It is necessary to be friends with Africa - this seems to be understood by every politician who has ever looked at the list of fossils of the continent and at the demographic forecast that determines the source of labor and a gigantic consumer market. But how to seek contact with third world countries, mired in corruption, poverty and hunger, it would seem that only their former colonizers and “the fattest wallets” in the world – American, Chinese and now Arabic – know for sure.
All these clichés and clichés make it very difficult to establish ties with the continent, whose life is changing dynamically almost every decade and, it seems, the fastest in the world. Including Russia, which retained a gigantic Soviet experience, but for thirty years personnel, developments and, most importantly, a practical understanding of how to talk with African elites have completely lost their way.
Let's single out a few basic nuances, which, of course, are not typical for all countries of the continent, but reflect the general trend.
First of all, Africa is rapidly forming the subjectivity of a community of sovereign states of one continent with problems common to all and a close understanding of world development.
If earlier, behind the desire for sovereignty and non-interference in internal affairs, local rulers hid the desire for eternal rule and unlimited power, today this is already a completely mature vision of the value of a strong and independent state. In turn, it becomes a consequence of economic development, the formation of a nationally oriented bourgeoisie, a market system, the education and intellectual growth of local elites interested in the internal development of their countries.
As a result, politicians, officials, and entrepreneurs are forming a purely pro-African long-term agenda, demanding equal dialogue and respect from external partners. That is, the battle of world powers for influence on Africa no longer resembles an auction, where a piece of the continent is pulled out by the one who pours more into the budget and doubly into the pocket of an official. Investment programs and cooperation projects with African countries today are socially oriented and take into account the interests of local markets and producers. It will no longer be possible to withdraw a resource in exchange for beads.
At the same time, it should be taken into account that integration processes are strong on the continent. There are 11 regional integration groups in Africa, as well as a pan-African association - the African Union. There is still a long way to go to a “united Africa”, but the continent is moving along it with virtually no alternatives and without major scandals, and the countries are more likely to be held back by the infrastructural (and, as a result, economic) incoherence of the continent and internal political upheavals, rather than the lack of desire for closer integration.
That is why experts advise Russia not only to build bilateral relations with African powers, but also to take into account the potential for interaction both with regional associations and with the African Union as a whole. Moreover, our country did not have a colonial past, did not build a predatory policy of pumping resources out of Africa, was not burdened by the problems of racial discrimination, but, on the contrary, provided enormous assistance to partners in the struggle for independence, and also provided intellectual and industrial support. This is remembered in Africa, especially against the background of the strengthening of the policy of anti-colonialism and the demand for reformatting relations with Western states.
Therefore, Africa as a whole supports Moscow in the international arena. None of the African countries have imposed sanctions against Russia, and in the course of principled votes at the UN, for example, on “Ukrainian” resolutions, most states on the continent remain either neutral or rather support our position. They are close to Russia's basic attitudes towards multipolarity and mutually respectful relations, the defense of sovereignty, anti-colonialism and the strengthening of the role of developing countries in global institutions and in determining the rules of the new world order.
The stronger the growing need of African countries for an independent policy, the more important contacts with Russia will be for them.
But for this, partners need to be understood. What is "political" Africa today?
It is with the help of the bodies of the African Union that the countries of the continent declare their course towards maintaining sovereignty. In the process of integration, Africans want to gain independence, not lose
African Union: a step above the abyss
Less than a century has passed since 1960, when 17 countries of the continent at once declared their independence and aspiration for sovereignty. If you think about it, in this short period Africa has made a tremendous breakthrough in development. The roaring abyss of problems faced by young states could drown any undertaking and bring down any construction, and at one time it seemed that it would happen. But gradually the situation stabilized, which allowed Africans to dream of more than just maintaining power within sovereign borders.
One of the main achievements of the continent was pan-African integration. In September 1960, the Soviet Union proposed at the UN General Assembly a project for the liberation of all African territories from colonial dependence; in December of the same year, the resolution was approved. And less than three years after these historic decisions, on May 25, 1963, the new states formed the Organization of African Unity (OAU).
