The G8 and Africa

SINCE the beginning of this century the G8 started to cultivate a special intimate relationship with representatives of a ‘new Africa’ in response to their courting.

Not by accident, German chancellor Angela Merkel announced, as host for the summit which takes place in Heiligendamm early June, that “reform partnerships” with Africa would rank among the priorities on the agenda. That does not, however mean it will happen.Already in Kananaskis (when the events in the Middle East replaced the African priority) and in Gleneagles (after the bomb attacks in London) the originally announced focus on Africa was overshadowed by other matters and the African representatives had once again to play the second fiddle.This time, it looks like the climate change issue will push Africa out of the limelight yet again (though its people might be among the biggest victims of the effects of the unabated environmental pollution) and relegate its leaders to the backbenches.true partners? Chancellor Merkel used her speech at the World Economic Forum in Davos to declare that an emphasis during the German presidency over the G8 (and the EU) would lie on the question as to how Africa could be more strongly integrated into the global economy.Her personal representative at the G8 Bernd Pfaffenbach, confirmed Heiligendamm would seek to enhance a partnership between the G8 and African leaders.These declared intentions for the agenda by this year’s hosts should ring warning bells: Further integration into the global economy and closer partnership with African leaders as priorities of the planned interaction merits the question as to where the interests of the people of the continent remain.After all, neither globalisation (ever since the days of the slave trade) nor collaboration of African leaders with the powerful elsewhere (no matter which political or ideological orientation the systems these represented were promoting) provided meaningful lasting benefits for those majorities on the continent who struggle daily for survival.The further integration of African societies and their economies into the world market (a process, which anyhow since colonialism was much more advanced than in most other regions of the world) suggests in contrast an even more systematic exploitation of the continent’s natural resources and an intensified expansion into local markets.Under the current ‘liberalisation’ schemes promoted and regulated by the World Trade Organisation (WTO) the access of external capital to providing privatised public services and goods as well as the control over so-called intellectual property adds to the further reduction of state autonomy and local (including indigenous) capacities to act in the interest of the people.Privatisation of such calibre does not bode well for some of the core tasks of a functioning state, namely to provide basic services in the public interest (including the poor) and to protect the weakest (not that the people in Africa had ever seen or experienced much of this anyhow).NEPAD rules! Since 2001, The New Partnership for Africa’s Development (NEPAD) became the African trademark for the kind of collaboration the G8 and other OECD countries favour and support.It was in the pipeline as a blueprint since the late 1990s and emerged as a result of a fundamentally new constellation on the continent, after South Africa (since the mid-1990s) and Nigeria (since the end of the 1990s) as the two regional economic powerhouses, left behind their pariah status.While Apartheid in the one case and the military dictatorships in the other case, had limited the operational spheres of the regimes earlier on, the new governments represented politically acceptable (if not praised) success stories that democratisation works.Considered also as strategic regional “anchor countries” for the West, the two economies make up some two-thirds of the total GDP of the whole of so-called sub-Saharan Africa.They are the most attractive potential partners to the outside world (leave aside the resource-based economies, which through oil, strategically relevant minerals and other natural assets such as diamonds stimulate desire for entering deals with local culprits and oligarchies).Joined by the Senegalese autocrat Abdoulaye Wade, and with the support of Egypt and Algeria, the South African and Nigerian heads of state, Thabo Mbeki and Olusegun Obasanjo as the actual NEPAD architects, marketed most prominently the new blueprint.As a matter of fact, all three African leaders in the triumvirate since Genoa 2001 each missed only one of the six G8 summits.For many NEPAD symbolises mainly the emperor’s new clothes and boils down to a recycling of the old conditionality-story, only now under African ownership.Perceived as an imposed policy of a neo-liberal orientation, it is questioned as a technocratic approach by elites or a local version of the Washington consensus.According to this view, structural deficiencies and imbalances are not questioned.This reflects a coalition between those who benefit most from export-oriented market economies under a trade regime, which is foremost outward-oriented.This might add to the relative advantages of a small local elite but offers little to nothing for the ordinary people.They remain once again out of business and jobs and continue to live in poverty.G8 and NEPAD While some of the harsher critics border on dubious conspiracy theories, which might be unfair to at least parts of the new African political leaders’ true intentions, it is difficult to dismiss such analysis