Tag: China

Where Will Africa’s Democratization Come From?

Posted on By Sino Uganda Research Centre

By Nnanda Kizito Sseruwagi

The title of this Op-ed should not mislead us into thinking that I suggest a possibility of African countries being undemocratic. All of them are aligned towards democratization and in some aspects, some are even more democratic than some Western nations.  Like any state, even the oldest democracies, African states are on the journey of becoming more democratic. Democracy is not an end or event where a given nation crosses a certain line and alas, they are happy-ever-after democratic. No. Democracy is a means. A process. This process will keep on for eternity because human beings who execute this system of political organization are inherently imperfect, and as such will always deal with internal contradictions to their governance. Therefore, by Africa’s democratization most likely coming from China, I imply that there is a high possibility of different African countries tending to democratize more and more through their partnership with China than with other global actors in Africa.

Democracy can be understood in its opposition to other forms of government such as autocracy/dictatorship/tyranny- systems of government in which absolute power is held by the ruler, known as an autocrat/dictator/tyrant, or where power is held by a few individuals. The Austrian-British philosopher Karl Popper in his work “The Open Society and Its Enemies”, contrasted democracy to tyranny, and established that unlike under dictatorship, democracy offers opportunities for people to control their rulers, to appoint and disappoint them without the need for a revolution.

For Karl Popper’s idea of democracy enabling people to control their leaders to function, another argument comes into play – that of development leading to democracy. It has also been articulated and criticized as the modernization theory. This theory holds that as societies become economically developed, wealthier and more educated, their political institutions become increasingly liberal democratic. Whereas critics have compromised the modernization theory by accentuating cases where industrialization failed to produce democratization, such as Japan, Germany, and the Soviet Union, and claiming that the theory was too general and overlooked societal differences, this has not fundamentally challenged the fact that economic development significantly predicts democratization. We should note that social science theories are never as accurate as scientific theories. Several arbitrary factors undermine a prediction because societies are very disparate, and are as fluid and changing as the weather. The preponderance of accuracy for a social theory is never better than about 75 percent.

My argument emerges from an observation of the flow of development finance from the West and China, with a focus on what that finance does in Africa. According to a 2018 report by the China-Africa Research Initiative at Johns Hopkins University’s School of Advanced International Studies (SAIS), in 2000, China’s annual development finance to Africa totalled US$121 million. It was distributed among a handful of countries. However, by 2013, it had crossed over US$16 billion and was comparable to those of the largest Western development finance providers. China’s development Finance portfolio also focused on infrastructure projects and industries. In Uganda, finance from the Belt and Road Initiative enabled us to construct two hydropower plants; the Isimba Hydro Power Plant which generates 183MW to the national grid and the Karuma Hydro Power Plant which will produce 600MW. This will definitely contribute to our country’s power supply, which is a fundamental ingredient for manufacturing economic development.

However, another revelation from the SAIS’s report was that as China’s development finance portfolio in Africa increased, Western countries focused more on the quality of governance in the developing world and how it relates to economic development. They became keen on corruption controls, democratic development, and respect for human rights and they made their perception of those attributes in Africa an integral part of their countries’ foreign policy agendas. They hypothesized that China’s growing economic and political footprint is undermining the West’s drive to promote good governance in Africa. This is my disagreement with them and the focus of the argument I make about modernization.

Whereas modernization is never linear, evidence stipulates that each stage of modernization changes people’s worldviews. Christian Welzel and Ronald Inglehart, German and American political scientists respectively, in their book “Modernization, Cultural Change, and Democracy: The Human Development Sequence” argue that Industrialization leads to one major process of change, bringing bureaucratization, hierarchy, and centralization of authority, secularization, and a shift from traditional to secular-rational values. Then the rise of postindustrial society introduces another set of cultural changes that move in a different direction: instead of bureaucratization and centralization, the new trend capitalizes on individual autonomy and self-expression values, which increasingly emancipates people from authority. Therefore, other factors being constant, high levels of economic development tend to make people more tolerant and trusting bringing more emphasis on self-expression and participation in decision-making. However, this process is never deterministic. Any forecasts can only be probabilistic since economic factors are not the only influence. They observe that a country’s leaders and nation-specific events could also shape what happens and disclaim their argument thus; modernization’s changes are not irreversible. Severe economic collapse can reverse them, as happened during the Great Depression in Germany, Italy, Japan, and Spain and during the 1990s in most of the Soviet successor states. Inglehart and Welzel further argue that modernization does not automatically bring democracy but with time it causes social and cultural changes that make democracy increasingly probable.

Suppose we are to predict which of the foreign actors between China and the West is likely to contribute to the democratization efforts among African nations. In that case, the biggest contributor to our development and modernization efforts is probably China. The West is mistaken and forgetful of their own development experience to assume that lecturing African leaders, sanctioning them and banning countries like Uganda from AGOA for passing anti-homosexuality laws will democratize Africa. It won’t. Supporting us to develop economically will.

The writer is a Lawyer and Research Fellow at the Development Watch Centre.

 

 

 

The World at a Stand Off

Posted on By Sino Uganda Research Centre

By Moshi Israel

Growing up, many of us watched American “Westerns,” most popularly known as cowboy movies. In these movies, there was always a scene where two men, usually the protagonist and the villain, stood facing each other at a distance, and the one who could draw their gun the quickest would emerge victorious. These moments were commonly referred to as “standoffs.”

In today’s world, where the stakes are far higher than a mere Hollywood script, we find ourselves in a geopolitical stand-off. Despite the alarm bells ringing loudly, attention remains scarce as decision-makers are too busy pointing guns at each other. Only China seems to care about cooperation and the need for normalizing relations among the world’s heavy weights.

