Monthly Archives: September 2016

Africa, Government, Politics

The fragility of political reform in Africa…

AFRICA

Intro: African countries need to diversify away from their dependence on exporting commodities, which in turn would mean reforming and liberalising markets and bolstering independent institutions

SINCE the end of the cold war multiparty democracy has spread far and wide across the African continent, often with a moving and impressive intensity. Some have referred to it as Africa’s second liberation. Following freedom from European colonisers came freedom from African despots. 1994 is etched into history when many South Africans queued for hours to bury apartheid and the election of Nelson Mandela as president in their country’s first all-race vote.

The start of the liberation saw many of Africa’s Big Men swept away. Ethiopia’s despot Mengistu Haile Mariam fled in 1991; Mobutu Sese Seko of Zaire (now the Democratic Republic of Congo) decamped in 1997; and, a year later Sani Abacha of Nigeria died in suspicious circumstances. In parts of Africa autocrats are still in power and wars still rage. But most leaders now seek at least a veneer of respectability, elections have become more frequent and economies have opened up.

Yet, African democracy has stalled – or even possibly gone into reverse. Often, the continent has become an illiberal sort of pseudo-democracy in which the incumbent lavishly attacks the opposition, exploits the power of the state to stack the electoral contest in his favour and by removing any constraints on his power. That bodes ill for a continent where institutions are still fragile, corruption rife and economies weakened by the fall of commodity prices. One of the previous fastest-growing economies of the world has now become one of the slowest. For Africa to fulfil its promise, the young, dynamic continent must rediscover its zeal for democracy.

Zambia is the latest worrying example. It was one of the first African countries to undergo a democratic transition, when Kenneth Kaunda stepped down after losing an election in 1991. Just last month Edgar Lungu was re-elected president with a paper-thin majority in a campaign that was marred by the harassment of the opposition, the forced closure of the country’s leading independent newspaper, and accusations of vote-rigging and street protests.

Central parts of Africa appear most troubling. Incumbent leaders are changing or sidestepping constitutional term limits to extend their time in office, which often provokes unrest. Kenya, where political tension is rising, is facing concerns over threats of violence in next year’s general election. Freedom House, an American think-tank, reckons that in 1973 some 30% of sub-Saharan countries were ‘free’ or ‘partly free’. In its most recent report that share now stands at 50%. Whilst a big improvement it is down from the 71% which was reported in 2008. Countries that are ‘not free’ still outnumber those that are. A big chunk in the middle is made up of flawed and fragile states that are only ‘partly free’.

The people of Africa deserve much better. For democracy to work, the elected must not be greedy with those losing seats or failing to win accepting defeat. There must also be trusted institutions that invariably act as arbiters and stabilisers for democracy to flourish. In many places, some or all of these basic elements are missing.

Expanding and strengthening Africa’s middle class is the best way for democracy to thrive. Increasingly interconnected to the world, Africans know better than anyone the shortcomings of their leaders. Consider South Africa. Despite its model constitution, vibrant press and diverse economy, it has been tarnished under its president, Jacob Zuma. Whilst he has hollowed out institutions, some of which were tasked with fighting corruption, moves which were an attempt to strengthen his own position, South Africa has also demonstrated the power of its voters. In recent municipal elections, the powerful African National Congress lost control of many major cities. For the first time, a plausible alternative political party of power has emerged in the liberal, business-friendly Democratic Alliance.

Societies and economies which are free reinforce each other. African countries need to diversify away from their dependence on exporting commodities, which in turn would mean reforming and liberalising markets and bolstering independent institutions. The rest of the world can help by expanding access to rich-world markets for African goods, particularly in agriculture.

Other than promoting a middle class, diversification mitigates the ill-effects of a winner-takes-all politics. When a country’s wealth is concentrated in natural resources, controlling the state gives its leader access to the cash needed to maintain power. The problem is aggravated by the complex, multi-ethnic form of many African states, whose national borders may have been created by colonial whim. Voting patterns often follow tribal customs rather than class or ideology, which tends to lock in the advantage of one or other group. Political defeat at an election can mean being cut out of the spoils indefinitely. Dealing with variegated polities require structural changes in society such as decentralisation (as in Kenya), federalism (as in Nigeria) and requirements for parties or leaders to demonstrate a degree of cross-country or cross-ethnic support.

