responsibility of the United States of America. This marked Moscow’s formal intentions to be a major player in global geopolitics.

During the Cold War, Moscow forged alliances with a number of African states based on both hard power and soft power. Hard power entails the use of military means to spread an entity’s influence. As documented by Jack Griffiths, the Soviet Union increased its supply of arms in countries around the world including Africa. In particular, countries that the Soviet Union supplied arms include Ethiopia, Angola, Algeria, present day Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC), Mozambique, Morocco and South Africa.

Guinea and Egypt were also beneficiaries of the Soviet Union’s foreign policy during the Cold War. Newly independent Guinea (then under the leadership of Sekou Toure) in particular had pronounced relations with the Soviet Union as noted by History.com:

“More troubling for U.S. officials, however, was Guinea’s open courting of Soviet aid and money and signing of a military assistance agreement with the Soviet Union. By 1960, nearly half of Guinea’s exports were going to eastern bloc nations and the Soviets had committed millions of dollars of aid to the African republic. Toure was also intrigued by Mao’s communist experiments in China…”

Moscow’s global ambitions and footprints in Africa were also advanced through soft power. This was primarily done through the People’s Friendship University of Russia located in Moscow. An article titled “History of Russia-Africa links” indicates that the goal of the Friendship University was to educate young people from Africa, Asia and Latin America with some of Africa’s former presidents such as Thabo Mbeki and Jose Eduardo dos Santos having studied at the institution.

Post-Cold War Russia-Africa Relations

The end of the Cold War and disintegration of the Soviet Union into fifteen states including Russia thawed Moscow’s relations with Africa. Collapse of the Russian economy was marked by massive GDP contraction, huge budget deficits, food scarcity, a dysfunctional tax system, a totally weakened currency, and over-the-roof corruption.

Collapse of the Russian economy between 1991 and 1999 affected Moscow’s geopolitical ambitions in Africa. It is documented that the Russian government closed down nine embassies and three consulates, massively cut down the number of staff in the Russian Ministry of Foreign Affairs and also did away with aid programmes.

Russia’s economic recovery from 2000 with Vladmir Putin as president renewed her global geopolitical interests. Jakob Hedenskog notes that since 2000, Russia has played an integral role regarding UN peacekeeping operations in Africa by sending troops, expertise and military observers. Russia’s economic recovery post-2000 is also characterized by an increase in the volume of arms and military equipment exported to Africa.

Moscow’s post-Cold War relations with Africa lean toward military support and arms trade. Analysis by the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI) indicates that between 2014 and 2018, Russia accounted for 49% of arms imports to North Africa and 28% to Sub-Saharan Africa. These figures for the two regions were higher than that for the United States of America and China.

For instance, USA arms imports to North Africa between 2014 and 2018 was 15% and 7.1% for Sub-Saharan Africa. China’s arms imports over the same period of time was 10% for North Africa and 24% for Sub-Saharan Africa.

Key Considerations

Russia’s foray into Africa is underpinned on fundamental interests ranging from natural resources to military strategy among others. Such interests inform key considerations for the future or success and/or failure of Russia’s renewed interest in Africa.

Natural Resources

A report by the Swedish Defence Research Agency indicates that Russia has a shortage of natural resources such as titanium, chrome, mercury and manganese and coltan among others. The report cites Russia’s presence in Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC) where it is involved in extraction of coltan, cobalt, gold and diamonds. Russia is also present in Central African Republic (CAR) busy extracting uranium and diamonds. Russia also benefits from Africa’s agricultural produce with one-third of its African imports being agricultural mainly cocoa, coffee, potatoes and fruits. Regarding natural resources, Russia largely benefits and is set to benefit more from its relations with Africa.

Trade

It is estimated that trade between Russia and Africa amounted to about $20 billion in 2018. Of this, Africa imported products estimated to be worth $17.4 billion while it exported commodities worth approximately $3 billion with Russia benefiting to a tune of $14.5 billion. However, analysis by BBC indicates that Russia’s trading relationship with Africa is dwarfed by Africa’s volume of trade with China, India, USA, Japan and the European Union.

Military Cooperation and Strategic Interests

Johan Burger’s article details crucial information in relation to Russia’s military and strategic interests in Africa. Russia has established or intends to establish military bases in Sudan along the Red Sea Coast, Somaliland, and Egypt. Another publication highlights Russia’s military bases in Madagascar, Mozambique, and Guinea. Lately, the Central African Republic intends to host a Russian military base.

Russia’s strategic interests also include the establishment (completed or planned) of nuclear plants in Sudan, Ethiopia, and most recently Rwanda.

Debt Burden

Africa was greatly affected by the debt crisis of the 1980s and 90s. Currently, concerns have been raised about China’s debt-trap diplomacy (read here, here and here). Russia could avoid similar criticism by fashioning deals that do not overburden African countries with debts. The Russian government may also learn from Africa’s recent economic relations with the Chinese government. African governments could also avoid loans from Russia due to unpopular opinion among Africans against external borrowing. During the Russia-Africa Summit, the Russian government wrote-off more than $20 billion in debt accumulated by African countries in the Soviet era.

