Connect with us

Africa

South Africa’s Economic Hegemonic Imperatives in SADC

Published

on

South Africa is the current chair of SADC, and as such its leadership is of paramount interest. South Africa is also the gateway to foreign direct investment to the developing world. The country also holds the key for the success of SADC both at economic and political level. However, since 1994 Pretoria has only intermittently, and reluctantly so, demonstrated leadership in SADC. More than 24 years later, a majority of key institutions for regional integration are largely inefficient and the prospects for human development index are painfully blur. A number of factors were earmarked to comprehend the lethargic state of regional integration and development in SADC. These include the lack of political will amongst member states to integrate for development purposes, various levels of economic development and systems.

Retrospectively, since the achievement of a democratic state, South Africa earmarked Southern Africa as its foremost foreign relations priority. This relationship with the region is a delicate one for Pretoria as it has to fulfill its roles as regional, continental and global player. South Africa assumed the region’s responsibility as to address such issues as closer collaboration and economic integration and utilised the SADC as a vehicle to steer the developmental agenda of the region. Arguably, this has benefited the region since South Africa’s spotlight on the global arena helps intensify the regions potential in many aspects. Notwithstanding the fact that this has not always brought the desired results for the region and beyond. Subsequently, South Africa has, overtime, continued to isolate itself from the region and likewise the region may have also chose to isolate South Africa in its own dealings.  South Africa acceded to the SADC Treaty on 29 August 1994 at the Heads of States Summit in Gaborone, Botswana. This accession was approved by the Senate and National Assembly in September 1994.After joining SADC South Africa was given a sector responsibility for finance, investment and health. This was a decision that was formed by South Africa’s comparative advantage in this area. It is undeniable that South Africa is the most developed and advanced economy in SADC and on the continent of Africa. This position cannot be ignored if the possibility of regional integration is prioritized on the region and the continent itself. For this reason, it is perhaps essential to earmark the owing to its economic strength South Africa also holds the capacity to make or break regional integration within the SADC and the continent. Moreover South Africa can be described as the economic hub of the region.

Consequently, South Africa is often confronted with a crisis of trying to balance its domestic, regional and global interests especially with the rise of transnational cooperation’s including membership into the BRICS group of countries. Evidently, in the process the probability of conflict of interest is inevitable. On the other hand, the success of the SADC unequivocally rely on South Africa’s will to support and develop it as envisaged. SADC established the Regional Indicative Strategic Development Plan as a thorough guide to intensify integration. According to the 15 year plan, the key milestone are to reach a Free Trade area in 2008, Customs Union in 2010, Common Market in 2015, Monetary Union in 2016 and regional currency in 2018. The Regional Indicative Strategic Developmental Plan (RISDP) remains the strongest indicator of SADC’s desire for deeper integration with an objective of achieving a level of intra-regional unrestricted flow of goods, services and investment. The RISDP cannot be implemented without the support of the biggest economy of the region. SADC needs South Africa but the fear is that the same cannot be said of South Africa needing SADC.

According to Alde and Pere, South Africa’s biggest export market is SADC. This is often overlooked when surveying South Africa’s trade figures, the reason being that a great portion of South Africa’s exports to other countries are concealed within SACU. Evidently, the relevance of the SADC market to South Africa should not be underestimated. Since 1994 the South African government has regarded the Southern African region as the foremost priority of its foreign relations. To exemplify the prominence attached to this region, the first foreign policy document adopted by its democratic government was in fact a “Framework for Co-operation in Southern Africa” endorsed by Cabinet in August 1996. In terms of this “Framework”, the vision for the Southern African region is one of the highest possible degree of economic cooperation, mutual assistance where necessary and joint planning of regional development initiative, leading to integration consistent with socio-economic, environmental and political realities.