The headquarters was located in Addis Ababa. The place was not chosen by chance. Ethiopia is the only country in Africa that has escaped colonization. She managed to fight off the claims of Italy. In addition, Addis Ababa is the highest capital city on the continent and one of the highest in the world. The symbolic height that 32 African countries took in 1963 should now be preserved and protected from the challenges of the time, setting an example for other neighbors. And it turned out that this is not so easy to do.
Already in 1966, the first President Kwame Nkrumah, who was the leader of the anti-colonial movement and one of the main initiators of the creation of the OAU, was overthrown in Ghana. Then followed a series of coups and successive military dictators. It became clear that African countries would first have to pass a test to preserve state subjectivity.
The continent has become an arena of the Cold War, interethnic conflicts, a base for terrorists, arms and drug dealers, and a symbol of instability in world politics. This baggage still haunts African countries. However, the development of political processes continued all these years, and the local elites, inspired by the ideas of fighting colonialism, only strengthened in their desire for sovereignty of power.
Everyone had similar problems, and the Organization of African Unity proclaimed the main goal to resolve territorial conflicts, disputes and disagreements between countries. And membership in the OAU was built on the basis of sovereignty. Thus, the organization became his guarantor. The very fact of membership in the OAU club gave a certain legitimacy to the political borders of states. Their ability to maintain independence was determined, among other things, by the recognition of such independence by their neighbors.
Later, in 1991, in the wake of the popularity of economic integration in the world, primarily due to the processes in the EU, African countries proclaimed the creation of a single economic community within the OAU. 48 states have already participated in it. But the ambitious goals turned out to be somewhat premature.
The African Economic Community broke up into several regional associations (including subgroups - customs and currency zones). The cross membership of different countries in blocs - IGAD, COMESA, ECOWAS, UEMOA, EAC and others - has created a complex picture with overlapping interests. A new step was required on the road to continental unity. And AOE in July 2002 was transformed into the African Union (AU).
This time, Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi acted as the main supporter of the reforms. On his initiative, the Constitutive Act of the African Union and the plan for a new organization were adopted. At the same time, a large-scale development strategy program was approved - the New Partnership for Africa's Development, NEPAD.
There were permanent bodies for coordinating the policies of African states - the Heads of State and Government Implementation Committee (HSGIC) and its governing body of 20 AU member states.
The HSGIC consists of three states from each region of the African Union. It was also decided to hold HSGIC meetings several times a year. The new body has also become the main mediator in the interaction of African states with international organizations - the World Bank, the G8, the European Commission, the UN Economic Commission for Africa and others, including partnerships with large transnational companies.
HSGIC has identified eight development priorities for Africa: political, economic and corporate governance; Agriculture; infrastructure development; education; healthcare; science and technology; market access and tourism; environment. On all these points in the committee there is a constant discussion of general and particular decisions.
The African Union and its bodies have enormous influence in Africa, notes Evgeny Korendyasov, a leading researcher at the Institute for African Studies of the Russian Academy of Sciences, Ph.D. which African countries speak on many issues from consolidated positions.
However, it should be noted that even before the liberation of Africa from colonial dependence, various pan-African structures arose in which, since the time of the Comintern and other organizations, a process of communication between elites and leaders of African nations had been formed. Therefore, the mechanisms for coordinating positions in Africa are very diverse, notes Alexander Maslov, director of the Center for African Studies at the National Research University Higher School of Economics.
An interesting point: integration in Africa does not mean giving up part of sovereignty, but, on the contrary, strengthening it. It is motivated more by political interests than by economic ones. And it is with the help of the bodies of the African Union that the countries of the continent rigidly declare their course of maintaining sovereignty. In the process of integration, Africans want to gain independence, not lose it, Maslov stressed.
The decisions of the African Union are non-binding, which may change in the future. For example, in 2016, a single African passport project was created, it was supposed that it would replace existing national passports and it would be possible to travel around the continent without hindrance. The initiative was supported by Rwanda, Chad, and a number of other countries, moreover, the passport itself appeared, it began to be issued, but a number of borders remain closed for it - neighbors are afraid of pressure on the labor market and security risks.
The 2063 Agenda was adopted - a set of measures for a fifty-year perspective in accordance with the goals of sustainable development. The plan includes the creation of a unified financial infrastructure, a network of high-speed roads and a pan-African data transmission network, the joint development of resources and the production of an export product, the cessation of all wars, civil conflicts, the elimination of gender inequality, a strategy for the use of space technologies, cooperation in the field of cyber security and a number of other measures. .