Shrinking Democratic Space?

Moscow has made clear its intentions in Africa; to be economic and military in nature. However, Russia could as well jeopardize the growth and development of democratic institutions in Africa. Though its post-Cold War relations with Africa are not hinged on communism, certainly Russia could negatively influence Africa’s elections or engender political instability.

Sitati Wasilwa is a political economist and an analyst/commentator on public policy, governance, geopolitics and geoeconomics.

0

On Africa’s Free Trade Initiative: Grand Illusion or Breakthrough?

By Sitati Wasilwa

On 21st of March 2018 in the city of Kigali, 44 member states of the African Union (AU) ratified the establishment of the Continental Free Trade Area (CFTA). Ratification of the CFTA was the main agenda during the Extraordinary Summit on the African Continental Free Trade Area.

The Extraordinary Summit was a culmination of a series of meetings seeking to boost the intra-African trade which, according to the 2017 African Economic Outlook report, is estimated to be at 15% of Africa’s total trade. Comparatively, Africa’s trade with China and the European Union is at 15% and 30% respectively of the continent’s total trade.

Countless efforts have been made in the past to boost the intra-African trade, but it was during the 18th Ordinary Session of the Assembly of Heads of State and Government of the AU held in Addis Ababa in January 2012, that a definite plan was formulated to increase trade among African countries.

For instance, the Action Plan on Boosting Intra-Africa Trade (BIAT) was launched during the 18th Ordinary Session, and it highlights seven key clusters to promote trade among African countries. The pillars include trade policy, trade facilitation, productive capacity, trade-related infrastructure, trade finance, trade information and factor market integration.

Basis of CFTA Establishment

The overarching objective of the CFTA is the creation of a single continental market for commodities through the free movement of people and investments across Africa. CFTA is deemed as the precursor of the yet to be established Continental Customs Union and the African Customs Union.

With hindsight, approval of the Lagos Plan of Action in 1980 signaled the intention of African countries to promote economic development with the major highlight of the blueprint being the proposal to establish the African Common Market by the year 2000.

Furthermore, the foundation of the CFTA can also be traced to the Abuja Treaty of 1991 on establishing the African Economic Community (AEC), ratified by 51 heads of governments and states under the auspices of the then Organization of African Unity (OAU).

The Abuja Treaty envisages the establishment of the AEC by strengthening the regional economic blocs in the continent. As such, the Treaty outlines the establishment of the AEC within a period not exceeding 34 years from 1991, through a series of six stages.

Thus, as per this policy document, the AEC should be fully established by 2025 which is impossible bearing in mind the current realities.

More categorically, the sixth stage of the Abuja Treaty outlines that the establishment of the AEC will involve setting up of: the African Common Market, the African Monetary Union, the African Central Bank, and a single African currency among other integration activities.

Additionally, CFTA also has its foundations in the Tripartite Free Trade Area Agreement (TFTA) consented to on 10th June 2015 by 26 member states of the Common Market for Eastern & Southern Africa (COMESA), the East African Community (EAC), and the Southern African Development Community (SADC).

TFTA is expected to hasten trade activities between the ratifying states through elimination and harmonization of tariffs and non-tariff barriers.

African countries hope to achieve socio-economic development through cross-border trade enhanced by the CFTA framework.

Possible Opportunities?

For decades, Africa has been referred to as the continent with a very high potential in regards to socio-economic prosperity. Afro-optimists have even taken the game of potentiality to another level, a higher one of course, by coining the term ‘Africa Rising.’

A disturbing fact is that Africa has only lived to be defined on the basis of the aforementioned description. It is a subtle affirmation of why the ‘Africa Rising’ narrative is an amorphous view of the purported progress that Africa is making.

I do not endorse the general perception that Africa is rising. Africa cannot be rising as a whole when civil strife is the order of the day in a number of African states. Africa cannot be rising when poverty levels are on the increase. Africa cannot be rising when neo-colonialism is on an upward trajectory. It is that simple.

Far from that, African countries are set to unlock their high economic potential through the CFTA. With a population of 1.2 billion people it is expected that such a population will be a catalyst for the continent’s structural transformation – at this juncture it sounds as if the CFTA is the continent’s magic moment for socio-economic prosperity.

A high population can be advantageous as well as disadvantageous. It is advantageous in the sense that it offers a ready market for commodities and the European Union (EU), China and lately India have shown us that. However, this has to be reinforced with other factors critical in promoting economic growth and development such as innovation among others.

A high population is only disadvantageous when rates of economic growth and development registered are poor. And this has been the challenge facing African countries for decades.