South Africa has taken a leading role in the region to address such issues as robust cooperation and economic integration. These include the establishment of a free trade area within the region, the development of basic infrastructure, the development of human resources and the creation of the necessary capacity to drive this complicated process forward, as well as the urgent need for peace, democracy and good governance to be established throughout the region. Nevertheless, history has proven that South Africa bullies its fellow member states within the region. South Africa opts to wield its economic power when negotiating with partners in both SACU and SADC. This oversight plays itself out in how some South African government officials view their regional partners. For example in response to questions about the consequences of the negative impact that an EU/SA Free Trade Agreement would have on its SACU member states. Former Director of Regional Economic Organisations within the South African Ministry of Foreign Affairs Willem Bosman maintained that, there is a need for a shock treatment that is necessary to fellow SACU member states. Bosman further maintained that SACU members are on their own, as South Africa would no longer provide for the 50% of their budget….”now you will have to tax your own people; you also have to work according to the structures of a free independent country”. The irony of this statement is that even if the new SACU agreement replaced the old agreement in 2002, SACU largely remains an apartheid-created relic, designed to ensure that South Africa would have a captive market for its agricultural and non-international competitive manufactured products. This economic dependency of the SACU states on South Africa was “part of a strategy to ensure that South Africa’s economic hegemony in Africa. If SACU states experienced economic deterioration as a result of the EU/SA Free Trade Agreement, who will buy South Africa’s non-international competitive manufactured products? By placing integration at the global level a priority, South Africa has always risked national and regional economic destabilization.

South African’s global integration agenda

In the interest, for many, South Africa has an urgent need to further integrate its economy into the world economy. This could also be at the expense of its SADC counterparts. Nevertheless, for South Africa to attract good foreign direct investment, therefore there’s an urgent need for South Africa be seen as an environment of peace and tranquility not just in South Africa but the region. Many global players who take interest in investing in Africa perceive South Africa as the gate way.  Nonetheless unfamiliar circumstances arise from the role played by external partners in the region, especially the EU and the USA. In respect of the EU, the outcomes of the Economic Partnership Agreements negotiations will fundamentally alter the peace and nature of regional integration in Africa. Other global players refuse to be side-lined. This was illustrated by the recent introduction of the China-Africa office in South Africa in March 2008. South Africa has to assume leadership in ensuring that the Zimbabwean problems are resolved since regional peace is important for the national economy of South Africa. Nonetheless, many have questioned South African former President Thabo Mbeki’s impartiality in the process. What this means is that there has to be a balance of interest between national, regional and global integration aspirations for South Africa.

Moreover, there are ways in which South Africa has attempted to integrate its economy in the world economy at the expense of its regional counterparts. It is also noteworthy to point out that this was inevitable in light of long term planning. The EU/SA TDCA agreement stabling a free trade areas demonstrate this phenomenon. South Africa become a signatory to this trade agreement with full knowledge that it would bare devastating impact on both the members of SACU and SADC. In light of the SACU, the agreement was endorsed without consultation without consultation with the other BLNS SACU member states. This was a precise disregard of the SACU Treaty that stipulates that such agreements must be approved by all SACU members. By acting unilateral, it is clear that South Africa is trying to monopolise/maximize these economic benefits for itself at the expense of the other members.

In light of SADC, the fear of EU goods flooding the regional market has been duly noted. This is because when EU goods have entered South Africa, it becomes relatively easy to have them anywhere else within the SADC region and Africa at large.  Evidently, this has undermined the agricultural and industrial sectors. A number of SADC states launched a complained that South Africa only became serious about completing the negotiations for the SADC FTA when it had completed negotiations with the EU. However, a few South African trade officials felt that the EU/SA FTA allowed them to become more integrated into the world economy, notwithstanding the fact that the consequences could also be severe for South Africa’s own economy.

A look at the TDCA agreement will show that South Africa has divided attention, with more emphasis place on the EU and not the SADC region. This agreement follows several aspects; strengthening dialogue between the parties, supporting South Africa in its economic and social transition processes, promoting regional cooperation and the country’s economic integration in Southern Africa and in the world economy, and expanding and liberalizing trade in goods, services and capital between the parties. The amount of loss of revenue is very high since SACU and SADC states will not be able to levy duties on the EU products. “Based on respect for democratic principles, human rights and the rule of law, the Agreement establishes a regular political dialogue on subjects of common interest, both at bilateral and regional level (within the framework of the EU’s dialogue with the countries of Southern Africa and with the group of the African Caribbean and Pacific (ACP) countries. The duration of the agreement is unspecified, but provision is made for its revision every five years of the date of its entry into force in order to consider possible amendments. The agreement covers a number of areas and includes a future developments clause making it possible to widen the field of cooperation”.