There are also plans to compile the African Encyclopedia, an authoritative resource "on the true history of the continent and African life." That should contribute to the departure from Eurocentric and Western-centric concepts.
Pretoria would like to develop relations with China and Russia, she is also interested in projects within the framework of the BRICS, but South Africa's relations with the West are still very strong
African Challenges
So far, these goals look like a big advance for the future. There are enough contradictions and conflicts in Africa, and in some countries the formation of national state institutions continues, the struggle of elite groups for power against the backdrop of the miserable existence of a significant part of the population.
“The conflict between Ethiopia and Eritrea, the Somali problem, the conflicts of the Lake Zone, now Sudan, Eastern Congo, where, in fact, a walking field and a nightmare is happening. These rarefied zones, where there is no state administration, are entered by private actors who skim the foam from this, like from jam. Africa gets nothing but problems. And hovering over this is what has already been discussed at a million conferences: neo-colonialism five-point-zero,” says Africanist, candidate of historical sciences Alexander Zdanevich.
After the Second World War, the military and mercenaries, representatives of national armies and partisan formations went to Africa in search of work. They formed their "international" working under any flag and in non-public projects such as Francafrica - France's system of informal guardianship over its former colonies, and, to a lesser extent, Belgian and Spanish possessions. It was here that the most extensive mercenary market was formed.
The instability of state structures allows private military initiatives to expand business. Moreover, PMCs are often used for the internal struggle for power. And they are financed from the budget.
Another urgent challenge for the continent is the transparency of many borders, which allows rebels and militants to retreat and disperse in the territory of a neighboring state, thereby avoiding retaliation by government forces. This is the so-called phenomenon of conflicts spilling over into neighboring countries.
An example is the armed clashes in the areas of the Mano River, the participants of which "flowed" between Sierra Leone, Liberia, Guinea-Bissau and Côte d'Ivoire. Such phenomena are forcing the governments of countries to develop mechanisms for protecting sovereignty with the help of the structures of the African Union. Indeed, his authority includes the use of military force in the territories of independent states, if their governments ask for such assistance.
The mechanism appeared as a reaction to the rule of Idi Amin in Uganda and Jean-Bedel Bokassa in the Central African Republic in the 70s of the last century, as well as the genocide in Rwanda in 1994 and the Ethiopian war with Eritrea in the late 1990s.
The African Union troops carried out a number of operations using article 4 of the Constitutive Act - missions in Burundi, Sudan, Darfur, Somalia - but they were not very successful. Traditionally, African countries avoid interfering in each other's internal affairs. Each such operation is accompanied by a series of agreements and disputes within both the African Union and the regional groups. And it affects the stable relationship between them.
In addition to the problems of violence and military conflicts, there are other features of the continent. You can't represent Africa solely on the basis of macro-statistics, such as GDP growth, Zdanevich warns. In Africa, there are many factors that correct such values. We need to know their totality. Real GDP growth does not turn into an increase in the welfare of countries, since it is accompanied by a significant burden on the ecosystem, population growth, deterioration in living standards due to deterioration of infrastructure, and other factors.
Africa is often viewed in extreme terms, either as a promising and growing economy, or as a bottomless pit for investment and effort. Experts warn against both extremes. Africa is a long game. You can't expect quick results.
Who is in charge in Africa
A separate topic is the issue of leadership among African states. Moreover, no one particularly aspires to this role, since no leader is ready to “drag the whole of Africa behind him,” as Alexander Zdanevich put it: “Of course, there are countries with great influence. This includes Morocco, where there is a fairly strong internal government, Botswana, Tanzania, and Senegal. There are other regional leaders who can be called points of attraction, such centers of crystallization. At the same time, none of them is ready to act as a spokesman for the common interests of all of Africa.”
South Africa, which in many ways sets the tone for the African Union, is itself torn apart by contradictions. The government is forced to maneuver between various opposing political factions.
Africanist, HSE professor Irina Filatova, who lives in South Africa, notes that the Republic of South Africa has no weight in the development of a pan-African ideology. And there is no pan-African ideology as such.
“Some kind of leadership in South Africa rests solely on economic weight, but other countries also have it. In economic matters, African countries often speak for themselves,” Filatova said.