The United Nations Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD) estimates that operationalization of CFTA first by cutting the intra-African tariffs could generate $3.6 billion in welfare gains to Africa majorly through increased production and cheaper goods.

Africa’s economic potential will be unleashed by the CFTA primarily if free movement of people and commodities will take place. But during the launch of the CFTA in Kigali only 30 states signed the free movement protocol. This restricts the movement of people from one African country to another, with the mobility regarded as beneficial at least to some extent.

Challenges to CFTA

Establishment of the CFTA has been lauded as a crucial step towards the economic transformation of Africa, but there are challenges which threaten its take-off.

One of the challenges is neo-colonialism advanced by foreign powers. With China’s heightened global ambitions and take-over of Africa, in addition to the geo-political activities of nations such as USA and others, the expected rollout of the CFTA is set to falter.

An ambitious Africa is a threat to the global ambitions of the foreign states that control political and economic activities in the continent.

It will only take a few Forum on China-Africa Cooperation (FOCAC) conferences and the United States-Africa Leaders Summit meetings to change the CFTA equation, with Beijing and Washington organizing these conferences on the basis of “renewed interest in Africa” theme.

In addition, the flippant nature of majority of Africa’s political leaders is a challenge to the success of the CFTA. On several occasions, Africa leaders have gracefully appended their signatures to a number of declarations seeking to promote social, economic and political development of the continent.

But amid all the fanfare witnessed during such declarations, implementation of the approved policy proposals is done in an erratic manner and dubious fashion. Take the case of the Malabo Declaration and the Maputo Declaration meant to address Africa’s food insecurity and food production levels.

Political leaders in Africa have to endear themselves to the ideals of the CFTA and show unrivalled commitment. CFTA is bound to fail with subpar political goodwill.

The notion of open borders is not only a threat to the success of the CFTA but also to the unity of Africans. There are various research studies in support for open borders with one such study being a working paper by the National Bureau of Economic Research.  

A common argument for open borders is the increase in productivity for a country where immigrants settle with such people remitting a significant proportion of their earnings or transferring essential skills and technology to their mother countries.

However, various dynamics must be taken into consideration regarding the notion of open borders in view of free movement of people among African countries. African countries have higher rates of unemployment and this is dangerous with the idea of open borders.

Africa’s largest economies by GDP, the most advanced economies, and generally economically stable countries are naturally bound to attract immigrants. But such countries including Nigeria, South Africa, Botswana, Kenya and others have high rates of unemployment.

So, an influx of immigrants to such countries will create tensions with the citizens who will harbor perceptions of their jobs being taken away by non-citizens. The xenophobic attacks in South Africa over the years offer insight into this matter, and perhaps it informed the decision by the governments of South Africa, Nigeria and others not to sign the free movement protocol.

Nationalist sentiments centred on immigration spawned by open borders may occasion some of the African countries to withdraw from the CFTA arrangement or maybe the AEC in the event that the envisaged transition takes place. Brexit and USA’s imminent exit from NAFTA offer insightful lessons.

CFTA will create economic prosperity in Africa, but its success depends on institutional factors such as eradication of corruption, peace, economic and political rights, and generally, competent political leadership.

And depending on what happens next, CFTA can either be a grand illusion or a breakthrough for Africa’s economic prosperity.

0

How Will Recent Political Events in China Affect Africa?

By Sitati Wasilwa

On Saturday March 17th 2018, China’s legislature – the National People’s Congress – approved the reappointment of Xi Jinping as the nation’s president with no term limits. This political event was a follow up to the 19th National Congress of the Communist Party of China  (CPC) held in October 2017 during which Xi was confirmed as the General Secretary of the CPC for a second five-year term.

Apart from Jinping’s confirmation as CPC’s General Secretary for another term, the 19th National Congress also immortalized the Chinese president by indoctrinating his ideologies – the Xi Jinping Thoughton Socialism with Chinese Characteristics for a New Era – into the party’s Constitution.

Lately, there are grand intentions to also incorporate the Xi Jinping Thought into the national Constitution of the People’s Republic of China.

Xi Jinping’s speech delivered to the 19th National Congress of the CPC highlighted key principles which his administration seeks to pursue and strengthen.

The immortalization of Xi Jinping’s ideologies, the Xi Jinping Thought, follows a precedence set by the CPC to indoctrinate the policy agenda of the party’s revered leaders as the ultimate guiding principles/ideologies of the ruling party.

Previously, the CPC adopted the Mao Ze Dong Thought as the guiding ideology in 1945 during the party’s 7th Congress though its ‘leftist mistakes’, as documented in the Educational Philosophy & Theory Journal, were corrected during the 12th Congress in 1982.

At the party’s 15th National Congress in 1997, the Deng Xiaoping Theory of Socialism with Chinese Characteristics was established as CPC’s guiding theory. This had been preceded by the indoctrination of the Deng Xiaoping Theory into the party’s constitution during the 14th Congress held in 1992.