Concluding remarks

South Africa’s dominance in southern Africa, most prolific in the economic sphere, remains uncontested. South Africa accounts for about 60% of SADC’s total trade and about 70% of the regions GDP. The country is also within the region, the most diversified economy and thus critical to SADC’s drive towards developmental regionalism. Nevertheless, it is also true that a relationship of interdependence binds South Africa to the region. Moreover, in varying degrees, the economies of other SADC member states also benefit from employment opportunities, skills transfer, tax revenues and global linkages as a result of the business activities of South Africa firms.

Charles Matseke studied his Masters in International Relations and Foreign Policy at the SARChI: Chair for African Diplomacy and Foreign Policy at the University of Johannesburg. He is currentlyProgram Manager for Africa-China in International Forums at the Centre for Africa-China Studies at the University of Johannesburg. His main areas of focus are developmental policy and developmental foreign policy. He has published on these areas in various platforms.

Continue Reading
Comments

Africa

Water Diplomacy: Creating Spaces for Nile Cooperation

Abraham Telar Kuc

Published

on

The Nile River is the longest river on the earth, with eleven nation states sharing it and over 487 million people or about 20% of the African population living in the basin countries and they depend partly or fully on the Nile for their daily water use, foods and other economic benefits. The river drains 10 % of the African continent or an area greater than 3,176,541 km2, and its divided to ten different sub-basins with two main feeding sources’ the White Nile and the Blue Nile, which making it one of the worlds largest and complicated international trans-boundary river basins.

It’s very clear that the long and current regional disputes over the Nile’s waters between the upstream and downstream countries specially Uganda, Ethiopia and other upstream nations who are been the forehead leading the campaign for the lifting of colonial era treaties regarding Nile waters allocutions, governance, management, economic use and other Nile related issues and they been demanding renegotiating Nile river basin for fair shares and equal benefits and which they did in 2010 by reaching and signing of (Cooperative Framework Agreement or Entebbe agreement) to replace all the European colonial agreements, meanwhile the two downstream countries Egypt and Sudan in the other sides refusing to renegotiate or sign the Entebbe treaty and insists on maintaining the colonial era treaties  or what they called “the historical rights” which gave the lion’s share of the Nile waters and the absolute veto to only two Nile countries and ignored the rights of other Nile’s nations.

Egypt and Sudan for years been using what they called “the historical rights” guaranteed by the colonial era agreements and their diplomatic influence to block international development funds and loans a policy which its aims only to prevent the upstream nations from establishing or constructing any developmental or economical projects on the Nile River, while Egypt is warring about the potential impacts which could effect its water security level as a result of any construction on the Nile river, the other Nile Basin nations said they are addressing the undergoing  social, economic and environmental changes plus the population in the region is growing rapidly which will need more access to Nile basin resources in aim to provide water, food and energy to their people.

The looming conflict in the Nile Basin region over water recourses governance, allocutions and economic use has been a major security threat to the regional and international peace and stability, the risks of militarizing the Nile water dispute among the basin countries has been a growing serious security threat to the basin region as a result of lacking of middle point agreement on how to share, mange and benefit from the longest river fairly and equally.

In past years the downstream nations had already unilaterally constructed dams, used Nile waters for irrigation, industrial and other projects and with the upstream nations complaining about those unilateral projects done by the downstream nations and the none cooperative method and approach of Egypt and Sudan and as an outcome of years of disagreement over the Nile water issues and unilaterally decisions and actions taken by the individual countries claiming the Nile River waters and only favoring their own benefits over other Nile nations. The Entebbe Agreement came in to escalate the none cooperation situation more by geo-politically shifting the control of Nile basin waters away from the downstream nations and gave the upstream countries a legal frame to construct dams, establish different projects and increase their water use for different propos.