In Europe, the war in Ukraine has failed to reach a compromise as numerous young people die aimlessly. The West is set on punishing Russia for its military operations in their neighbor’s territory while the latter is set on protecting itself from NATO’s endless military expansion to its borders. Guns have been drawn and pointed and no one is dropping theirs. The developments on the battle field in Ukraine have had a negative effect on the global economy and specifically on the economies in Europe and the United Kingdom. As I pen this down, the UK has entered a recession by reporting a second consecutive negative quarter of GDP. On the other hand, Russia which was expected to fold under the weight of unprecedented sanctions has defied expectations. However, it is paying the cost with the blood of its young on battlefields in Ukraine.

Furthermore, political tensions are raising between EU allies. Most of Europe has resorted to ‘allegedly ‘using under handed tactics to coerce Hungary into getting in line with the agenda. Turkey is another wild card whose foreign policy is drenched in mind games of confusion which I believe are a reflection of Recep Tayyip Erdogan’s character. No one knows what Turkey might do or better yet what Erdogan might do. Also, one cannot forget about the protests by Farmers and other workers in Poland, Germany, France and the Netherlands. The Polish in particular have problems with special treatment for Ukrainian refugees and cheap Ukrainian grain that is devaluing the efforts of the local farmers. There have been intermittent squabbles between Ukraine and Poland but relations remain largely stable, at least for now.

In the Middle East, the war in Gaza has become a dividing factor within the international community. Israel has used what most have deemed excessive force in response to the Hamas terror attack on October 7th. The stories and pictures from this part of the world are painful to watch. The war is being carefully managed so as not to turn into a wider war regional war. We have Israel, Palestine, Iran and its proxies in Lebanon, Iraq and Syria, the Houthis in Yemen, the United States and a few willing allies, the Arab league, and Russia all pointing guns at each other. On the other hand, China is asking everyone to calm down in the region.

Furthermore, South Africa has prominently taken Israel to the International Criminal Court (ICC) on charges of genocide, sparking a heated exchange between the two nations. As anticipated, the ICC’s response was not definitive, underscoring the complexity of these issues that often transcend legal proceedings. On a less intense note, the ICC has been commendable in its pursuit of justice, particularly in holding warlords and dictators accountable across regions such as Africa, Eastern Europe, the Middle East, and South America. It’s notable that major world powers have not ratified the court’s jurisdiction, perhaps suggesting that they consider themselves beyond its reach, reserved for ordinary individuals.

Top of Form

In Africa, everyone seems to develop sudden amnesia when its people are dying. Sudan, South Sudan, Tigray and the DRC continue to be valleys and deserts of death. Some of these conflicts are triggered by external factors and influence. The endless massacres do not serve the interests of the African continent. The continent is a constant battle ground and backyard for great power struggles. Additionally, we have the dramatic series of coups in the Sahel belt. Mali, Burkina Faso, Niger, Guinea and Gabon have had military coups. Experts say, that Tunisia, Chad and Sudan had constitutional coups. Who are we to judge, let’s leave the nuances to the experts. However, this much is clear, most of these coups are internally popular and the common theme has been kicking out neo-colonial regimes that are deemed to be serving the interests of foreigners at the expense of the citizens. France has come up several times in these accusations. No one knows where all this is headed…but the guns are pointed.

When examining the United States, we encounter a complex entity akin to the mythological Cerberus, with three distinct challenges. Firstly, there are domestic political issues, secondly, concerns arise regarding US foreign policy, and finally, there’s the matter of US relations with the world’s second-largest economy. Internally, the US grapples with significant division. The political landscape is sharply split between the left and right wings. Progressives advocate for reform, while conservatives prioritize maintaining traditional values. Yet, both sides are influenced by a neoliberal ideology at their core, with only the fringes deviating from this norm. On the left, the fringe is represented by progressive socialists, often branded as “communists” by the right. Conversely, on the right, the fringe is perceived as the “MAGA right,” which the left tends to label as “fascist racist extreme MAGA conservatives.” If tensions persist between these factions, civil unrest within the US could be imminent. However, amidst this turmoil, there exists a dominant neoliberal core that has thus far maintained stability, despite being criticized by both the extreme left and right, and often referred to as the “uni-party.”

The Uni-Party is what has kept American foreign policy consistently antithetical to world peace. This includes interventions in foreign regimes, engagement in proxy wars for dominance, financial exchanges for political allegiance in developing nations, as well as conflicts against ideologies such as Islamic extremism, communism, and fascism. Notably, domestic issues in the US frequently spill over into global affairs, with US political decisions profoundly influencing international realities. Any internal discord within the US thus inherently poses a risk to global stability.

Tensions between the US and China are rapidly becoming tensions between the collective West, G7 and BRICS+. On the economic scale, Japan entered a recession alongside the UK. Japan has lost its global economic rank to Germany. These recessions have weakened the G7 economically as compared to BRICS+ economies. Currently, BRICS+ countries have a higher GDP in terms of purchasing power parity (PPP) than the G7. And the gap keeps increasing. This means nothing but guaranteed competition that will also put the world on its toes and guns will eventually be drawn.

The pressing question at hand is the significance of these developments and where they ultimately lead. Speculation is inevitable as we navigate this complex landscape. What is clear, however, is that the world finds itself in a scenario reminiscent of a ‘Western’, where every party seems poised for a shootout. Geopolitically, we’re at a standoff, and it seems only a matter of time before tensions escalate into action.

The Writer is a Senior Research Fellow at Development Watch Centre.

SINO-UGANDA RELATIONS HAVE ENTERED A CRUCIAL STAGE

Posted on By Sino Uganda Research Centre

By Steven Akabwayi

Early Feb this year, China opened a visa center in Kampala for ordinary passport holders, aiming to reduce congestion at the main embassy. The center was launched by the Chinese Ambassador to Uganda H.E Zhang Lhizong, purposely to ease travel for Ugandan nationals traveling to China for business and other activities.

