Africa’s bumpy road to regional economic cooperation (2)

LAST WEEK, 49 AFRICAN COUNTRIES represented at the US-Africa Leaders Summit in Washington DC, were considered as being in “good standing” with the United States of America, in which case leaders of four countries were excluded from the summit. Like other similar summits routinely convened by China, Japan and – very recently – Russia, the US summit was at the instance of the US. The countries were invited into the US for discussions. The terms of the meeting were, of course, determined by the US as the invitation was sent to countries deemed qualified in the invite list, apparently because of the recent cases of coup d’etat in four countries. Moreover, President Joe Biden reportedly met the leaders “as a group,” and not on an individual basis in a summit intended to reset Washington’s commitment to Africa. Of the forty-nine leaders invited, forty-five were Heads of State. According to the White House, 49 countries accepted the invitations just as Moussa Faki Mahamat, the Chairperson for the Commission of AU, was also invited while South Sudan, South Africa and Zimbabwe sent representatives.

At the summit, billions of dollars of financing in new trade investments were promised by President Biden who said he was working alongside Congress to announce a total of $55 billion for investment in Africa in various areas, including rural development, collaboration in outer space and strengthening democracy. He also declared support for the African Union’s permanent seat at the Group of 20 (G20) nations. In what appears like a reaction following a realisation that Africa is increasingly leaning eastward as China, Japan and Russia are gaining a foothold at the exclusion of the US, President Biden indicated his readiness to visit the continent soon as he tries to expand ties in the region. It is hoped, however, that the US is not a latecomer to Africa this time when the emerging realities call for changes in the rules of engagement between Africa and other countries or continents. Before the return of the US to Africa, the continent was already being carved up by vested interests that come with various schemes, dangling carrots of various colourations and promising all manner of goodies. And those countries have already started to bring many African countries into their own “nets” of some sorts. It is hoped also that a new variant of the Berlin Conference was not already beginning to take place in Africa.

Take China, a country that has lent billions of dollars to many African countries on infrastructure projects. Or Russia, a country that is already filling some vacuums in areas that currently grapple with security challenges. Or even the European Union, a bloc that is already in talks with certain parts of Africa on energy. The US will therefore have to seek how to carve its own niche in Africa, but in ways considered mutually beneficial.  At the non-state level the US has continued to be involved in African affairs. The Corporate Council on Africa is a shiny example. Its activities are, however, fraught with some limitations. It is a non-state organisation. But the involvement of the US in Africa at the state level has taken a backseat when compared with the aggressiveness of those countries such as China, Japan and Russia in recent years. This is despite the heavy investments that the US has made – and continues to make – in Africa in various areas such as human capital development, humanitarian services, intelligence, health and agriculture, among others. Some of the aspects in which the relevance of the US in Africa seems to have been eclipsed by other countries in Africa include security, infrastructure and loans. It may be argued that those countries that are becoming more prominent in offering assistance to Africa in these areas are not following due process. But, how strong is that argument when assessed against the backdrop of the fact that those projects they execute and the loans they provide for financing them have led to a quantum jump in the development of the beneficiary countries?

It may be posited that China, for example, is providing loans that easily put the beneficiary countries in debts. But what of the roads, the airports, the edifices, the telecommunication infrastructure and others that have been established with such loans? Of course, it is known that corruption is rife in Africa among national political leaders. There is hardly any doubt that a bulk of what is borrowed officially ends up in their private pockets, or that many projects financed with Chinese loans don’t pass certain tests of integrity and transparency. It is also public knowledge that Chinese officials bribe their ways into contract approvals. But, a modicum of progress has been recorded from such deals in the absence of help from elsewhere. Of note is the fact that the US-Africa Leaders Summit was first organised in 2014 during the Obama administration, focusing on trade, investment, and security as key pillars of US-Africa engagement. But it became clear that Africa was not part of the core components of US foreign relations as official engagements with Africa petered out shortly afterwards despite greater need for sustained Afro-centric policies by the American government. The gap was obviously seized by those other world powers that made inroads into Africa.

A significant aspect of the gaps in the US-Africa relations is that the 2014 summit as well as the one recently concluded seems to have one thing in common: that is, the unilateral flow of ideas. The US obviously believes the African leaders could and should be summoned for briefing, minding less about the opinions of those invited. Another aspect, apparently more fundamental, is the foreign policy flip-flop or foreign policy somersault. The US, more than ever before, is now polarised along Democratic and Republican lines, with sentiments and dispositions that are largely opposed to each other. Before, it used to be said that Americans put their political differences behind them immediately after elections and settle down for governance. Not anymore. Political differences seem now a defining point in governance. Decades ago, it was much easier for both Democrats and Republicans in Congress to have bipartisan common grounds. It was also easier for a Democratic President to continue to implement the programmes of a Republican predecessor, and vice versa, within the country or on foreign relations. Today, the bipartisan divide is getting much wider and fossilised. Heroism seems more like the rule of the game on both sides now. The effects of this on consensus over certain policies have been rather disappointing and devastating. It is possible to have one side of the aisle taking down the policy supported by the other side simply on bipartisan differences. The effects of such on foreign policy are becoming more prominent. What assurance do African countries have that a change in government on partisan lines will guarantee an unshaken sustenance of US-African relations? It is the same reason why African countries need cautious optimism on the newly revisited US-Africa Leaders Summit and immediate outcomes.

