Africa’s epidemic of leader induced democracy crisis (4)

JULY IS HERE, a month in which African leaders are expected to flock en masse again to Russia this year. This time, the meeting place is scheduled to be St. Petersburg. In addition to what could well become ritualistic, the essence of such an outlandish visit by these political heads of nations in this present circumstance raises a number of questions. Undoubtedly, sovereign countries are free to associate with other countries of their choice. However, the idea of one man holding a meeting in his own country with over 50 heads of states from Africa is a cause for concern. Apparently, and without questioning, African leaders have been routinely travelling in the same manner to China’s FOCAC meetings solely to meet the Chinese president. They have been going to Tokyo to attend TICAD. Last December, they were in Washington DC to meet President Joe Biden at the US-Africa Leaders’ Summit. Interestingly, two of the African heads of government have criticised these types of trips. Rwanda’s Paul Kagame earlier denounced them and Kenya’s William Ruto recently expressed his misgivings also about such meetings.

In Ruto’s opinion, fewer than ten leaders from Africa should henceforth represent Africa in such foreign summits. According to him, such smaller groups should henceforth be led by the African Union chairman. Perhaps part of the new strategy was put into test a fortnight ago in the “peace mission” trip made to Ukraine and Russia by a group of seven leaders of African countries, including four presidents, namely of Comoros, Senegal, South Africa and Zambia. The other three were the Prime Minister of Egypt and senior officials representing the Republic of Congo and Uganda. The mid-June meeting did not seem to have achieved any appreciable positive outcome as it did not show any sign of impact on Putin’s resolve to continue to pummel Ukraine in a war that has lasted for over 16 months.  The response of Moscow, cold as it was, was enough message, first to the visiting group of seven, and secondly to the entire African continent. If African nations could not persuade President Vladimir Putin to end the war he is unilaterally waging against Ukraine, of what use is any meeting with the wider audience of African leaders at St. Petersburg this month? 

The concern expressed by South Africa’s President Cyril Ramaphosa during the truce mission to Ukraine, that emphasised Africa’s reliance on food and fertiliser deliveries from Russia and Ukraine exposes Africa’s vulnerability, especially in food security. It also exposes the African leaders’ naivety in some subtle matters of international diplomacy. While it is true that the war has hampered food exports from this grain-rich axis of the world, it is a costly mistake for any country to continue to rely much on Ukraine and Russia for food imports in the present circumstance. If the “conflict is affecting Africa negatively,” according to President Ramaphosa, it is better to find alternative sources so as not keep Africa in a quandary. Expecting anything from Russia now could be a costly gamble as Russia is presently going through a hard time, although Putin will not admit it publicly. His preference for a continued show of strength and his attempts to avoid any appearance of personal weakness will continue to create collateral damages for both Russia and Ukraine.

On Russia’s part, the outward show of strength is at best deceptive and very destructive at its worst, for itself and for others. African leaders need to be circumspect about this year’s July meeting in St. Petersburg. It is advised that, rather than going there in droves as done and incurring much expenses from their countries’ revenues in the past, few representatives should be chosen and sent. This is especially so as the cost-benefit analysis may not justify doing otherwise. A very recent media report portrayed the crisis in Russia vividly from diplomatic perspectives. The compelling report showed how Russia is potentially losing China’s support. In the end, Putin may discover – to his chagrin – that China is not ready to go on this path with him. According to the report, which was largely based on contents gathered from China’s local social media and government officials, Russia may have turned out to be a pariah nation that has lost a lot of public goodwill, investment prospects, enterprise security and national wealth in the past year and a half. Putin’s adventure in the “military operations” that have become a heavy burden on Russia may not end soon, even though it is most unlikely to end to Russia’s advantage.

According to a report, China now perceives that Russia is unlikely to prevail against Ukraine. It was surmised that Russia will emerge from the conflict a much diminished power. Considering the weakness of the Chinese economy, the slow recovery after COVID-19 pandemic, the multifarious internal crises and the need to feed its population and provide critical infrastructure and services, China would rather first fix its own leaking roof before venturing to assist a neighbour. The Wagner military mercenaries and the recent widespread report on Yevgeny Prigozhin have made a mockery of Putin’s primacy. Whether Prigozhin’s mutiny was true or false, the very idea that an attempt was made to unseat Putin has exposed his weaknesses in many ways. The narratives about creating a multipolar world in which Russia and China seem to be in the same camp against the US seems now like a reality that may happen in the far future as China seems to be backtracking on its support for Russia because of the price it now has to pay for its alliance with Russia.

Paraphrasing from the report on China to buttress the concerns over Russia will be relevant here. Here is an example: “Chinese institutions are being weakened by the connection with Russia. The China-backed Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank said it will suspend business related to Russia and Belarus in a sign of the two countries’ deepening pariah status over the war in Ukraine. In a statement issued Thursday, the AIIB said that “in the best interests of the bank, management has decided that all activities relating to Russia and Belarus are on hold and under review.” This is in addition to an array of measures and sanctions that are currently crippling Russia’s economy. It appears like Moscow’s policy of settlement of payments in roubles could get into some troubles as China is increasingly becoming wary of Russia’s woes. The report stated further that “Chinese leaders must be concerned that China’s strategic alignment with a weakened Russia may turn out to be a net burden rather than a plus to China’s strategic interests.” Attention has now been turned to the sudden Chinese awareness of the fragility of the Russian dynamic. It is now considered that “Putin is more incompetent than they would like to see. What leads to this frustration to an extent is that China cannot do anything about it.”

Africa could become Russia’s mining destination in a relationship that could impact rather negatively on Africa. This could find credence in the operations of Wagner in some countries in which it is actively involved in minerals, particularly gold. The positive correlation of mining and upsurge of violence and war is a cause for worry as Wagner is being accused of routine involvement in illicit mining activities and smuggling of minerals. Wagner’s footprints in Chad, Mali, Central African Republic and Sudan have been raising eyebrows by concerned observers who accuse Wagner of not operating within acceptable standards of engagements. The China prop upon which Russia seems to be resting may be crumbling, since the commencement and continuation of the ill-advised Ukraine invasion. And so, African leaders need to hedge their bets very carefully in their association with Russia. It is even more ridiculous that African leaders will travel in their large numbers to attend any conference in Russia under the present circumstance. If there is any way African leaders would effectively curb Putin’s excesses and force his hands to stop the war, it is by boycotting the St. Petersburg conference and making a strong statement to condemn the Ukraine invasion.

If African leaders really reckon with the fact that there is strength in their numbers, they should use their intended refusal to attend the Russia summit as a bargaining chip and lobby other nations outside Africa to join hands with them in getting Russia to stop attacking Ukraine. Moreover, going to Russia and Ukraine to talk about the effect of war on food security in Africa portrays Africa as weak and incurably dependent on the two countries for food. African leaders should assert themselves more. They should begin to emphasise their strength rather than their weakness and should work toward turning their weaknesses to strength. It is also time to critically examine the various ideologies that foreign countries try to impose on Africa and make decisions on which of them to accept or discard. African leaders need to take the lead in creating continental identities in very many ways. Never again should they allow themselves to be led in the nose by foreign interests that are keen only on exploiting the continent for their own selfish gains.