The relations between Uganda and China have been grown rapidly over the years. It should be noted that by 2023,, the trade volume between the two countries had risen by 6.6%, reaching 1.14 billions

Uganda Airlines is expected to open direct flights between Entebbe and China’s Guangzhou City which will ease trade and also strengthen people diplomacy within the two countries.

China’s direct investment in Uganda reached 131million US dollars in 2022, ranking 10th among all African countries

President Museveni has always shown optimism on Sino-Africa relations, in one of his interviews in 2022, he demystified allegations commonly peddled by Western countries that Beijing expands its influence by drawing smaller economies into a debt trap.

“Africa has been having problems for the last 600 years due to the slave trade, colonialism, neocolonialism, and none of it was from China,” he said.

China’s engagement with Uganda is rooted in a shared commitment to development and prosperity. Over the years, China has emerged as one of Uganda’s most significant partners, investing in key sectors such as infrastructure, energy, agriculture, and healthcare. These investments have played a pivotal role in driving Uganda’s economic growth, creating jobs, and improving the quality of life for millions of Ugandans.

One of the most notable examples of China’s contribution to Uganda’s development is the construction of the Kampala-Entebbe Expressway. This vital infrastructure project, funded by China Exim Bank and built by Chinese companies, has not only eased traffic congestion but also enhanced connectivity, facilitating trade and investment within the region.

Moreover, China’s support for Uganda’s agricultural sector has been instrumental in boosting food security and rural livelihoods. Through initiatives like the Uganda-China Agricultural Technology Demonstration Center, Chinese experts share their expertise in modern farming techniques, irrigation systems, and crop diversification, empowering Ugandan farmers to increase productivity and adapt to climate change.

Critics often raise concerns about China’s involvement in Africa, citing issues such as debt sustainability and environmental degradation. However, such criticisms fail to acknowledge the agency of African nations like Uganda in negotiating mutually beneficial partnerships with China. Unlike colonial powers of the past, China’s approach to engagement with Africa is based on equality, mutual respect, and non-interference in domestic affairs.

Furthermore, China’s investments in Uganda go beyond infrastructure and agriculture, extending to education, healthcare, and human resource development. Through initiatives like the China-Uganda Friendship Hospital in Naguru and scholarships for Ugandan students to study in China, bilateral cooperation in the healthcare and education sectors has strengthened people-to-people ties and fostered cultural exchange.

The significance of China-Uganda relations transcends bilateral cooperation and holds implications for regional and global dynamics. As Uganda serves as a gateway to the East African Community (EAC) and the Great Lakes region, its strategic importance cannot be overstated. China’s investments in Uganda’s infrastructure, particularly in transportation and energy, contribute to regional integration and promote economic development across East Africa.

Moreover, Uganda’s participation in China’s Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) offers opportunities for connectivity and trade along the Maritime Silk Road and the Silk Road Economic Belt. As a landlocked country, Uganda stands to benefit from enhanced infrastructure linkages and improved access to global markets, positioning it as a key player in Africa’s economic transformation.

In light of the COVID-19 pandemic, China’s support for Uganda’s healthcare system has been particularly noteworthy. From donating medical supplies and equipment to deploying medical teams, China has stood in solidarity with Uganda in the fight against the virus. This demonstration of friendship and cooperation underscores the resilience of China-Uganda relations in times of crisis.

Looking ahead, the potential for deeper cooperation between China and Uganda is immense. From harnessing renewable energy resources to promoting sustainable tourism and enhancing digital connectivity, there are numerous avenues for collaboration that can benefit both nations and contribute to shared prosperity.

In conclusion, the relationship between China and Uganda is not only critical but also holds immense potential for shaping the future of both nations and the broader African continent. Through cooperation, mutual respect, and commitment to common development goals, China and Uganda can pave the way for a brighter, more inclusive future for all.

Steven Akabwayi a Research fellow at Development Watch Centre.

 

Understanding the Belt and Road Initiative

Posted on By Sino Uganda Research Centre

By Nnanda Kizito Sseruwagi

Probably you have heard about it. Probably not. What is it? Let us first understand what it isn’t. Many initiatives from China suffer from being misunderstood, even at the highest echelons of policy experts around the world. This is due to the saturation in public media internationally by Western propaganda and culture, which has bred most of us. We are therefore predisposed to be suspicious of any agenda, idea, initiative or policy from “others” i.e. not the collective West. That’s why it’s important to begin by explaining what the Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) has been disarticulated to be.

Firstly, it isn’t about Debt Trap Diplomacy. BRI has been grossly misrepresented in the media as China’s means to propagate an empire across the globe by intentionally loaning developing countries sums of money they cannot repay. And that in default, China will turn around and attach national assets and gain strategic control of countries’ resources. Not only is this an oversimplification of the complexities involved in the financial architecture of BRI, but there is also no evidence found for a single national asset auctioned to China by any developing country that defaulted on a loan.

What is widely available is eveidence where China has written off billions of loans owed to China by African countries including forgiving interest free loans that reach maturity. For example, in 2022,  China announced debt cancellation of 23 loans for 17 African countries. Also, a study by Deborah Brautigam, the director of the China-Africa Research Initiative at Johns Hopkins University concluded that between 2000 and 2019, China restructured about $15 billion in African debt adding that to date, no evidence that China has been involoved in any asset seizures.

Secondly, some critics have expressed concerns that misunderstand the BRI as a subtle strategy that China is employing to pursue military interests. This might be more a reflection of what those critics would have done and less to do with China’s primary goal. It is in China’s interest and strategy for long-term success as a nation to maintain its founding ideals of peaceful coexistence and mutual respect for all nations. Building its military muscle would threaten a global conflict with America and it has nothing to gain from such a catastrophe, yet it has everything to gain in pursuing economic success.