With some countries see themselves as victims of other Nile countries who had taken an advantage of certain period of time or situation that they were in, which let some of them to see no benefit now in been cooperative with the others concerning the Nile related issues and looks only at their national interests, but still the diplomatic dialogue and inclusive negotiations between the Nile basin nations is the only way forward to build confidence, trust and cooperation for sustainable future of the Nile and mutual and shared benefits for basin members countries. A positive engagement between the Nile basin members now can be observed in some steps taken by the countries were technical dialogue and diplomatic approach has increased the sharing of technical and hydrological data between the basin members countries, capacity building workshops and inter-nations trainings and seminars for technicians, policy and decision makers, government officials, diplomats, scientists, researchers, journalists, local and global think-tank institutions, NGOs, regional and other international stakeholders had really helped in easing the interstate political tensions and putting concord foundation for more regional cooperation which will contribute to a better understanding, enhancing the diplomatic relations  and cooperation among the basin nations.

To have a sustainable Nile Basin with equal benefits, comprehensive cooperation, joint management, and effective partnership the diplomatic approach and inclusive negotiations is the only solution to overcome years of mistrust and standoff in the Nile Basin region.

Continue Reading

Africa

Russia, Africa and the SPIEF’19

Kester Kenn Klomegah

Published

on

In 2019, four African countries – Côte d’Ivoire, Lesotho Niger and Somalia – for the first time attend the St Petersburg International Economic Forum (SPIEF’19) held on June 6-8 under theme “Creating a Sustainable Development Agenda” in Saint Petersburg, Russia.

The Forum brought together a record-breaking number of participants: over 19,000 people from 145 countries, with 1,300 guests representing heads of companies. The sheer number of business community participants, variety of thematic events, and level of representation on both national and international levels underscore the status of SPIEF as a truly global economic forum.

Over the years, SPIEF has become an open platform to exchange best practices and key competences in the interest of providing sustainable development.

The main event was the plenary session, with the participation of President of the Russian Federation Vladimir Putin, President of the People’s Republic of China Xi Jinping, President of the Republic of Bulgaria Rumen Radev, Prime Minister of the Republic of Armenia Nikol Pashinyan, Prime Minister of the Slovak Republic Peter Pellegrini, and Secretary-General of the United Nations António Guterres.

During his address to the participants of the Forum, Vladimir Putin talked about the tasks the country is facing, as well as about the importance of national projects as a driver of economic growth in Russia.

The overall budget for the implementation of proposed development projects of Russia is about US$400 billion. The priorities are healthcare, education, research and development, and support for entrepreneurship. And, considerable funds will also be allocated to develop major infrastructure, transport and the energy industry.

Putin also stressed to the guests and participants for their friendly attitude to Russia, their willingness for joint work and business cooperation based on pragmatism, understanding of mutual interests and, of course, trust, frankness and clear-cut positions. That global inequality between countries and regions is the main source of instability. It is not just about the level of income or financial inequality, but fundamental differences in opportunities for people.

More than 800 million people around the world do not have basic access to drinking water, and about 11 percent of the world’s population is undernourished. A system based on ever-increasing injustice will never be stable or balanced.

As a first step, necessary to conduct a kind of demilitarisation of the key areas of the global economy and trade, that also includes utilities and energy, which help reduce the impact on the environment and climate. This concerns areas that are crucial for the life and health of millions, one might even say, billions of people on the entire planet.

Russia has embarked on implementing long-term strategic programmes, many of which are global in nature, it is important to hear each other and pool efforts for resolving common goals. Russia is ready for these challenges and changes.

During the four days of the Forum, over 1,300 speakers and moderators, including Russian and international experts, took part in discussions. They shared their knowledge, experiences and best practices with the participants of the Forum. There was special zone of the area that hosted interviews with politicians, government officials, representatives of big business.

On the sidelines, there were business dialogues between Russia and other countries, for example Russia–Africa, were very popular this year. President of the Senate of the Parliament of the Republic of Zimbabwe, Mabel Chinomona, was one of the African participants. State officials came from Botswana, Egypt, Zimbabwe, Côte d’Ivoire, Lesotho, Mauritius, Niger, Sierra Leone and Uganda.

The Russia-Africa session featured Mikhail Bogdanov, Deputy Minister of Foreign Affairs of the Russian Federation; Special Presidential Representative for the Middle East and Africa; Amani Abou-Zeid, Commissioner for Infrastructure and Energy, African Union Commission and Tatyana Valovaya, Member of the Board – Minister in Charge of Integration and Macroeconomics, Eurasian Economic Commission.