For those democracies which are fragile, the two-term rule for heads of government is invaluable, as it forces change. Nelson Mandela set the example by stepping down after just one term. The two-term rule should be enshrined as a norm by Africa’s regional bodies, just as the African Union forbids coups.

It’s also worth considering what else the outside world can do other than providing African countries with access to markets. China, for instance, has become Africa’s biggest trading partner, supplying aid and investment with few or no strings attached in terms of the rule of law and human rights. Even China, however, now that its own economy has markedly slowed, will not be in the business of propping up financially destitute African autocrats.

This means that Western influence, although diminished, remains considerable – for historical reasons, and because many African countries still look to the West for aid, investment and sympathy from international lending bodies. With the commodity boom at an end, a growing number of countries are facing a balance-of-payments crisis. Any fresh liquidity, particularly in the form of loans, should be conditional on strengthening independent institutions.

Yet, the West has flagged in its efforts to promote open and accountable democracy, especially in places such as those around the Horn of Africa (see appendage) and the Sahel, where the priority is to defeat jihadists. That is myopic. Decades of counter-terrorism teaches that the best bulwarks against extremism are states that are prosperous and just. That is most likely to come about when rulers serve at the will of their people.

Appendage:

hornafrica

Map depicting countries that make up the Horn of Africa.

 

 

Standard
Britain, Foreign Affairs, Islamic State, Libya, United Nations

MPs blame Cameron for the rise of Islamic State

LIBYA

Intro: British chaotic intervention in Libya left a vacuum that has let jihadis thrive

Members of Parliament on the Commons Foreign Affairs Committee have warned that the ‘ill-conceived’ military intervention in Libya by David Cameron has helped to fuel the growth of Islamic State and left the world a more dangerous place.

In a devastating verdict, MPs have savaged the former prime minister’s judgement in rushing to war in 2011, saying the intervention was based on ‘erroneous assumptions’.

The cross-party committee accuses Mr Cameron of ignoring military chiefs and a lack of reliable intelligence to pursue an “opportunistic policy of regime change” in Libya.

And it says he gave little thought to how Libya would fare following the removal of dictator Colonel Gaddafi setting the scene for the country’s descent into anarchy and chaos.

The committee says that Mr Cameron’s Libyan adventure ‘was not informed by accurate intelligence’, with ministers underestimating the threat that the country could become an Islamist stronghold.

It concludes: ‘By the summer of 2011, the limited intervention to protect civilians had drifted into an opportunistic policy of regime change. That policy was not underpinned by a strategy to support and shape post-Gaddafi Libya.

‘The result was political and economic collapse, inter-militia and inter-tribal warfare, humanitarian and migrant crises, widespread human rights violations, the spread of Gaddafi regime weapons across the region and the growth of Islamic State in North Africa. Through his decision making in the National Security Council, former prime minister David Cameron was ultimately responsible for the failure to develop a coherent Libya strategy.’

The report, dated September 14, 2016, says Mr Cameron’s failings in Libya means Britain now has a “particular responsibility” to assist the war-ravaged country and help deal with the flood of migrants heading from its shores to Europe.

But it says ministers should not deploy troops to the country until it becomes more stable, warning they would become “an accessible Western Target” for IS and other militants. The committee’s chairman, Conservative MP Crispin Blunt, said: ‘The UK’s actions in Libya were part of an ill-conceived intervention, the results of which are still playing out today.’

An international coalition led by Britain and France launched airstrikes against Gaddafi’s forces in March 2011 after the regime threatened to attack the rebel-held city of Benghazi.

Mr Cameron claimed the intervention was necessary to prevent a massacre of civilians, but the new parliamentary report says that, despite appalling human rights abuses over 40 years, Gaddafi had no record of large-scale attacks on Libyan civilians.

It says that the Government ‘selectively took elements of Gaddafi’s rhetoric at face value’ without assessing the real threat.