lock, stock, and barrel.Especially the lack of meaningful material support to NEPAD by the G8, which would match the almost euphoric welcoming statements ever since the African leaders knocked at their doors in Genoa, offers little comfort.After the G8 heads of state appointed in the midst of the Italian havoc individual ‘sherpas’ to team up and prepare an Africa Action Plan, its adoption a year was celebrated as a major breakthrough.The South African President returned triumphantly with the message that Kananaskis marked a decisive moment in the birth of a fairer and more balanced system of international relations.In a historical context, Kananaskis represented for him the end of the colonial and neo-colonial era.To classify this as “wishful thinking” seems a mild understatement for this kind of daring interpretation… Based on such self-proclaimed “success stories”, the African leaders used the transformation of the Organisation for African Unity (OAU) into the African Union (AU) directly after Kananaskis at their summit in Durban to integrate NEPAD as the new economic programme of the continental body.They thereby elevated it to an official status for all.Subsequently, the General Assembly of the United Nations awarded NEPAD in September 2002 the label of being the general framework for the international cooperation with Africa.This allowed Thabo Mbeki to state unchallenged that NEPAD had emerged as the de facto political-economic point of reference for Africa’s interaction with the outside world.Even the sobering results of the summit in the French Evian (2003) and in Georgia (2004) served as further legitimacy for the African NEPAD-troika (with Wade become increasingly less enthusiastic – and in the meantime openly critical).The patience was at least rewarded by the personal effort of Tony Blair, who used the UK presidency to initiate the Commission for Africa.The moral impetus, should however not mislead.As a matter of fact, the analysis of the recommendations shows that their fundamental premises rest on the assumption that it’s the Africans themselves who have to be held responsible for being so poor and need to get (with external assistance) their act together.The suggested reforms neither name (and blame) the structural inequalities as a result of the historical processes, during which mainly European colonialism and imperialism expanded into its African “backyard” with devastating and long-lasting consequences for the societies there, nor do they challenge the fundamental basis of the currently existing global sy
stem and its damaging effects to the African economies and people.But even if the Africa Commission – with all reservations – was considered a major advancement in at least temporarily promoting interest in African affairs among a wider public sphere, the subsequent summit of the G8 in St.Petersburg 2006 did not even pretend to follow this up in a serious way.For the first time since Okinawa in 2000, only three African heads of state were granted the privilege to play a supportive act, and except for being some kind of exotic-cosmetic feature the summit had absolutely nothing to offer.limits to NEPAD As the political statements mentioned in the beginning declare, things should be different at Heiligendamm.As the stock-taking exercises on the progress regarding the achievement of the Millennium Development Goals suggest, much is left to be desired when it comes to the implementation of the defined targets.African people continue to remain as the have-nots at the bottom of the world’s pyramid, even if “their” (?) leaders – in cases like the Angolan oil oligarchy or individual despots like Mugabe – bathe in abundant wealth and privileges.It is fair to conclude that so far neither NEPAD, nor its support by the G8 and others who claim to be concerned, have managed to contribute to substantive changes in this regard.It should however at the same time and despite such reservations, be acknowledged that a fair amount of collective responsibility and the willingness to intervene in the matters of member states has fundamentally changed the political agenda of the AU and its guiding principles.While this had so far not much of an impact concerning changes in the socio-economic structural impasses it does affect factors like security, political participation, transparency and accountability.While a lot remains to be desired, one should not ignore the fundamental changes, which in terms of the abandonment of the hitherto holy principle of non-intervention, was a direct result of the transformation of the OAU into the AU.The African Peer Review Mechanism (APRM) as integral (though voluntary) part of NEPAD might be more tokenism than anything else.But being on the agenda marks a new chapter in African politics.Ironically, with the new multi-polar tendencies and the BRIC countries (Brazil, Russia, India and in particular China) aggressively seeking to explore and exploit the African continent with little to no concern about “good governance” (whatever this means) by their bilateral partners, the gains for African economies as measured in terms of trade balances and GDP growth are remarkable.This does of course not mean that the African economies and the local people benefit automatically.If and how they might get a modest share out of the new scramble for African resources remains at this stage an open question.But the G8 summit in Heiligendamm will most likely bring this challenge no closer to any solution.