Isabel Jose dos Santos, Chairman, Unitel SA; Daniel Kablan Duncan, Vice President of the Republic of Cote d’Ivoire; Dmitry Konyaev, Deputy Chairman of the Board of Directors, URALCHEM JSC and Benedict Okey Oramah, President, Chairman of the Board of Director, The African Export Import Bank.

Sylvie Baipo-Temon, Minister of Foreign Affairs and Central Africans Abroad of the Central African Republic; Nikita Gusakov, General Director, EXIAR; Boris Ivanov

Managing Director, GPB Global Resources and Nataliya Zaiser, Chair of the Board, Africa Business Initiative UNION; Executive Secretary, Russian National Committee, World Energy Council (WEC).

The participants noted that 2019 should be a historic year in the development of Russian-African relations. The summit of heads of state in October should take place amidst record growth in Russian exports to Africa. Russia is interested in new markets and international alliances more than ever before, while Africa has solidified its position as one of the centres of global economic growth in recent years.

In this context, the countries need to rethink the approaches, mechanisms, and tools they use for cooperation in order to take their relations to the next level as their significance grows in the new conditions of world politics and economics. What steps are needed to give a new impetus to bilateral economic relations? What are the key initiatives and competencies that can create a deeper strategic partnership between Russia and African states?

These are among the key questions on the meeting agenda for the upcoming Russia-Africa Summit planned for October in Sochi under the co-chairmanship of President of the Russian Federation Vladimir Putin and President of the Arab Republic of Egypt Abdel Fattah el-Sisi, Chairperson of the African Union.

Continue Reading

Africa

Russia joins Gulf states in coaching Sudan’s military

Dr. James M. Dorsey

Published

on

Russia has emerged as Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates’ silent partner in assisting the Sudanese military’s efforts to weaken, if not defeat a months-long popular revolt that has already toppled president Omar al-Bashir.

Documents leaked to The Guardian and MHK Media, a Russian-language news website, by the London-based Dossier Centre, an investigative group funded by exiled Russian businessman Mikhail Khodorkovsky, disclosed Russia’s hitherto behind-the-scenes role in Sudan.

Laying out plans to bolster Russia’s position across Africa by building relations with rulers, striking military deals, and grooming a new generation of leaders and undercover agents, the documents included details of a campaign to smear anti-government protesters in Sudan.

The plan for the campaign appeared to have been copy-pasted from proposals to counter opposition in Russia to president Vladimir Putin with references to Russia mistakenly not having been replaced with Sudan in one document.

Russia advised the Sudanese military to use fake news and videos to portray demonstrators as anti-Islamic, pro-Israeli and pro-LGBT. The plan also suggested increasing the price of newsprint to make it harder for critics to get their message out and to discover “foreigners” at anti-government rallies.

Yevgeny Prigozhin, a St. Petersburg-based businessman and close associate of Mr. Putin, complained in a letter to Mr. Bashir before he was overthrown that the president was not following his advice.

Mr. Prigozhin, who was indicted by US special counsel Robert Mueller for operating a troll factory that ran an extensive social media campaign that favoured of Donald J. Trump’s 2016 presidential campaign, was according to the documents a key player in efforts to enhance Russian influence in Africa.

Mr. Prigozhin accused Mr. Bashir and his government of not being active enough and adopting an “extremely cautious position.”

If a visit this week to Sudan by foreign journalists at the invitation of the military to show them medical facilities that had allegedly been ransacked by protesters and demonstrate that hospitals that had been attacked by notorious paramilitary forces associated with Sudanese army were returning to normal, is anything to go by, Mr. Prigozhin’s criticism may have merit.

“It must have seemed like a good idea to somebody, although I cannot imagine why. The plan was to show us how terribly the protesters had behaved. If the world could see what they were really like they would understand that the regime had no choice but to send in the militia. Except from the moment we arrived at the first medical facility things started to go wrong,” said the BBC’s Africa editor, Fergal Keane.