Additionally, Jiang Zemin’s Theory of Three Represents was incorporated into CPC’s constitution in 2002, and Hu Jintao’s theory, the Scientific Outlook on Development was ratified into the party’s constitution in 2012.

It can be observed that Mao’s and Xi’s policy agenda are classified as “thoughts” while Jiang’s and Hu’s policy frameworks are described as “theories.” As noted by Zoe Jordan, a Thought, in view of CPC’s constitutional doctrine, “incorporates a body of related ideas into a shared worldview whereas a Theory reflects a mandate relevant to a specific era or relative state of thinking”.

Thence, it follows that Xi Jinping is considered the second most powerful leader of the People’s Republic of China after Mao Ze Dong.

Generally, Xi’s Socialism with Chinese Characteristics for a New Era endeavors to strengthen the Deng Xiaoping Theory that has guided China’s development, internally and externally, for close to four decades.

Externally, in terms of foreign policy and strategy, Deng’s ideology fronted a China that focuses on self-advancement without exhibiting aggressive tendencies to shape international affairs. As written by Son Daekwon, Deng Xiaoping stated that, “keep a low profile and bide your time”, and also remarked at one time that, “By no means should China take the lead.”

But with the New Era premised on the Xi Jinping Thought, China is poised to rejuvenate her ambitions as a global power and leader based on Xi’s speech at the 19th Congress as quoted by Daekwon; China will actively pursue a more nuanced global role as “constructor of global peace, a contributor to development of global governance, and a protector of international order.”

Therefore, what does this mean for Africa?

Africa in Context of China’s New Era Ambitions

For Africa, Xi’s intention of a globally powerful and rejuvenated China is not as threatening as it is to the West. The West for a long time discredited China’s model of economic development and political system but China has consistently proven that democracy and market fundamentalism, as known to the West, are not prerequisites for structural transformation and development.

However, as Daron Acemoglu and James Robinson argue out in the book “Why Nations Fail”, democracy is not a necessary condition for kick-starting the process of development, but it helps in sustaining the virtuous circle of economic prosperity for eternity.

With the inroads that China has made in Africa over the past decade having been based on “development” and “non-interference” with the political affairs of African states, that perhaps is bound to change with the re-invention of Xi Jinping’s global politico-economic ambitions.

China’s economic conquest of Africa outfoxed the foreign policy strategy that the West has pretended to champion for ages; promoting the establishment of democratic institutions. But one wonders why the West led by the nosy USA has had a penchant of supporting autocratic regimes in Africa.

That doesn’t mean that China’s foreign policy strategy is the most preferred, unless by majority of African leaders who exhibit autocratic tendencies. China is well known for not prioritizing the rights of individuals and her political history supports this statement.

Formalization of the Xi Jinping Thought and invention of Socialism with Chinese Characteristics for a New Era imply that Chinese engagement with African states may shift from one anchored on “development” and “political non-interference”, to a foreign policy strategy where the Chinese seek to alter the political architecture of African countries.

What escapes most people’s minds is that China cannot hotly pursue the world’s superpower status through economics alone. It has to tilt the global geo-political and geo-economic scales by influencing the political order of a significant number of countries in the world like what the Soviet Union did during the Cold War.

Africa is likely to witness a resurgent China that will be exporting her political ideologies to the continent. This doesn’t augur well for most Africans who have relentlessly pursued the ideals and values of democracy.

In regards to Africa’s political trajectory, majority of African countries will nonetheless embrace the Chinese political model and ideologies. As a matter of fact, Africa’s political space is marked by a low level of democratic capital and a high level of democratic deficit.

This creates a favourable political environment for the African states to retrogress from establishing democratic institutions, and to embark on building and strengthening a political trajectory that fashions autocratic institutions.

And with majority of African governments being tied to China’s development agenda through the so-called cheap Chinese government loans, the assured long association between Africa and Beijing will certainly create fodder for the latter to export her political ideologies to African states.

It won’t be a surprise that a few years from now majority of African states would have drifted away and departed from the idea of democracy while gladly and blindly embracing the notion of autocracy with the so-called benevolent dictators roaming wild in the continent.

The West Responds, Africa Suffers

Former colonial masters and thereafter passionate neo-colonialists, but nonetheless colonialists, the West continues to influence social, political and economic activities in Africa. Long before China officially bagged Africa as her overseas neo-colony, Western states largely controlled the affairs of African countries though they still do so at the moment.

From granting African states cosmetic independence to shuffling them like cards during the Cold War; to wrecking and crippling their economies through the nefarious and nebulous economic policies known as structural adjustment programmes (SAPs); to orchestrating coupe d’états, and advocating for democratic institutions while at the same time supporting dictators, Africa has seen enough of the West’s experiments.

With China’s emergence as Africa’s new neo-colonial master, the West changed tact in Africa as evidenced by the covers of The Economist magazine in a span of ten years; in 2000, it was “The hopeless continent”, and in 2011 it was “Africa rising.” Was Africa rising because of China?