Nigeria was a test case of America’s indifference towards Africa. Within the period between 2014 until very recently, the security challenges in Nigeria required the support of a country with close diplomatic relations such as the US. But less than expected cooperation was received. One-sided dictation of certain terms by the US government officials cannot help or sustain the US-Africa relations, particularly as alternatives are waxing stronger and showing more relevance in Africa. Such dictation of terms comes in what looks more like meddling in the affairs of another sovereign state. In such cases, the US appears to be treating other countries as inferior when in fact it should engage with them as equals. And this has a way of offending the sensibility of countries so treated. In 2011, U.S President Barack Obama reportedly threatened to cut off foreign aid to Nigeria if an anti-gay bill at the national legislature then was passed. It was one of the few issues – apart from football – that brought the majority of Nigerians together. It has been surmised that the loss of President Goodluck Jonathan in the 2015 Nigerian general elections was a price paid, in part, for his non-refusal to oppose the anti-gay bill. In 2015, President Uhuru Kenyatta, openly rejected and shut down discussions initiated by the visiting President Obama on LGBT community, saying it was a non-issue. Questions being asked now are about the correctness of rationale of America’s insistence on African countries’ compliance with its own demands in bilateral relations without the concurrence of such countries.

The countries that have returned into military rule have now found themselves in the arms of Russia, mainly because of diplomatic gaps with the US. Excluding them in diplomatic relations might do more harm to the people under the military rule than to the military rulers themselves. The rising and widening cases of insecurity in the Sahel, occasioned by the Islamic jihadists could easily have been nipped in the bud and their expansion curtailed. It was clear that the affected countries needed external support in terms of logistics, training, military hardware, surveillance and intelligence gathering and sharing. The presence of the US could easily have helped the countries to cope better. Side-lining or excluding them could easily drive them further into chaos and put them squarely in the ambits of America’s competitors. Indeed, many African countries are beginning to find justification in looking away from the Western countries, particularly the US. Such exclusions could prove more beneficial for the affected countries in the end as the alternative sources of support could treat them in ways that make them feel better. It may, however, drive them further away from the democratic ideals the US is trying to propagate as Russia and China are most unlikely to promote democracy in their bilateral relations with beneficiaries of their generosity. In turn, such beneficiaries are unlikely to apply strict measures of accountability in relation to environmental consequences of the commodity exports that define most of the relationships of most Eastern and Western countries with Africa.

According to the Atlantic Council “achieving lasting peace and prosperity remains the overarching objective for Africa, which has operated below its potential for decades and has seen high-intensity conflicts that have drained resources, undermining investment, growth, and economic integration.” The African Continental Free Trade Area (AfCFTA), which is now Africa’s common market, came into existence about two years ago. This is a veritable platform for US engagement with Africa. Under the AfCFTA, the US is not expected to dictate rules, but to seek consensus. What it has been doing with individual countries in trade matters, it can now do with the continent on a single platform, with emphasis on value chains and supply chains.  The already weakened US-Africa relations can easily be strengthened once again if the US is ready to bring all on board, not by excluding some. The Atlantic Council observed that the US, for decades, was Africa’s largest trading partner, accounting for as much as 26.5 per cent of total African trade in 1980, citing data from the African Export Import Bank (Afreximbank). That figure, according to the Atlantic Council, has fallen into the single digits, to around six per cent of total African trade, with US investment on the continent having declined sharply as well. Although Africa has great prospects in the area of energy transition, resource extraction industries will have to redefine terms of engagement within the continent. Perhaps, unlike China, the US could work with Africa to evolve greater opportunities for increased revenues for African countries in the areas of value chain development instead of fixation on export of raw, unprocessed commodities.

How Africa can make progress without strings attached should be at the core of US-Africa relations. Whether or not the recent US-Africa Leaders Summit will make any palpable impact will depend more on the US, the convener of the summit. In a world of increasing impasse between Russia and the US (via NATO) and between the US and China on trade, technology and cybersecurity, Africa needs to be insulated from proxy wars as may be the case if there is any further escalation of their diplomatic face-off. With the return of the US to Africa, the continent needs to quickly decide on adopting a new non-aligned outlook and communicate the same unequivocally to these new suitors to avoid being drawn into any strict ideological camp. Africa should stand its ground on matters of principles and reject any dictation of some terms in their bilateral relationships as major world powers with conflicting and opposing principles, policies and practices are winging their ways into the continent. The time to do that is now.

• business a.m. commits to publishing a diversity of views, opinions and comments. It, therefore, welcomes your reaction to this and any of our articles via email: comment@businessamlive.com