Having dispelled the major misconceptions and misrepresentations of what BRI isn’t, let’s understand what it is. The Belt & Road Initiative is ironically China’s promotion of a Western-born idea and process of globalization. It is generally agreeable that globalization is synonymous with global Westernization, which might be why the West generally criticises China for BRI because it is a way of China overtaking them on their own game. The BRI is a restorartion of the ancient Silk Road Economic Belt and 21st-Century Maritime Silk Road Development Strategy.

This initiative is designed to increase global connectivity, primarily through constructing gigantic infrastructure projects. Its broader aim is to link Asia, the Middle East, Africa, and Europe via railways, highways, sea ports and other infrastructure and trade channels. By 2023, over 150 countries and about 75 percent of the global population had signed up under the initiative.

BRI’s stated objectives include; constructing a unified large market, making full use of both international and domestic markets through cultural exchange and integration, enhancing mutual understanding and trust of member nations, and creating innovative patterns of capital inflows, talent pools, and technology databases. The project also intends to fill the infrastructure gap in developing countries which promises us increased economic growth.

To become a member of BRI, countries sign a memorandum of understanding with China regarding their participation in it. The Government of China maintains a profile of all member countries and Xinhua News Agency, China’s state media house, releases a press statement whenever a memorandum of understanding related to the Belt and Road Initiative is signed with a new country.

Financing of BRI mainly comes from the Chinese government. It has injected billions of dollars into Chinese public financial institutions, such as the Chinese Development Bank (CDB), the Silk Road Fund (SRF) and the Export-Import Bank of China (EXIM). As policy banks, these enjoy low borrowing costs given that their bonds are Chinese government debt with very low interest rates.

The Central Bank of China also lends cheaply to both Chinese and foreign companies working on BRI projects. Multilateral financial institutions, such as the Asian Infrastructure and Investment Bank (AIIB) and the New Development Bank (NDB), Commercial banks, such as the Industrial and Commercial Bank of China (ICBC), China Construction Bank, and the Agricultural Bank of China also provide loans and financial services for this initiative. China has also established bilateral agreements with some member states to finance BRI projects through concessional loans (loans characterized by more generous terms than market loans e.g. below-market interest rates, long-term grace periods etc.), grants, or other financial instruments. It should be noted that BRI projects’ financing mechanisms may vary per project specification, the country involved or the type of infrastructure being developed.

Cynics have not spared critiquing the BRI. Most of its critics are policymakers from non-participant countries, especially the United States. They have called it a plan for a Chinese-centered international trade network to make it unpopular. In fact, panicking about the success of BRI, the United States, Japan, and Australia formed the Blue Dot Network (BDN) in 2019 to support infrastructure investments around the world. As though BDN wasn’t effective, in 2021, Western nations comprised under the G7 introduced another initiative called Build Back Better World (B3W). As developing countries, let us cautiously navigate how to achieve our own interests from this project finance competition among global powers.

The writer is a Lawyer and Research Fellow at the Development Watch Centre.

Four Decades and 800M People Out of Poverty: Lessons From China’s Poverty Alleviation Approach

Posted on By Sino Uganda Research Centre

George Musiime

At the dawn of African independence, Kwame Nkrumah is quoted to have said “Seek ye first the political Kingdom and all else shall be added unto you.” However, as reality has proved to us, whereas political freedom might have been a necessary condition for Africa’s economic freedom, some analysts contend that this was not necessarily a sufficient condition for economic freedom. Economic freedom takes rigorous and meticulous efforts and something has been lacking in the post independence-African effort. Evidence of this is the persistence of poverty as a major challenge faced by all African like many other states in the global south to date.

On the contrary, one nation that has been able to make massive progress in as far as stamping out poverty is concerned is China. The People’s Republic of China stands tall above all as a nation that has managed to lift out of extreme poverty nearly 800 Million Chinese over the past 40 years. To put this into context, this is the equivalent of 54% of Africa’s total population today or 20 Million people out of poverty each year over the past 40years. Even, the World Bank has credited China with a contribution of almost three quarters to total global poverty reduction, but how was China able to do this? A simple answer to this Question according to president Xi Jinping is;  Based on China’s unique national conditions and following the law of poverty reduction, China adopted a series of extraordinary policies and measures, and constructed a whole set of systems covering policy, work and institutions, which blazed a poverty reduction path forming an anti-poverty theory with Chinese characteristics.

Otherwise, what would the idea of shared prosperity mean on the global stage if it did not hold true at home? This is why China first sought shared prosperity for its own people.  Particularly, in the fight against poverty, the country is a beacon of hope for ending global poverty; one the rest of the world needs to emulate. According to President Xi, a key mission of the Communist Party of China is to eradicate poverty, improve people’s living standards, and gradually achieve common prosperity for all. In fact, if Africa and the rest of the world seek inspiration, there is no better or more credible source of inspiration than China when it comes to poverty eradication.

The Chinese poverty alleviation campaign employed a two-pronged approach focusing on stimulating economic growth through deliberately driving economic transformation and the creation of new opportunities especially for the poor members of society. Additionally, the government undertook direct initiatives with a bias towards disadvantaged areas with an underlying lack of access to opportunities but also focusing on poor and vulnerable households all across the board. This is a different approach to rolling out blanket-universal poverty alleviation programs without necessarily identifying the nature and context of people that need to be helped out of poverty. This coupled with well-developed infrastructure and developed human capital catapulted China to the attainment of the goal of eradicating poverty by the year 2020.