The Economist’s cover title of “Africa rising” came two years after China surpassed the USA as Africa’s largest trading partner, and so the title was one way of informing the Western governments that they should be more aggressive in Africa as the Chinese had taken over. It wasn’t about Africa rising!

Daggers are drawn! With the invention of the Xi Jinping Thought on Socialism with Chinese Characteristics for a New Era, the West is watching particularly the USA. USA and her allies will intensify their activities in Africa.

China’s entrance into the so-called New Era already began with Xi’s global ambitions; first, through his politico-lingual invention of the Chinese Dream, and secondly through the ambitious One Belt One Road Initiative (OBOR).

Response by USA plus her allies to China’s New Era ambitions may negatively affect majority of African states. USA and the Western league at large will use any means necessary to counter China’s move. They will increase their support for despotic and dictatorial regimes in Africa if need be as long as it proves to be an effective strategy in countering China.

Africa is set to witness an increase in the amount of aid from the West as a counter measure strategy to China’s New Era ambitions. As it has been the norm, whether the aid will be directed to address the fabricated goals or will be embezzled or even unaccounted for won’t bother the West as long as the geo-political objectives are achieved.

So, with China’s bold entrance into the New Era theatre and with USA’s much expected response, Africa will gain in terms of aid and infrastructural development but will also lose; drifting away from the idea of democracy, intensified economic dependence, loss of political independence, proxy wars and economic stagnation.

Will African states find their footing amid China’s renewal of her global ambitions?

0

Lest we forget USA is also a “Sh*thole”

By Sitati Wasilwa

Spitting fire and fury over his dislike for Blacks and other non-White people, the unrestrained political mongrel in the name of Donald Trump bluffed that immigrants from ‘shithole’ countries in Africa including Haiti and El Salvador are not welcome in USA.

Nobody would have imagined that a president of the so called world’s superpower state would utter such racist and divisive sentiments. But then, it isn’t a surprise since the 45th occupant of the White House is a man terribly short of insight with a delusional penchant for courting attention.

Facing economic, social and political despondency for decades, African states and other poor non-African, non-White countries ashamedly carry along the ‘shithole’ tag.

Precisely, the nature and behaviour of most of the African governments make it prime for the ‘shithole’ classification to ideally define the African governments. Why ‘shithole’ African states?

Look around the continent and realize how African states are infested with corruption, poverty, socio-economic inequalities and disparities, political injustice among other challenges which majority of the states have deliberately refused to address or pretend to be addressing.

Decades after gaining the oft-exaggerated political independence, the filthy majority of the African states are facing the same socio-economic and political problems they sought to effectively deal with at the time the cunning colonialists ‘declared’ them politically independent.

But most people often forget, or at least pretend to forget that African countries would be miles ahead socially, economically and politically were it not for the colonization and neo-colonization of the Black man’s continent.

Who are responsible for colonization and neo-colonization of Africa? The foreign powers, with their mad rush to Africa premised on the classical rivalry between the Western and Eastern hemispheres of the world, though the greedy African political leadership is also to be blamed.

The West has been led by USA for years following the crumbling of the British Empire. Taking advantage of the historical and apocalyptic fall of the British Empire, the USA took over the world’s leadership with her hegemonic global agenda fueled by the much famed ideology of American Exceptionalism.

During the Cold War, African states were vulnerable to the antics of the world’s superpowers at that time, the USA and the former Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR), before the latter’s cataclysmic disintegration. African countries were enticed by ‘gifts’ from the capitalist axis led by USA and communist axis under USSR’s leadership.

Neo-colonialism, which Africa’s former colonial masters had institutionalized, intensified as a result of the Cold War. Foreign powers offered financial and technical assistance to African states that cooperated with them with some going to an extent of facilitating the toppling of governments.

Of particular concern is the role played by the notorious USA and nosy France in overthrowing legitimate governments across Africa.

USA, for instance, was instrumental in engineering the military coup in Ghana then under the leadership of the charismatic pan-Africanist, Osagyefo Kwame Nkrumah. The aim of the coup in Ghana was to trigger a stream of chaos or put in place a puppet regime so that USA could get as much cocoa as possible at extremely cheaper rates.

Across Africa’s Great Lakes Region in the lush Congo Forest, the Democratic Republic of Congo (formerly known as Zaire) was not spared either by the covetousness of Washington. The USA government was behind the ousting of the influential pan-Africanist Patrice Lumumba who was captured, tortured and executed.

Lumumba was replaced by the flashy dictator, Mobutu Sese Seko, whose puppet regime went to bed with the USA government to loot the minerals at the expense of the Congolese citizens, majority of whom are poor.