To Mr. Keane, the omnipresence of paramilitaries of the Rapid Support Forces (RSF) made the paramilitary headed by General Mohamed Hamdan Dagalo aka Hemedti, believed to be a Saudi and UAE favourite because his troops fought in Yemen and his reputation for ruthlessness, look “more like an army of occupation than an internal security force.”

Widely viewed as ambitious and power hungry, General Dagalo resembles in the eyes of protesters Abdel Fattah al-Sisi, the autocratic general-turned-president who in 2013 staged a Saudi-UAE-backed military coup that toppled Egypt’s first and only democratically elected president.

Defending the UAE’s contacts with the military council, Emirati minister of state for foreign affairs Anwar Gargash said his country’s “credibility is our means to contribute to enhancing peaceful transition in a way that preserves the state and its institutions.”

Human Rights Watch this week called on the United Nations Security Council to halt the withdrawal of peacekeepers from Darfur, noting that the Rapid Support Forces “have a long track record of abuse. They carried out highly abusive counter-insurgency campaigns in Darfur, and the Southern Kordofan and Blue Nile regions over the past five years, in which they attacked villages, killed and raped civilians, and burned and looted homes.”

Witnesses outside a medical facility and a hospital that Mr. Keane visited countered the military’s tale, describing how troops stormed the buildings and looted and destroyed facilities. “”The international community has to intervene. There is no peace here in Sudan. People are suffering a lot… I am frightened for my country,” said a man as he drove by Omdurman Hospital.

The failed public relations tour, the crackdown, the Russian guidance and stalled talks between protesters and the military fits a Saudi-UAE promoted pattern that has evolved across the Middle East and North Africa since the 2011 popular Arab revolts. It’s a pattern that aims to defeat popular protest at whatever cost.

The Sudanese protest movement has emerged from the crackdown that doctors said killed at least 118 people and efforts to delegitimize it battered, divided and potentially weakened but still standing.

A general strike declared at the beginning of this week initially paralyzed the capital Khartoum but within a day or two appeared to be weakening.

Ethiopian mediator Mahmoud Dirir said on Tuesday that the protesters had agreed to end the strike while the governing Transitional Military Council (TMC), headed by officers with close ties to Saudi Arabia and the UAE, was ready to release political prisoners, one of several key demands of the protesters.

Mr. Dirir said the two sides had also agreed to “soon” resume talks to resolve the crisis even if they were nowhere near narrowing differences of returning Sudan to civilian rule. It was not clear what soon meant.

“Negotiation – even if it happens soon – will circle back to the same issue: will the military cede power to a civilian government? Nothing about the generals’ actions has indicated that this is an imminent possibility. The fear is that they will use any negotiations to try to divide the opposition while security pressure is maintained on the streets,” Mr. Keane said.

Continue Reading

Latest

Reports3 hours ago

Fossil fuel support is rising again in a threat to climate change efforts

Fossil-fuel subsidies are environmentally harmful, costly, and distortive. After a 3 years downward trend between 2013 and 2016, government support for...

Reports8 hours ago

Fast-Paced Reforms Lead to Improvements in Ease of Doing Business Across Kazakhstan

Regions of Kazakhstan have made doing business easier by improving business regulation over the past two years, says the World...

Eastern Europe10 hours ago

Armenia’s position blurred the progress for the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict and leads to an escalation

The conflict between two South Caucasus countries – Armenia and Azerbaijan over the Nagorno-Karabakh became as one of the bloodiest...

Intelligence12 hours ago

Tanker Incidents: Who Blinks First?

The recent tanker incidents in the Gulf of Oman have heightened the potential for a dangerous conflict. Now that the...

Tourism14 hours ago

Tourism: A Global Force For Growth And Development

The World Tourism Organization (UNWTO) has met in Baku, Azerbaijan, for the 110th Session of its Executive Council (16-18 June)....

Americas16 hours ago

Trump’s New Wall? Mexico’s Southern Border

For much of modern history, Mexico defined itself in opposition to the United States. In recent years, the two countries...

Hotels & Resorts18 hours ago

A Vision of Sustainable Middle Eastern Design at Four Seasons Hotel Abu Dhabi

Discover a vision of modern Middle Eastern Design at Four Seasons Hotel Abu Dhabi at Al Maryah Island. Developed in...

Trending

Copyright © 2019 Modern Diplomacy