Pretoria would like to develop relations with China and Russia, she is also interested in projects within the framework of the BRICS, but South Africa's relations with Western countries are still very strong, the expert adds.
In addition, as Yevgeny Korendyasov notes, South Africa is not quite associated with Africa among African countries. There is an opinion that this is a Trojan horse for the continent. Such mistrust arose for historical reasons - because of the dominance of Europeans in South Africa and the long-term apartheid regime.
And such regional leaders as Morocco, Algeria, Egypt, Nigeria, Rwanda, where there is a fairly strong economy or stable governments with a trained army, prefer to develop regional leadership. And they are not at all in a hurry to take on the unbearable burden of guardians of the all-African welfare.
Russia and Africa
The emerging statehood of African states has the character of pulsating successes and failures, notes Alexander Zdanevich. We can see the rise and fall of state institutions over a short period of time. Therefore, the African elites have a real and constant experience of political struggle, they are well prepared for such challenges, including in the best educational institutions in the world.
African countries are led by educated people with a wide range of competencies. The growing independence of the thinking of local elites leads to the emergence of global initiatives and attempts to defend their interests in the world market.
In particular, the peace initiative to resolve the Ukrainian conflict, which was put forward by South Africa and six other African states, contains a clause on the freedom of movement of grain across the Black Sea. Africa suffers more than others from the disruption of supply chains, sanctions, global conflicts, because it feels a lack of food, clean water, and medicines.
At the same time, people in Africa believe that “death is better than the loss of sovereignty,” Yevgeny Korendyasov notes. This is the main tool for protecting national and spiritual identity, original culture.
It is not surprising that it is Russia that is associated with the idea of protecting African countries' sovereignty. In this regard, the expert points out, Vladimir Putin has earned great respect from the leaders of African countries, since he is actually the "standard bearer" of this idea for them. “They see how Russia is fighting for its sovereignty, and this undoubtedly affects both their policy and our relations with them,” the expert emphasized.
Moreover, Russia has no colonial experience. Of course, the French, the British, the Germans are pursuing a much more careful policy towards the Black Continent than thirty years ago, but still African countries are set on alternative ways of interacting with external forces. In particular, with China and Russia. First, they want to diversify their foreign policy ties. Secondly, they feel the deep goals of cooperation well, Korendyasov notes. And they understand who only needs resources from them, and who pursues other goals, for example, mutual strengthening of authority.
Russia, by virtue of the established tradition, is not aggressive in imposing its assistance to African countries and linking them with strict obligations. Usually Moscow is accused of wastefulness, but in Africa this turns into an advantage.
Experts note the peculiarities of the African perception of international interaction, among which the rejection of arrogance stands out. “Any form of arrogance or condescension, even a patronizing tone, is instantly recognized, which leads to a cooling of the relationship. Africans practically do not feel this in Russians. Because of this, we arouse their sympathy,” said Yevgeny Korendyasov.
Especially Africans do not tolerate the humiliation of human dignity. The slightest hint of this causes them a strong rejection. It is necessary to avoid the primitivization of African life in our discussions about Africa. Alexander Maslov agrees with this.
Western countries invariably impose their agenda on Africa, including invading the traditional way of life and dictating a liberal format of relations. Africans are actively defending their rights to cultural autonomy. And that is why they prefer to deal with Russia, China, Brazil and are generally interested in expanding ties with the BRICS.
By Vadim Popov
So far, Russia is better at political projects than economic ones, says Kirill Babaev, an Africanist and director of the Institute of China and Modern Asia. Lack of practical connections. “Africans need to realize their need for us. When an African really needs you, he will do a lot to comply with the agreements,” Babaev told Expert.
We need investments, technological, industrial and military cooperation. It is also necessary to have fleet support bases off the coast of Africa, merchant ships, foreign representative offices, logistics companies, and demonstrate the Russian flag everywhere. There should be more Russian schools for teaching the language, just as in Russia it is necessary to study African languages and culture. It is necessary to take into account the demand in Africa for a skilled workforce and expand educational services.
Despite close ties in the past, in Africa they do not really understand what Russia is, just as Russians do not know the realities of Africa well. This needs to be changed.
This article originally appeared in Russian at expert.ru