A key fundamental of this approach is realizing that national level poverty manifestation is always going to be the cumulative outcome of poverty at the individual level, household level, and community level all the way up to the national level. This is why president Xi, while speaking in the northern province of Hebei in 2012 declared the need for well-focused measures to help country-men facing difficulties out of poverty. This would follow from understanding the situation of every poor citizen, and every household in China, through a series of steps starting from Awareness campaigns, application reviews, door-to-door investigations, deliberate disclosures at the village level, examination of disclosures at the township level and eventual approval at the national level. This meticulous trickle-down procedure intended to weed out “fake beneficiaries” allowing all efforts to be directed at the most deserving members of society.

To accomplish this, the government assembled and deployed Poverty alleviation cadres all across the nation. Moreover, critical to the poverty alleviation effort was maintaining a database of all impoverished households keeping data such as; identification and evaluation data, causes of poverty, assistance plans, incomes and expenditures of impoverished households, policies and guarantees received, relevant agreements,  et cetera . This data not only helped with targeting interventions based on the unique situation of the poor households but also with both evaluation of effectiveness of the approaches as well as ensuring people do not slip back into poverty once they have been liberated through monitoring and hence sustaining the gains of the nation’s poverty alleviation efforts.

As countries looking to help our people out of poverty, we like China at the onset might have made significant gains on the fronts of investment in infrastructure and human capital, however, we are lacking when it comes to deeper understanding of our people, the causes of their poverty et cetera. The Makerere University, college of humanities and social sciences for example identifies, health challenges, unemployment, lack of access to productive resources such as land, credit and market information as the leading causes of persistent poverty. These causes are not universally crosscutting thus there is no one size-fits-all measure of poverty alleviation. To use the words of president Xi, the design of poverty alleviation programs should be based on the unique conditions of the intended beneficiaries.  For example, the development of labor-intensive industries to absorb skilled unemployed labor force, skilling campaigns for those poor due to a lack of the necessary skills for the available job market, providing market incentives to spur production hence creating competitive labor markets et cetera: an approach where we addressed each unique instance of poverty through its own unique intervention. Unless we develop a deeper understanding of the nature and context of the problem we seek to address, we may still struggle to attain economic freedom for our people.

George Musiime is a research fellow at the Sino-Uganda Research Centre.

 

What is the Non-Aligned Movement’s (NAM) Place in Contemporary Global Political Space?

Posted on By Sino Uganda Research Centre

By Moshi Israel

After Uganda hosting the 19th NAM and G77+ China Summits in Kampala, I felt it prudent that I focus my analytical scope on the relevance of NAM in the current political climate. It is my strong view that this movement’s relevance is needed today as much as it was during the time of its inception. Therefore NAM occupies an important place in contemporary Global political space.

The major reason NAM was formed back in 1955 was to create a corridor of peace in global politics of the time between the two camps of the Soviets and the Capitalist West. The USSR and the USA had created a belligerent atmosphere on the Global Political Stage. The two hegemons sucked other smaller countries into their political and economic orbits. Consequently, proxy conflicts and distant battle grounds became a favored way for the USSR and USA to intimidate and defeat each other.

The movement is one of the largest inter-governmental bodies with 120 member countries. Its members are mostly from Asian and African countries. This is significant because these two regions represent the highest percentage of the human population and interact easily under the auspices of the south-south cooperation.

Borrowing a quote from one of the prominent NAM proponents, the late Fidel Castro of Cuba in his Havana Declaration of 1979; NAM is to ensure ‘the national independence, sovereignty, territorial integrity and security of non-aligned countries’ in their ‘struggle against imperialism, colonialism, neo-colonialism, racism, and all forms of foreign aggression, occupation, domination, interference or hegemony as well as against great power and bloc politics.’

The declaration summarizes NAM’s purpose candidly and speaks to the aspirations that every NAM member ought to hold as they navigate the current global political climate.

The issues of interest for NAM are of paramount importance, given the current political atmosphere in the international arena. These issues of interest range from respect for international law, peaceful settlement of disputes and non-use of force, right to self- government and decolonization to international security, regional security, terrorism, UN reform, peacekeeping and peace building. These issues are the kryptonite to international peace and finding a solution to them is vital to change the course of world politics especially in our contemporary political climate.

Conflicts in both Gaza and Ukraine, tensions between the United States and China, the climate crisis and the recent Covid-19 Pandemic pause a real risk to long-term international security and peace. NAM members should feel empowered and emboldened to change the narrative and the power dynamics within the international Arena. Crises that are facing our world today are proof that the current international order is flailing and either needs reform or complete overhaul.

Most NAM member states may not be the richest or have the most influence individually but together they form a vital bloc that can steer international political discourse in a direction that serves everyone equally and respectfully.

Therefore, the Munyonyo NAM summit raised the stakes for Non-aligned countries and most especially the summit’s chair, Uganda. As a small developing land-locked nation, Uganda has exceeded expectations by proving to be a force that cannot be ignored in both international and regional political discourse.  The 19th NAM summit has presented an opportunity for Uganda to score vital political, social and economic points. With avid planning and strategic engagements with relevant stakeholders, Uganda has walked away a winner from this summit with a stellar international reputation.

The world is truly changing, and at a fast pace, globalization has shattered the cultural barriers and increased interdependence among different civilizations. The internet of things and the rapid development of new technologies has shrunk the space created by geographical barriers between countries and instead has brought everyone closer through the screens of personal computers. AI technology is evolving at an uncontrollable speed and has left governments grappling with its regulation. Meanwhile, Africa is still playing catch up with the digital and green economic revolutions.

Therefore, the timing of the 19th NAM summit in an African country could not have been more perfect. The NAM summit has highlighted Africa in general as respectable global political player. This has come at a time when the world seeks true multipolarity and seeks to discard the confines of great power politics. Africa through Uganda is sending out a clear message that the days of the ‘status quo’ are nearing the end and it is time for the so-called great powers to embrace a world of real equality where unilateral decision making on global issues will become a relic of the past.