* Dr.Henning Melber has been Director of The Namibian Economic Policy Research Unit (NEPRU) in Windhoek (1992-2000), and Research Director at The Nordic Africa Institute in Uppsala (2000-2006), where he is the Executive Director of The Dag Hammarskjoeld Foundation since then.That does not, however mean it will happen.Already in Kananaskis (when the events in the Middle East replaced the African priority) and in Gleneagles (after the bomb attacks in London) the originally announced focus on Africa was overshadowed by other matters and the African representatives had once again to play the second fiddle.This time, it looks like the climate change issue will push Africa out of the limelight yet again (though its people might be among the biggest victims of the effects of the unabated environmental pollution) and relegate its leaders to the backbenches.true partners? Chancellor Merkel used her speech at the World Economic Forum in Davos to declare that an emphasis during the German presidency over the G8 (and the EU) would lie on the question as to how Africa could be more strongly integrated into the global economy.Her personal representative at the G8 Bernd Pfaffenbach, confirmed Heiligendamm would seek to enhance a partnership between the G8 and African leaders.These declared intentions for the agenda by this year’s hosts should ring warning bells: Further integration into the global economy and closer partnership with African leaders as priorities of the planned interaction merits the question as to where the interests of the people of the continent remain. After all, neither globalisation (ever since the days of the slave trade) nor collaboration of African leaders with the powerful elsewhere (no matter which political or ideological orientation the systems these represented were promoting) provided meaningful lasting benefits for those majorities on the continent who struggle daily for survival.The further integration of African societies and their economies into the world market (a process, which anyhow since colonialism was much more advanced than in most other regions of the world) suggests in contrast an even more systematic exploitation of the continent’s natural resources and an intensified expansion into local markets.Under the current ‘liberalisation’ schemes promoted and regulated by the World Trade Organisation (WTO) the access of external capital to providing privatised public services and goods as well as the control over so-called intellectual property adds to the further reduction of state autonomy and local (including indigenous) capacities to act in the interest of the people.Privatisation of such calibre does not bode well for some of the core tasks of a functioning state, namely to provide basic services in the public interest (including the poor) and to protect the weakest (not that the people in Africa had ever seen or experienced much of this anyhow). NEPAD rules! Since 2001, The New Partnership for Africa’s Development (NEPAD) became the African trademark for the kind of collaboration the G8 and other OECD countries favour and support.It was in the pipeline as a blueprint since the late 1990s and emerged as a result of a fundamentally new constellation on the continent, after South Africa (since the mid-1990s) and Nigeria (since the end of the 1990s) as the two regional economic powerhouses, left behind their pariah status.While Apartheid in the one case and the military dictatorships in the other case, had limited the operational spheres of the regimes earlier on, the new governments represented politically acceptable (if not praised) success stories that democratisation works.Considered also as strategic regional “anchor countries” for the West, the two economies make up some two-thirds of the total GDP of the whole of so-called sub-Saharan Africa.They are the most attractive potential partners to the outside world (leave aside the resource-based economies, which through oil, strategically relevant minerals and other natural assets such as diamonds stimulate desire for entering deals with local culprits and oligarchies).Joined by the Senegalese autocrat Abdoulaye Wade, and with the support of Egypt and Algeria, the South African and Nigerian heads of state, Thabo Mbeki and Olusegun Obasanjo as the actual NEPAD architects, marketed most prominently the new blueprint.As a matter of fact, all three African leaders in the triumvirate since Genoa 2001 each missed only one of the six G8 summits.For many NEPAD symbolises mainly the emperor’s new clothes and boils down to a recycling of the old conditionality-story, only now under African ownership.Perceived as an imposed policy of a neo-liberal orientation, it is questioned as a technocratic approach by elites or a local version of the Washington consensus.According to this view, structural deficiencies and imbalances are not questioned.This reflects a coalition between those who benefit most from export-oriented market economies under a trade regime, which is foremost outward-oriented.This might add to the relative advantages of a small local elite but offers little to nothing for the ordinary people.They remain once again out of business and jobs and continue to live in povert
