In Summary
- Trend. In recent years, be it China, Germany, France, Japan, the United States and now Russia, the pattern has become one of a head of state of a world power inviting en masse the heads of state of African countries to a joint summit, writes Timothy Kalyegira.
Advertisement By Timothy Kalyegira
Two weeks ago, we examined the politics of Uganda’s oil industry and the stalled production process.
The central argument was that the Uganda government which towers over the public, the Opposition, the media and over civil society in domestic matters finds itself dealing with an entirely different set of players once it comes to international affairs.
This week, we broaden it to the African continent in general.
African leaders who tower over and intimidate their local populations have their power and influence put into proper perspective when they step onto the international stage.
Last week, the Russian Federation hosted a summit of more than 40 African heads of state in the Black Sea resort city of Sochi.
The summit’s goal was officially “For peace, security and development”.
It was the latest such summit following what has now become a pattern.
Thirty or 40 years ago, individual African heads of state would visit a North American, European or Asian capital and meet the head of state or government to discuss issues of bilateral interest.
In recent years, be it China, Germany, France, Japan, the United States and now Russia, the pattern has become one of a head of state of a world power inviting en masse the heads of state of African countries to a joint summit.
This suggests perhaps that despite the outward appearance of a rising Africa, the continent’s bargaining power and position on the global stage has been diminishing over the last 20 years to the point where it requires most of the OAU or African Union to meet and negotiate with a single world power.
About 500 agreements worth more than $12 billion (about Shs45 trillion) were signed on October 23 between Russia and various African countries at this, the first-ever Russia-Africa summit.
The following day, Russia wrote off $20 billion (Shs74.5 trillion) of debt owned by Africa to Russia (or more accurately, to the Soviet Union of which Russia was the central republic).
-
Papa Nehemiah Ikara, an icon and fountain of wisdom in Teso
-
Is secular music a no go for Christians?
-
What to wear for that air trip
-
Khyber Pass still got it right
Advertisement
It made sense for Russia to write off that dent. The Soviet Union ceased to exist in December 1991 and its constituent republics such as Ukraine, Lithuania and Kazakhstan have since moved on from their Soviet past.
Forgiving Africa of this debt has the effect of tying the continent into a new bi-lateral relationship with Russia.
Since the collapse of the Soviet Union, Russia spent most of the 1990s struggling just to feed its people and to not collapse. It had neither the resources nor the interest in Africa as had been the case with its Cold War predecessor the Soviet Union.
It was a decade of humiliation for Russia. In 2000, the arrival on the scene of Vladimir Putin as successor to Boris Yeltsin saw Putin determined to revive Russia and restore its place in history as a great power.
Russia over the next decade, 2000-2010, underwent a mini-version of what China underwent from 1979 to 1999:
Internal reform of agriculture, privatisation of loss-making state-owned enterprises, opening up the economy to Western investment and know-how.
With Russia revitalised and its image of pathetic struggle and starvation of the 1990s behind it, the country returned to the world stage.
Between 2006 and 2018 Russia’s trade with Africa increased by 335 per cent. It has to be pointed out, though, that most of that trade – two-thirds of Russia’s exports, for example – are with just two countries, Algeria and Egypt.
The Sochi summit was intended to expand this trade beyond Egypt and Algeria and make it truly continental.
Most of Russia’s exports to Africa are weapons and wheat, wheat being the staple grain of North Africa.
The question in all this is, why the growing interest by world powers in Africa?
Russia, in a sense, does not really need Africa. It might not have the presence in Africa enjoyed by China and the West, but that does not matter much.
After the breakup of the Soviet Union, the remaining republics re-formed into a loose alliance called the Commonwealth of Independent States (CIS).
It was the CIS as a federation of former Soviet republics that competed at the 1992 Summer Olympic Games in Barcelona under a single flag.
These former Soviet republics such as Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan, Tajikistan, Kyrgyzstan, Ukraine, Belarus and the others were to Russia in the 1990s and remain today what the Commonwealth is to Britain.
Russia had a ready sphere of influence and external market in these former Soviet republics, most of which were much more developed than most African countries.