President Museveni, who has been elected as the chair for NAM into another year has always championed pan Africanism and decolonization. Now he has a loud microphone to further this agenda and rally like-minded African leaders around these two concepts. The future for a multipolar world looks promising and African nations are increasingly playing a key role. This makes NAM more relevant in the contemporary global political space than ever before.

The Writer is a Senior Research Fellow at Development Watch Centre

 

 

 

 

 

 

Let’s not diminish Uganda’s G77 & China leadership

Posted on By Sino Uganda Research Centre

By Nnanda Kizito Sseruwagi

On 21st January 2024, Uganda assumed chairmanship of the Group of 77 (G77) and China during the official opening of the Third South Summit at Speke Resort Munyonyo. The G77 is a coalition of over 130 developing countries founded to promote shared economic interests and to amplify their negotiation voice at the United Nations. The South Summit is the supreme decision-making body of the G77. It was called the Third South Summit because it was the third time such a conference was held, the First and the Second Summits having happened in Havana, Cuba (2000) and Doha, Qatar (2005) respectively. China is named on official statements of G77 members because of its consistent support and partnership with the group since 1994.

The Non-Aligned Movement (NAM) and Third South Summits happened back-to-back, with the G77’s following NAM. However, national attention and discussion seem to have spotlighted NAM at the expense of the G77 meeting. Whereas the two are complimentary organisations, they are distinct in form and substance, which invites us to attend to both equally, focusing on what they mean to Uganda and how we can harness all the opportunities they present.

Firstly, the G77 is numerically bigger than NAM (120 countries) in membership of states. Besides that, with the end of the Cold War between the United States and the Soviet Union, NAM’s purpose was rendered strategically irrelevant due to the demise of a second power which had influenced the idea of non-alignment. Nevertheless, NAM’s goal of advancing the interests of developing countries and non-confrontation survived the end of Cold War politics.

More valid, however, remains the G77’s founding ideal of achieving an equitable international economic order. The theme of “Leaving No One Behind” under which the Third South Summit was organized sounds simplistic, and yet it holds profound meaning for what G77 members represent in a world of extremely disproportionate development between the North-South divides.

The aims articulated by President Museveni as the guiding pavements his leadership will follow for the next year are also easier to list than execute. Uganda now shoulders the unenviable task of boosting South-South cooperation in trade, investment, sustainable development, climate change, poverty eradication, and digital economy. These are big responsibilities we have toward 134 counties for a year. And it’s not Mr. Museveni to do all this work, especially since he is sufficiently overwhelmed by micromanaging Uganda.

In the realm of international relations, business is conducted through collective bargaining and lobbying. With such global leadership positions as we have now as leaders of both NAM and the G77+ China, Ugandan graduates of international relations studies should not be unemployed. We need to have already searched for our best and employed them in diplomatic positions to negotiate for what the two summits resolved as their aims on the international topography. Uganda has spent 47 million dollars on construction of the conference facility where both events were hosted at Munyonyo, besides other logistical expenses undertaken for conducting the two global events. Surely, there must be a means for us to recoup that investment. This makes the economic aims propounded in the Third South Summit more relevant for us to pursue.

And yet there are even bigger goals to contribute our efforts to as a chairing country of the G77 and China. Everyone agrees that the global financial system tailored around Bretton Woods institutions has failed to aid the transformation of developing countries. In more ways than one, they have been accomplices in our financial distress. Therefore, Uganda should be at the forefront of championing overhauling that financial architecture.

In a world that has commercialised climate change, Uganda should also lead the G77 in indicting developed countries to pay for their unfair share and historical responsibility for greenhouse gas emissions, water pollution and environmental degradation. We should further amplify the call for poverty alleviation because poverty is one of the main causes of abusing the environment in poor countries.

The global governance system has also been historically tilted to inordinately favour the West, leaving developing countries as weak appendages to the system. Uganda therefore should be key in representing the G77 by calling for reforming the structure of the United Nations Security Council.

The list of responsibilities and the enormity of the task awaiting Uganda cannot be thoroughly encapsulated in this article. It is now up to those lucky enough to have a platform for representing Uganda on the global stage in its unusual international duties to act for us all well.

The writer is a Lawyer and Research Fellow at the Development Watch Centre. 

Navigating the minefield of negative media punchlines on China-Africa relations will take forming our own opinions

Posted on By Sino Uganda Research Centre

By George Musiime

As Africans, we cannot continue to be a people that turn on our own because we have outsiders urging us on to do so. We are as human, as the next human trying to help us determine our destiny. Unfortunately, to use the words of one notable Son of Africa Dr. Kaihura Nkuba, the biggest obstacle to Africa’s progress is “the riddle of who we truly are” and to some this, all we need is to build our people’s confidence in being African and taking pride in it. Only then shall we be able to think for ourselves and to trust our choices; that we are able to make the right choices for our people and ourselves. As sociologists argue, he who controls your langauge of discourse your reality! History has it that we have already lost to the ploys of divide and conquer in the past. Moreover, albeit being able to lift the heavy boot of colonialism from our neck at independence, we were not able to totally free ourselves, as many of us remain prone to being turned into marionettes; our opinions swayed easily by manipulating a few strings by some who relentlessly attempts to influence the course of our future.

When it comes to Sino-Africa relations, it is no doubt that China presents Africa with a uniquely suitable development partner who understands the distinctive problems of the continent and its people given our shared history. Yet commentary originating from without is often times punctuated by denunciations that echo notions such as resource exploitation, developmental debt-trap diplomacy, corruption, dictatorship and neo-colonialism etcetera. What is more is that, unless we take the initiative to rationalize the spirit underpinning the conception of such opinions, we are likely to be misled and consequently pitted against arguably, Africa’s best bet when it comes to development partnerships and all that  to our own detriment.

