Pete’s blog

How in your opinion have the following changes over the last two decades impacted on the content and intent of Africa’s foreign policy and foreign policy making processes:

• The end of the cold war and Globalisation of the world economy
• The hegemony of neo-liberalism, the establishment of the WTO and new architecture of global trade
• The impact of Structural Adjustment Programmes
• The rise of the ‘new’ terrorism threat, particularly in the post 9-11 era

The world has changed considerably over the last two decades, moving from the bipolar Cold War contest, to a multi-polar world dominated by the American hegemony. Technology has changed world communication, creating a globalised trade network. American has changed is policy from countering the communist threat to fighting the terrorist threat. Against this changing world, Africa has been powerless to influence events around it, and has been at the mercy of greater forces. Africa’s foreign policy and foreign policy making processes have been forced to adapt to these changes. Now at the beginning of the 21^st century, Africa might finally have the opportunities to decide its own destiny.

Twenty years ago, in the eighties, Africa was heavily indebted, war-torn and divided. The oil crises of the 70’s had forced Africa to borrow heavily in order to pay for their imports, a debt legacy that would play a major part in defining their foreign policy. The cold-war was still going strong and Africa had become an ideological battleground, with countries swapping their allegiances to the two powers in order to maximise their benefits. Dictators and military governments, supported by the foreign powers, ruled most countries, including Zaire, Uganda and Nigeria. Governments were more often changed by military coup than by democratic election. Famine was rife, most infamously in Ethiopia. And South Africa, the apartheid pariah, undermined the countries of the South with its destabilisation policies. Foreign governments viewed Africa as a source of cheap resources, and as long as the resources kept flowing, they did not worry about who was in power. Non-governmental organisations used Africa as their poster-child, sending huge amounts of often misdirected and inappropriate aid, and showing the world constant images of disease, disaster and death. Africa at this time had very little in the way of foreign policy, governments were too fragile, and countries were still newly independent. Foreign policy was dominated primarily around gaining and keeping the support of either the East or West. As the aid flowed into Africa, attracting foreign aid also became a policy priority. Foreign policy was made almost entirely by the executive government, with very little input from the civilian sectors or non-governmental organisations.

The 80s were also the decade of Thatcherism and Reaganism and the rise of neo-liberalism. As Africa’s debt grew, the IMF and World Bank took it upon themselves to ‘help’ Africa with economic reform. Loans began to become conditional and Structural Adjustment Programmes were imposed on indebted countries. The Washington Consensus was reached, that promoted free trade, privatisation and less government intervention. The only way Africa was able to gain foreign aid and loans was if they agreed to these conditions – left with the debt-burden of the oil crises, they were given little choice. Africa’s foreign policy became focused on doing what was necessary to maintain their loans and obtain foreign aid. The Bretton Woods Institutes began to take a more influential role in defining Africa’s foreign policy, directing their trade and terms of trade, interest rate policies and government expenditure.

Global trade was dominated and defined by the Group 8 countries. Africa was unable to produce competitive cotton, due to heavy subsidisation by the Americans of their own industry. Kenya was unable to advance from a coffee bean grower to a roasted coffee producer, due to barriers of trade imposed by the West, whereby raw resources have few tariffs, yet processes products attract large duties. Being the dominant trading countries, the G8 was able to do this because they were the primary drivers of the General Agreement on Trade and Tariffs (GATT).

The fall of the Berlin Wall in 1991 changed everything. Suddenly power shifted from a two superpower world to a single superpower world. No longer was it the communist East versus the capitalist West, but the rich North versus the poor South. Seemingly overnight, the world became more multilateral. Capitalism had won the ideological battle, and so economic development became the new world standard. The focus of the 90s was on attracting foreign investment and creating economic growth. Large trade agreements like NAFTA were formed, and the new European Economic Community grew. At the same time the rise of the Internet and global telecommunications made trade and capital movements far quicker and far more globalised. But this globalisation was not all good, Thomas Friedman’s “electronic herd” began roam the global markets, speculating in currencies and leaving entire economies at their mercy[1]. Russia emerged from communism to fall into economic ruin, through a corrupt and poorly executed privatisation and liberalisation programme.

This new economic world order appeared to pass Africa by at the beginning of the 90s. Africa’s changes at that time were mostly political. No longer able to count on support from the West or East, regimes began to fall apart. Most significantly, South Africa was no longer able to hide itself as an anti-communist country, and began to dissolve the apartheid structures. Africa began to realise that it was on its own politically from now on. Economically, very little changed. Given the history of instability and underdevelopment, and its negative image in the West, Africa attracted very little of the foreign investment. Neo-liberal economics were still being dictated by the World Bank and IMF, with the new voice of the supporters of globalisation being added. Aid began to dry up as it was channelled to Russia and Eastern Europe, increasing competition for it. Africa’s foreign policy was now firmly set on attracting aid and keeping the International Financial Institutions (IFIs) happy.