y. G8 and NEPAD While some of the harsher critics border on dubious conspiracy theories, which might be unfair to at least parts of the new African political leaders’ true intentions, it is difficult to dismiss such analysis lock, stock, and barrel.Especially the lack of meaningful material support to NEPAD by the G8, which would match the almost euphoric welcoming statements ever since the African leaders knocked at their doors in Genoa, offers little comfort.After the G8 heads of state appointed in the midst of the Italian havoc individual ‘sherpas’ to team up and prepare an Africa Action Plan, its adoption a year was celebrated as a major breakthrough.The South African President returned triumphantly with the message that Kananaskis marked a decisive moment in the birth of a fairer and more balanced system of international relations.In a historical context, Kananaskis represented for him the end of the colonial and neo-colonial era.To classify this as “wishful thinking” seems a mild understatement for this kind of daring interpretation… Based on such self-proclaimed “success stories”, the African leaders used the transformation of the Organisation for African Unity (OAU) into the African Union (AU) directly after Kananaskis at their summit in Durban to integrate NEPAD as the new economic programme of the continental body.They thereby elevated it to an official status for all.Subsequently, the General Assembly of the United Nations awarded NEPAD in September 2002 the label of being the general framework for the international cooperation with Africa.This allowed Thabo Mbeki to state unchallenged that NEPAD had emerged as the de facto political-economic point of reference for Africa’s interaction with the outside world.Even the sobering results of the summit in the French Evian (2003) and in Georgia (2004) served as further legitimacy for the African NEPAD-troika (with Wade become increasingly less enthusiastic – and in the meantime openly critical).The patience was at least rewarded by the personal effort of Tony Blair, who used the UK presidency to initiate the Commission for Africa.The moral impetus, should however not mislead.As a matter of fact, the analysis of the recommendations shows that their fundamental premises rest on the assumption that it’s the Africans themselves who have to be held responsible for being so poor and need to get (with external assistance) their act together.The suggested reforms neither name (and blame) the structural inequalities as a result of the historical processes, during which mainly European colonialism and imperialism expanded into its African “backyard” with devastating and long-lasting consequences for the societies there, nor do they challenge the fundamental basis of the currently existing global system and its damaging effects to the African economies and people.But even if the Africa Commission – with all reservations – was considered a major advancement in at least temporarily promoting interest in African affairs among a wider public sphere, the subsequent summit of the G8 in St.Petersburg 2006 did not even pretend to follow this up in a serious way.For the first time since Okinawa in 2000, only three African heads of state were granted the privilege to play a supportive act, and except for being some kind of exotic-cosmetic feature the summit had absolutely nothing to offer. limits to NEPAD As the political statements mentioned in the beginning declare, things should be different at Heiligendamm.As the stock-taking exercises on the progress regarding the achievement of the Millennium Development Goals suggest, much is left to be desired when it comes to the implementation of the defined targets.African people continue to remain as the have-nots at the bottom of the world’s pyramid, even if “their” (?) leaders – in cases like the Angolan oil oligarchy or individual despots like Mugabe – bathe in abundant wealth and privileges.It is fair to conclude that so far neither NEPAD, nor its support by the G8 and others who claim to be concerned, have managed to contribute to substantive changes in this regard.It should however at the same time and despite such reservations, be acknowledged that a fair amount of collective responsibility and the willingness to intervene in the matters of member states has fundamentally changed the political agenda of the AU and its guiding principles.While this had so far not much of an impact concerning changes in the socio-economic structural impasses it does affect factors like security, political participation, transparency and accountability.While a lot remains to be desired, one should not ignore the fundamental changes, which in terms of the abandonment of the hitherto holy principle of non-intervention, was a direct result of the transformation of the OAU into the AU.The African Peer Review Mechanism (APRM) as integral (though voluntary) part of NEPAD might be more tokenism than anything else.But being on the agenda marks a new chapter in African politics.Ironically, with the new multi-polar tendencies and the BRIC countries (Brazil, Russia, India and in particular China) aggressively seeking to explore and exploit the African continent with little to no concern about “good governance” (whatever this means) by their bilateral partners, the gains for African economies as measured in terms of trade balances and GDP growth are remarkable.This does of course not mean that the African economies and the local people benefit automatically.If and how they might get a modest share out of the new scramble for African resources remains at this stage an open question.But the G8 summit in Heiligendamm will most likely bring this challenge no closer to any solution.* Dr.Henning Melber has been Director of The Namibian Economic Policy Research Unit (NEPRU) in Windhoek (1992-2000), and Research Director at The Nordic Africa Institute in Uppsala (2000-2006), where he is the Executive Director of The Dag Hammarskjoeld Foundation since then.