One such opinion is the negative impact of Confucius institutes (CIs) across Africa, which critics associate with a tactful push of Chinese soft power and influence over Africa. Since the establishment of the first CI in Kenya in 2005, many more have followed with the aim providing an understanding of the Chinese culture and language to many Africans. This has in turn laid the necessary groundwork for the growing cultural interaction between the African continent and China. For example, by 2018, during the FOCAC conference in Beijing, China committed to making available 50,000 government scholarships to African students as well as 50,000 opportunities for seminars and workshops to train more professionals in a diversity of fields. All this serve to strengthen one of the key pillars of China-Africa relations, which is the people-to-people exchange. Therefore, CIs do not act as a tool for imposing Chinese culture in the old assimilation fashion as critics baselessly claim; but rather serve to build a bridge for the exchange of knowledge, culture and expertise between China and Africa.

This is in line with the Chinese diplomacy principle of bolstering people-to-people exchange between China and rest of the world focusing on relations that are not prejudiced or relations  where one-entity projects its superiority over the other. Conversely, these are relations built on mutual understanding and camaraderie.  Such should be the basis upon which Africa relations must be built especially at a time when we are looking to take a step into the future; away from the mound of bottlenecks, the continent has faced against a backdrop of unfair dealings where Africa has engaged as the lesser party. Of course, China understands this as a fundamental cornerstone to progressive diplomatic relations with Africa as emphasized in their foreign policy. The Chinese approach is from a position of awareness that not only Africa needs China but China needs Africa as well if we are both to achieve our development goals. As such, China relations with Africa are hinged on the understanding that both parties are Partners of equal significance and nothing but a win-win cooperation. Moreover, as we move towards improved diplomatic collaboration aided in part by the work of the Confucius institutes, we realize an increased potential for extending the chain of linked benefits. As diplomatic collaboration avenues are expanded, so are development partnerships both in the public private sectors for both parties. This in turn forms a sound basis for a surge in trade and investments, the one thing that Africa needs more than anything at the moment.

Therefore, to emphasize cultural and language exchange as a tool for galvanizing Chinese soft power over Africa while ignoring the role of language as a cornerstone of human interaction and communication as emphasized by a 2023 publitard article titled “The Role of Language in Global Collaboration” and a key part in the broader jigsaw puzzle that is global cooperation is to say the least intellectual dishonesty. Even more important is the emphasis on mutually beneficial China-Africa relations stressed in a document titled “China’s African Policy” which also highlights actionable steps to this end.  According to this policy paper, the five key aspects of the China-Africa relations are Sincerity, Equality, Mutual benefit, Solidarity, and common development focusing on the fundamental benefits of both the African and Chinese people.

Certainly, this is not to say that this is exactly how things are going to happen in principle but the language and cultural exchange being built under the flagship of the Confucius Institutes is a key ingredient in putting in place an integral element on the soft infrastructure such as the people-to-people exchange necessary for China-Africa relation. And it should be the work of all; governments, Independent thinkers and every forward-thinking African to debunk the punchy news headlines and social media bites aimed at painting the negative image of China-Africa Relations and the future for Africa.

George Musiime is a research fellow at the Sino-Uganda Research Centre.

Examining ideological foundations informing China & the West’s relations with Africa

Posted on By Sino Uganda Research Centre

By Nnanda Kizito Sseruwagi

As a continent that is unfortunately suffering late development, Africa is a highly engaged region of the globe with interventions in trade, politics, and culture from the different global powers. We can taxonomize the divide of global powers intervening in Africa today under two categories; the West and China (East). How Africa benefits or loses and sometimes even suffers from its relations with these players, fundamentally depends on the ideological persuasions or prejudices which inform the policy makers designing each block’s foreign policy in Africa. These foundations of ideology are age-old in some instances. Over time, they have even been watered down and bastardized into “neo-isms” that are a vulgarized form of the original ideologies. Let us examine them.

The West’s ideological system can be described as liberal democratic capitalism. It has been over time been characterized by self-righteousness and religious universalism. Western elites who propagate this ideology sincerely believe that it is not just the best system of political-economic organisation in their countries but that it is really universal and can be transplanted onto any part of the world and superimposed on any society or culture. These elites/policymakers and implementers do not consider the importance of the differences and uniqueness of any country or society from theirs. They blindly believe that their systems of governance are the best across history, time and geography. This is not to say that there is overarching evidence that liberal democracy did not protect native Americans from genocide, black Americans from slavery or blacks across the West from racism. In fact, liberal democracy did not impede colonialism and apartheid.

These Western foreign policy elites perceive their ideology and intentions as benign. Like their colonialist great-grandparents, they see themselves as good people on a civilization mission trying to save Africa from poverty and bad governance.  They are very honestly deluded that no amount of criticism even from academics and philosophers in their own countries can impact their ideological views about Africa and how to deal with it. They are therefore unable to see Africa in the eyes of Africans and think about themselves in ways Africans would perceive them. Their self-righteousness only responds to the opinions of African elites who regurgitate their internal biases about Africa. Those are the Africans they award for championing change on the continent, offer sponsorships and provide funding.

On the other hand, China’s relationship with Africa is different from the West’s because they are informed by a different ideology. But there are commonalities which I want to address first.

Both the West and China’s foreign policies in Africa are fundamentally meant to promote their interests as well. As the saying goes, there is no free lunch in the world. China’s aid to Africa, just like the West’s are partly an economic instrument to support their national firms’ exports. Both their development finance to African countries also comes with expectations of some political alignment with them. This means that both their aid and loans are not only a tool to promote trade and development, but also a means to support their foreign policies. What should be emphasized is that while interests play a major eole on how the two sides conduct their international relations, for China, there is overwhelming evidence their relations with Africa are guided by the principle of win-win cooperation with emphasis on sincerity, real results, cooperation, amity and good faith.