But the beginning of the 90s was also when the world began to recognise that there were major problems. The World Summit in Rio in 1992 was the first time the countries of the world had sat together to discuss the problems of the environment and social development. Discontent with neo-liberalism and globalisation began to grow. The lack of progress and development in Africa was highlighted and its unsustainable debt burden questioned. People began to speak out against the IMF and World Bank, most famously Joseph Stiglitz[2], the former chief economist and senior vice president of the World Bank. All of this led at the end of the nineties to a debt-relief programme for heavily indebted countries and a rethink of IMF and World Bank policies. Social development began to be seen as equally important as economic development, leading to the Millennium Development Goals of the United Nations[3]. Economic development has changed into sustainable development. This new focus has started to change the way Africa interacts with aid organisations, non-governmental organisations and the IFIs. A large amount of policy is still dictated to Africa, especially for the heavily indebted countries, as the debt-relief comes with conditions. Some countries foreign policy has become centred around gaining much needed debt-relief. With the drying up of aid and the more stringent conditions attached to the aid, more and more countries are being forced to turn to other sources of foreign exchanges, and in the process are developing more detailed foreign policies.

But the most significant contribution to the change in Africa’s foreign policy comes from South Africa. With the fall of apartheid, the Southern African Development Community no longer had to follow its initial purpose of countering South Africa’s hegemony, and instead could act as a regional community. The Organisation of African Unity (OAU) no longer had to spend most of its time on the issue of South Africa and could now spend time on Africa’s problems as a whole. The OAU eventually evolved into the African Union (AU), and with the formation of the first parliament this year, the AU is becoming the voice of Africa. From Thabo Mbeki has come the dream of an African Renaissance and the New Partnership for Africa’s Development (NEPAD). Africa is beginning to take control over its own development, setting its own targets and goals and taking responsibility for itself. Rather than the traditional system of taking aid and loans, and then being told how to run the country, NEPAD says that if we are able to run our country well, will you promise to give us investment? Africa is starting to set its own foreign policy, with its own intentions and content.

South Africa’s policy has also changed from one of isolation and destabilisation, to one of development and multilateralism. This has allowed Mocambique and Angola to finally emerge from civil wars, provoked in a large part by South Africa. South Africa has also begun investing heavily into Africa – Standard Bank is now represented in 16 African countries, MTN has been very successful in Nigeria and other large companies are following the trend. As the economic and political interdependence between African countries grows, their foreign policies now include relationships with other African countries, rather than the historic narrow focus on relations with the East or West.

South Africa has played a major role as a diplomat and salesman for Africa. Being the most developed of African countries, and given its strong relationships with diverse countries around the world, it is uniquely suited to the role. Mbeki has a “vision of South-South cooperation[4]” and has formed strong relations with Brazil, India and China, amongst others. This South-South cooperation has led to the downfall of the G8 domination of the World Trade Organisation. At the recent Cancun round, developing countries successful forced a break-down in talks and as a result may obtain significant concessions in reducing American and European farm subsidies. These developments may eventually allow Africa fair access to world trade, and a shift from a resource dependent export market to a more mature manufacturing sector.

September 11 and the new “War on Terror” has suppressed this global multilateralism and has focused attention on America’s hegemony. Focus has once again shifted away from social development to a fight against an invisible enemy. Foreign policy for several countries now focuses on assisting America in the “War on Terror”, as large benefits can flow from America to these countries. West Africa, and Nigeria in particular, has gained much favour as a strategic oil supply to America. The danger to Africa is that it may once again be marginalised, with most of America’s resources being focused on countries mainly in the Middle East.

Africa has been too small and insignificant to have much influence on world events and has been at the mercy of the changing world. Its foreign policy has mostly been focused on appeasing foreign powers or those providing the money, and has been heavily influenced by these foreigners. With the rise of the African Union and greater cooperation within Africa, Africa is starting to determine its own foreign policy. With the world’s shifting attention and shifting ideas, Africa has learnt that if it is going to have any chance at real development, it needs to take control of its own destiny. Africa’s foreign policy is starting to include inter-African relations and is presenting a more united front to the world.

 [1] Friedman, T. The Lexus and the Olive Tree, Harper Collins, London, 2000, p 112

 [2] Stiglitz, J. Globalization and Its Discontents, Allen Lane The Penguin Press, London, 2002

 [3] Resolution adopted by the General Assembly, 55/2 United Nations Millennium Declaration, United Nations, New York, 2000

 [4] Mbeki, T. Address at the opening of the 13th summit conference of the Non-Aligned Movement, Kuala Lumpur, 24 February 2003