Disguising herself as the champion of democracy across the world, the USA didn’t bother to promote democratic principles in DRC, choosing instead to confidently support a dictatorial regime led by the despotic Mobutu. Currently, USA’s multi-national corporations walk into DRC, collect minerals and walk out in fashion under protection of DRC’s authoritarian regime and the USA government.

Nigeria also endured a lengthy period of political instability characterized by coups that the USA partly orchestrated. They saw the oil and voila, they triggered chaos in Africa’s most populous country. Washington shipped the oil as poor Nigerians wallowed in poverty.

In dubious fashion, the USA government continues to be hell bent in supporting non-democratic regimes in Africa and interfering with the sovereignty and territorial integrity of other states.

Ethiopia, Uganda, Kenya, Djibouti and other states that have non-democratic governments continue to enjoy the support of Uncle Sam. Ethiopia has a terrible human rights record but Washington cannot advocate for the rule of law to be observed owing to the fact that the former is a strategic military partner to the USA government.

Having mastered the art of double-standards, the USA cannot condemn the authoritarian regime of East Africa’s longest-serving despot, Yoweri Kaguta Museveni. In Kenya, the USA government is supporting the corrupt and rogue Jubilee administration without showing utmost concern for social and political injustice brought to light before, during and after the electioneering period.

By the way, I’m exasperated by the dictatorial antics of the despotic Jubilee administration that rekindles the memories of the anti-democratic KANU regime. Kenya’s democratic gains have been eroded under the Jubilee administration and unapologetically, Kenya is acquiring a peculiar statehood of being a shithole of shitholes. Washington, the champion of democracy, would pretentiously ignore this.

Uncle Sam wouldn’t raise a finger and condemn Djibouti’s strongman, Ismail Omar Guelleh as the tiny Horn of Africa nation plays host to the former’s military base. Apart from the USA, Djibouti has allowed France, Italy, Japan, the United Kingdom, Saudi Arabia and India to set up military bases.

Libya is experiencing a civil war as a result of the invasion by the USA-led NATO forces dating back to 2011. Libya, then under the able leadership of Brother Leader Muammar Qaddafi, was peaceful with the Libyan people guaranteed of access to high quality social amenities with the country not having any foreign debt.

Because of her voracious appetite for oil, USA orchestrated the fall of Libya by arming militants and crafting evil conspiracy theories that Libyans were tired of Qaddafi’s dictatorial regime and were demanding for establishment of democratic systems and structures.

Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria and Yemen have been ravaged by wars instigated by USA in the name of “War on Terror”. America’s destruction of Afghanistan began after the 9/11 attack with Washington riding on the paranoia that the Taliban was cooperating with Al Qaeda in promoting terrorism. USA invaded Afghanistan when the 9/11 attackers were from Saudi Arabia!

Iraq was destroyed by USA because the Washington government was eyeing the former’s oil. George W. Bush, then serving as the 43rd USA president, lied to the world on how Iraq had ‘Weapons of Mass Destruction’.

Unknown to many, Iraq had a stockpile of these weapons but destroyed them in 1991 and ceased all its nuclear and biological weapons programmes in the same year due to pressure exerted by USA and her allies. Since then, the Iraqi people are strangers to peace and stability with puppets regime established by the USA. And by the way, if Iraq had such weaponry, would the USA have invaded her?

Syria and Yemen are war-torn states with the USA drooling at the oil fields of these countries. But the shithole USA government claims that the Syrian and Yemeni governments are unpopular with the masses and they must fall. USA financed destitute militants to hold anti-government demonstrations in Syria and Yemen, a similar case with Libya, in the wake of the contorted and highly skewed Arab Spring.

Crafting of propaganda and hatching of conspiracy theories is USA’s well-mastered game. Having faced moments of non-cooperation with the Libyan, Syrian and Yemeni governments, the USA government played the opportunist card, triggered chaos and siphoned the oil while lying on why ‘democratic’ governments must be established in these countries.

The double-faced USA government cannot condemn whatsoever the undemocratic regime in Saudi Arabia. The cooperation between USA and Saudi Arabia dates back to February 1945 when the then US President Franklin Roosevelt met with King Abdul Aziz of Saudi Arabia aboard a US warship.

Roosevelt met with King Aziz on his way to the USA after attending the Yalta Conference on the future of Europe following the end of the Second World War. Since then, USA and Saudi Arabia have been close allies with geopolitical interests and oil being the agenda of the American government.

Saudi Arabia is used as a proxy by USA to generate political instability in the Middle East. Through her military partnership/cooperation with Saudi Arabia, USA finances militants to fight legitimate governments in the Middle East with the objective being to cause confusion and steal the oil. Saudi Arabia has a dubious distinction and distinguished notoriety of arming militants, case in point the current civil war in Yemen. But USA is silent.

Closer home, South Sudan is muddling through a civil war that erupted in December 2013. Recently, the USA denounced South Sudan’s President Salva Kiir and declared him as an ‘unfit partner’. But nobody is questioning the role the USA government has been playing in fueling the civil strife in South Sudan. Remember USA is siphoning oil in Africa’s youngest state.