However, the rapid growth and opening up of the global economy over the last 25 years in telecommunications, oil and gas, transportation, manufacturing and retail is starting to reach its peak.
There are few totally virgin areas of growth left in the world economy, most of them being in holdovers from the Cold War era such as Cuba, North Korea, Burma and the unstable, mineral-rich countries of Africa such as the Democratic Republic of Congo, Mali, the Central African Republic and South Sudan.
Every corner of the earth’s surface now matters in this search for areas of new growth, which is why Russia, Canada and the United States have recently even been looking into the possibility of gaining a foothold in the frozen Arctic Circle.
China and the West on the face of it have taken up the space that Russia as the Soviet Union once occupied during the Cold War.
Nevertheless, there are still some openings.
In 2012, Uganda for example bought four Sukhoi SU-30 Su-30MKK fighter-bombers from Russia, at a cost of $738 million (Shs1.7 trillion at the time), making it the first African country to buy the Su-30.
A single purchase like this of military hardware is more than enough to make up for the lack of Russian shoes, clothes and household appliances in African markets.
Also, as a legacy of the Cold War many sub-Saharan armies, police and other security forces use the Soviet-made AK-47 as their basic assault weapon.
Russia can tap into this legacy and offer upgraded AK-47s and accompanying ammunition.
The 1978-1979 Tanzania-Uganda war saw the Tanzanian army use Soviet-made 1950s T-55 tanks.
The Iraqi army, one of the world’s largest, used T-72 main battle tanks during the 1991 Persian Gulf War.
The T-72, first produced in 1971, is still an advanced infantry support vehicle by the standards of most African armies.
Russia can supply several African armies with such 1970s weaponry as its own army upgrades to the latest versions.
There is, to put it another way, an approach that works for world powers in their dealings with Africa and that is a government-to-government trading model.
Russia appears to be pursuing this model, i.e., deal only with governments through their heads of state and supply these governments with the heavy purchases such as military equipment.
Supplying an African army with equipment and a government with security systems ultimately is better than shipping containers full of cheap Chinese goods to be sold on African street corners and in small shops for low profit margins.
That is why world powers are increasingly turning to joint summits with African heads of state.
They know that in these weak African states, the only real power is in the hands of the president.
Signing treaties and trade agreements with African heads of state is more or less a guarantee that the agreements will become law, because the executive will find a way to make that happen despite the protests of parliament, the media and civil society groups.
A single joint summit with 40 African heads of state achieves more in two days than it would have taken meeting individual heads of state over a period of several years and negotiating country by country.
This approach is a replication of the treaties signed between European explorers, missionaries and colonial administrators in the 19th Century and African kings and chiefs.
As discussed two weeks ago regarding the standoff between Uganda and the three petroleum companies, most domestic African politics is marked by the incumbent government or ruling party bullying the opposition and the media.
African countries and their leaders 60 years into the independence era have failed to see the big picture of collective national interest.
And so when it comes to dealing with world powers or multinational companies, they deal and negotiate from a position of weakness.
Only a single branch of state, the executive, is party to the summits in Beijing, Tokyo, Washington or Paris.
The heads of state do not seek the input of experienced law firms, various political analysts, economic planners and civil society.
The summits are called, agreements signed, and that’s it.
Most of the last three years since the 2016 general election have been spent by both President Museveni and the opposition in politicking ahead of the 2021 general election.
The end goal of this politicking is in retaining state power for the NRM and hoping to win state power for the opposition.
The bigger and more strategic reason for which to hold state power is something only the world powers like Russia, China, Germany, Japan and the United States seem to see and pursue.
Agreements
World powers are increasingly turning to joint summits with African heads of state. They know that in these weak African states, the only real power is in the hands of the president. Signing treaties and trade agreements with African heads of state is more or less a guarantee that the agreements will become law.
Advertisement
LDU shoots suspect dead in Mpigi
Samuel Odukur, 40, had allegedly tried to resist arrest after clobbering his wife
Man accused of killing Mowzey Radio found guilty of manslaughter
Justice Jane Abodo of Entebbe High Court said she had found Godfrey Wamala alias Troy guilty of