However, unlike the West, China stands in the shoes of other countries and tries to see things from their vantage point. That is why China faces much less friction while dealing with Africa. China has diplomatic relations with 179 United Nations member states and maintains embassies in 174 of those countries. It also has the largest diplomatic network of any country in the world. This global reach and appeal has been streamlined because of their ideological position on international relations which is based on win-win cooperation, mutual respect and equality. The Chinese government’s foreign policy is informed by the five principles of peaceful coexistence. These include; mutual respect for each other’s territorial integrity and sovereignty, mutual non-aggression, mutual non-interference in each other’s internal affairs, equality and cooperation for mutual benefit, and peaceful co-existence. These principles are a strict interpretation of the Westphalian norms of state sovereignty. China’s relations with Africa are also driven by the concept of “harmony without uniformity”, which encourages diplomatic relations between states despite ideological differences.

This difference in ideology between the two competing global powers in Africa has left a practical footprint on how we respond to each of them, i.e. we are growing more aligned with China than the West. To avoid the dangers of political conflicts on the continent with foreign intervention, it is important for the West to also make policies that anticipate the perceptions of African leaders when dealing with foreign governments. Our leaders govern small countries but they are nevertheless sovereign. So, our leaders deserve to be respected when dealing with any global power’s leader. Our countries have contradictions and challenges but we want to deal with them organically and internally without taking contemptuous lectures from self-assuming paragons of virtuous governance.

The writer is a Lawyer and Research Fellow at the Development Watch Center.  

 

Myths & Misconceptions: How the West biases our perception of China

Posted on By Sino Uganda Research Centre

By Nnanda Kizito Sseruwagi

We are interesting animals, humans. Interesting! Nobel Laurette and profound cognitive psychologist Daniel Kahneman, author of “Thinking, Fast and Slow”, has argued that our brains are predisposed to give priority to bad news. That negative perceptions stick to our psyche faster than positive perceptions. If true, nowhere has this attribute of human psychology been more manipulated and caused gross danger than in Africa. Not only has the West captured the intellect of our elite class and used it against us as a people, but it has also prejudiced our understanding, perception and relation with our more developmental partner, China.

As of 2023, China’s investment portfolio in infrastructure projects in sub-Saharan Africa totalled $155 billion over the past two decades. Whereas the West is an equally important partner for Africa, granting us diffrent aid packages into diffrent sectors including pumping money into our Non-Government Organisations where our middle-class elites find easy sustenance, regurgitate Western biases against Africa and forget about our structural-developmental needs, China comes different.

Unlike the West, China has a fresh memory of underdevelopment and knows what it takes to transform from a backward agrarian society to a modern, industrial powerhouse. It shares in Africa’s painful experience of political and economic domination by foreign countries. Therefore, where the West arrogantly lectures us on how to govern ourselves having supported our national budgets with a few dollars, China concentrates on investing immensely in more transformative projects in energy, infrastructure, communication, and others.  China’s relationship with us is more sincere because, unlike the West, they practice in Africa exactly what they practice at home. Their infrastructure spending as a share of the country’s GDP in 2021 was nearly 10 times higher than that of the United States and significantly higher than anywhere else in the world. So, we can trust their intentions in Africa when they equally spend more on our infrastructure projects. In 2022, America spent $877 billion on their military, constituting nearly 40 percent of the total military spending worldwide. However, they would conceive any other global power’s increased military spending as an act of aggression. Therefore, they do not practice what they preach and their intentions cannot be trusted.

And yet America, as the archetype of the West, still controls the global narrative of them as the good guys, and China as the bad guys. Perhaps nowhere has the West’s lies against China been more devastating than with the so-called ‘debt-trap diplomacy’ claims. One of the world’s leading experts on China-Africa relations, Professor Deborah Brautigam of Johns Hopkins University defines debt trap diplomacy as the narrative that China deliberately seeks to entrap developing countries in a web of debt to secure some kind of strategic advantage or grab our national assets.

Uganda has not been insulated from this myth. In November 2021, one of local dailies published a false story, “Uganda surrenders key assets for China’s cash” where it claimed that Entebbe International Airport and other national government assets were exposed to potential takeover by China. Elsewhere, similar allegations have been peddled by Western media. Sri Lanka has been one of the most highlighted victims of these false media stories.

Why is it easy for us to believe lies told to us about ourselves and our Chinese allies by the West? Answers might be found in “Orientalism”, a work of the great Palestinian-American academic, literary critic, political activist, and musician Edward Said. Edward articulates the practical and cultural discrimination that was applied to non-European societies and peoples in the establishment of European imperial domination. He argues that in justification of imperialism, the West claims to know more “essential and definitive knowledge” about the rest of us than we know about ourselves. They have cultural representations derived from fictional Western perceptions of us. Through the history of colonial rule and political domination, they distorted our intellectual objectivity and skewed us to be culturally sympathetic to them. To aggravate Edward Said’s observations, the British post-colonial theorist, cultural critic, and historian Robert Young questions the very concept of history and the West. In “White Mythologies: Writing History and the West”, he argues that it is difficult to write history that avoids the trap of Eurocentrism and that our history could simply be a Western myth. If unchecked, today’s prejudices against Africa and China by the West will condense into tomorrow’s history.

We therefore need to decolonize our intellects collectively as Africans. China also needs to invest more in African Think Tanks and Organisations to support the global narrative that counters Western prejudices against them. According to the World Bank, China has funded the easement of African countries’ debt burden and actively implemented the G20 Debt Service Suspension Initiative for Poorest Countries and has the highest deferral amount among G20 members. They have also not confiscated a single project in Africa because of failing to pay loans. Yet, with all these facts in their favour, Western myths and misconceptions seem to prevail.

The writer is a Lawyer and Research Fellow at the Development Watch Centre.