I bet a deal between USA and Salva Kiir has gone sour and Washington has made an about turn on supporting him and is hell bent on deposing Kiir and establishing another puppet government. Folks, it is the oil.

What do you call a state that interferes with the sovereignty of other states, supports dictatorial regimes and promotes war in the world as a divide and rule strategy to loot natural resources? You call it shithole! Never mind that Africa is shithole but my mother country, Kenya, is the shithole of shitholes.

And by the way, at the recent African Union (AU) Summit in Addis Ababa, African political leaders shelved the idea of demanding an apology from the not-so-well read USA president after he sent them a letter expressing his respect for Africa! African political leaders are compromised and intoxicated by neo-colonialism. But, don’t you see both are shitholes?

0

The Libyan Slave Market in Perspective

By Sitati Wasilwa

“Slavery as an institution that degraded man to a thing has never died out. In some periods of history it has flourished: many civilizations have climbed to power and glory on the backs of slaves. In other times slaves have dwindled in number and economic importance. But never has slavery disappeared.” – Milton Meltzer

The recent revelation by CNN about slavery in Libya is an affirmation that this inhumane act is inherently embedded in humanity.

Across civilizations, slavery has transcended different generations with its form and nature varying from crude, to subtle and more nuanced ways of human oppression.

From the ancient civilizations to modern times, slavery has been used as a mechanism to enrich the oppressor and impoverish the oppressed. The oppressed – the slaves – are subjected to forced labour used for the production of goods or offering services to enrich the lives of the oppressor – the slave masters.

In ancient civilizations, slavery was less of a commercial affair with slaves mainly captured to render domestic services to the royalty and political leadership of the kingdom, chiefdom, fiefdom, aristocracy or any other form of headship or socio-political organization that was in existence.

With increased realization of the benefits from trade and trade related activities, the trajectory of slavery shifted and incorporated the commercial aspects that led to the exchange of human beings in markets with monetary value attached to them.

Presence of various forms of social discrimination such as slavery, racism, xenophobia and tribalism in modern times can only be understood from a historical perspective. It is through historical account of events that the foundations of these social processes can be uncovered.

Emergence and re-emergence of the afore-mentioned forms of discrimination is not an event but a process.

Existence of vestigial structures from the previous social, economic and political institutions that promoted and encouraged these negative social processes guarantee their re-occurrence based on the historical cycle and existence of social fault lines.

The historical cycle, in simple terms, refers to the act of history repeating itself which was well stated by the intellectually gifted German, Karl Marx that “history repeats itself first as tragedy and second as farce.”

Therefore, to understand the social and economic basis of the current Libyan slave trade, it is fundamentally important to revisit the pre-colonial and post-colonial social and economic organization as well as institutions in Libya.

Pre-Colonial and Post-Colonial Libya

During the pre-colonial period in Libya, slavery existed in the North African country. Additionally, Libya was also used as a major transit route to ship the slaves captured from Africa’s interior into other parts of the world especially the Middle East and the Far East.

Slave trade that involved the major Libyan cities and towns was aided by the Indian Ocean slave trade and the Trans-Saharan slave trade.

Historical records indicate that slave markets for slaves sold during the Indian Ocean trade were in Persia, and the cities of Medina and Mecca.

The case was the same with slaves traded during the Trans-Saharan trade who were mostly sold in the Middle-East, in the Arabian sphere of the world.

Historians collectively refer to the trade in slaves during both the Indian Ocean trade and the Trans-Saharan trade as the Arab slave trade due to the nature of the trade and destination of the slaves.

Tripoli, Libya’s capital city, was a major slave trade route and one of the largest slave markets in Northern Africa during the pre-colonial period. In this period, the slaves were sold in public a situation similar to the recent account of slavery events as documented by CNN.

Post-colonial Libya has been characterized by two major political events that have shaped the country’s economic, social and political landscape. The hallmark of both political events was regime change.

The first event was the bloodless coup d’état under the leadership of Colonel Muammar Qaddafi that toppled the monarchy led by King Idris I. The revolution and leadership of Qaddafi culminated in the establishment of the Great Socialist People’s Libyan Arab Jamahiriya that lasted from 1977 to 2011.

Libya’s second political event was the Libyan civil war that began in 2011 after the invasion by the NATO forces led by USA, United Kingdom and France that led to the murder of Qaddafi and subsequent regime change through the establishment of the National Transitional Council.

Qaddafi’s administration and the Jamahiriya government presided over a period of social and economic prosperity.

Since the 2011 civil war that was driven and fueled by sinister motives of the NATO states, Libya’s social, economic and political systems have collapsed.

Geographically, Libya borders Chad, Niger and Sudan to the south. Libya’s southern population especially in the Fezzan region has a significant composition of black people. A good proportion of Libya’s black population in the south is made up of migrants whose main countries of origin (before the NATO sponsored rebellion in 2011) were Niger and Chad.

In terms of development, the Fezzan region lags behind other regions in Libya though more developed than Niger and Chad.

Being more developed than Chad and Niger, this acted as a pull factor that occasioned the immigration of Africans from Niger and Chad into southern Libya.

With the outbreak of the civil war instigated by the USA and her allies, Fezzan region and other parts of Libya have become ungovernable with rampant incidences of lawlessness.

A stable Fezzan region under Qaddafi guaranteed sustainable livelihood at least for a significant number of Africans in the northern side of Niger and Chad.

Collapse of the economic, social and political systems in the Fezzan region and largely Libya has led to a state of economic desperation and destitution for the populations of Niger and Chad that depended on and reaped from the economic prosperity and socio-political stability of Libya under Qaddafi.

The consequence of the collapse of the social, political and economic order in Libya and the Fezzan region is the massive number of migrants seeking to get to Europe via Italy.

This high number of migrants who have fallen victim to slavery depended on Libya’s economic prosperity under Qaddafi. Economic prosperity in Libya during Qaddafi’s era trickled-down to Niger and Chad and this managed to keep low the number of migrants from these countries.

Current Situation

Currently, Libya has no substantive government in place with the leading political entities being the UN-backed Government of National Accord (GNA) led by Prime Minister Faiez Serraj with its base in Tripoli and the Libyan National Army (LNA) under the leadership of General Khalifa Haftar.

Besides these two political groupings, there are other political formations that are factions of the leading political units as indicated by a report published by Al Jazeera.

At the moment, there are at least 700,000 migrants in Libya as estimated by the International Organization for Migration (IOM). A larger proportion of these migrants are on their way to Europe and they mostly originate from Niger, Chad, and Sudan among other West African countries such as Nigeria and Cameroon.

With lawlessness prevailing in Libya due to socio-political and economic instability, the various political groups ranging from the UN-backed and “internationally recognized” GNA to other militia organizations have resorted to illicit economic activities for survival.

Among the illicit economic activities include smuggling/trafficking of people, smuggling of fuel and the illegal mining of gold.

According to a report by the International Crisis Group, smuggling/trafficking of people in Libya generates annual revenues ranging between $1 billion and $1.5 billion. The same report documents that smuggling of fuel across Libya generates about $2 billion per year with fuel being sold at $0.02 in the black market lower than the official price set at $0.12.

It is the over $1 billion worth economic activity of smuggling/trafficking migrants across Libya that is the genesis of the slave trade.

Smuggling and trafficking of people in Libya has been taking place since 2012 with no substantive government in place. The smuggling has since degenerated into slave trade with the captured migrants being treated savagely.

Emergence of slave trade in Libya can also be partly attributed to legal and policy measures adopted by the European Union and the acclaimed Government of National Accord to intercept the migrants on their journey to Europe.

The resultant effect has been the retention of the migrants in Libya by the smugglers and traffickers of people. With a massive supply and glut of migrants in their retention facilities, the human smugglers and traffickers in Libya have resorted to sell them through public auctions.

A fundamental concern in the wake of slave trade in Libya is whether the ‘Africa Rising’ narrative is more of a myth than reality of which the former holds.

If Africa is indeed rising, then the benefits from the social, political and economic development generated by ‘Africa Rising’ ought to be witnessed in all African countries with the lives of the economically vulnerable Africans improving significantly.

‘Africa Rising’ is mythical as well as a misrepresentation and misstatement of facts since it is only a few African countries and a certain cadre of African people that are on the rise. If Africa was rising collectively, then economic conditions in Niger and Chad would be very conducive such that there would be no or extremely few migrants crossing Libya seeking to get to Europe.

Way Forward

Repatriation of the migrants to their countries of origin is only a temporary measure. The African Union must take responsibility and ensure that countries where immigrants originate from have stable and functioning economies that work for all.

Foreign non-African institutional entities such as the European Union, the International Organization for Migration and extensively the United Nations must show full commitment by working with governments where migrants originate from to address the ‘push’ factors.

The UN must stamp its authority on countries like the USA that promote foreign invasion and subjugate the territorial integrity of other states which is a violation of the UN Charter. The unnecessary civil wars and civil unrests have done more harm than good and the crises facing humanity at the moment could be avoided if the self-anointed “world prefects” such as USA chose to prioritize and pursue peaceful means to solve conflicts.

Slavery and smuggling/trafficking of people should be highly criminalized with very high costs of punishment attached to the promoters of this vice.

Dealing with slave trade in Libya calls for a multi-pronged approach including an end to the nonsensical foreign invasions and promotion of tangible socio-economic development in countries such as Niger, Chad among others.

Slavery must be condemned and it must fall including human trafficking!

0

Website Powered by WordPress.com.

Up ↑

Design a site like this with WordPress.com
Get started