MPs find that ministers and officials should have realised that the rebels included a “significant Islamist element”. They add: “The possibility that militant extremist groups would attempt to benefit from the rebellion would not have been the preserve of hindsight.”

The report also criticises Mr Cameron for ordering military action despite the reservations of the then Chief of the Defence Staff Lord Richards and MPs are scathing about the lack of post-war planning for the country.

The report cites unpublished research by the House of Commons Library showing Britain spent £320million bombing Libya, but just £25million on reconstruction.

Mr Cameron did not give evidence to the inquiry, saying he was too busy. A Foreign Office spokesman said the decision to intervene in Libya was an international one, called for by the Arab League and authorised by the UN.

18 September, 2016:

When David Cameron’s legacy as prime minister is written into the history books, his decision for Britain to join France in the 2011 military intervention against Libyan dictator Colonel Muammar Gaddafi is not likely to count in his favour. Insisting he had learnt the lessons and the litany of failures of the Iraq war, Mr Cameron was keen to emphasise that, so far as Libya was concerned, Britain had the full backing of a UN Security Council resolution, and that military intervention was vital if Gaddafi was to be prevented from massacring thousands of anti-government protesters in Benghazi.

But as the damning report by the Foreign Affairs Select Committee on Libya makes clear, Mr Cameron’s attempt to develop a new paradigm for military intervention in rogue states was as flawed as Tony Blair’s arguments for invading Iraq. The report concludes that the decision to intervene was not based on accurate intelligence, the threat to civilians in Benghazi was overstated and the government failed to grasp that among the rebel factions were a significant number of Islamist radical fighters.

As Mr Cameron has already announced his decision to stand down from the House of Commons, he has avoided of being in the position of defending his government’s record in Libya (and also of explaining the role Mr Blair played in encouraging him to act).

Theresa May is yet to make clear her views on how she intends Britain will respond to future global challenges. But with conflicts in places such as Syria continuing to dominate the headlines, it is vital that, if Britain does need to respond militarily, it does not end up repeating the same mistakes Mr Blair and Mr Cameron made.

Standard
Foreign Affairs, Japan, North Korea, South Korea, United Nations, United States

Restraining Pyongyang has become problematic

NORTH KOREA

North Korea’s fifth nuclear test: The seismic activity amounted to a total of 5.3 on the Richter scale.

North Korea’s fifth nuclear test: The seismic activity amounted to a total of 5.3 on the Richter scale.

Intro: North Korea’s increasingly forceful stance is making the international community extremely nervous

Some said it was just a matter of time until North Korea carried out another nuclear test. Kim Jong Un, who inherited power from his father in 2011, has accelerated the pace of nuclear bomb testing and the firing of ballistic missiles. Pyongyang would not have been pleased earlier this year with the imposition of new sanctions and would have been agitated with stern talks last week at the ASEAN summit. On September 9th, a national holiday that celebrates the founding of North Korea’s communist regime by Mr Kim’s grandfather, the country announced it had carried out its fifth test.

Troubling. Not least because of the force of the test. The explosion appeared to be at least 10 kilotons, and perhaps as many as 30, making it by far the most powerful device North Korea has yet tested. It triggered an earthquake with a magnitude of 5.3, alerting South Korea of the event before its troublesome neighbour confirmed it.

North Korea’s increasingly forceful stance is making the international community extremely nervous. Intelligence suggests the country has a stockpile of some 20 devices to which one is being added every six weeks. The earlier underground detonation carried out in January almost certainly was not the hydrogen bomb that North Korea had claimed, but that was followed by a series of missile tests. The claim in Pyongyang that it can now send a missile to America may be bluster, but it could almost certainly strike targets in both South Korea and Japan.

Of more concern is the question of whether North Korea can miniaturise a nuclear warhead that could be attached to one of those missiles, and robust enough to endure a trajectory that would take it into space and back. The North boasts that this is now possible, although analysts and observers are sceptical of this claim. But there is no doubt that North Korea is making rapid progress in the development of its nuclear programme. It has clearly become a priority for Mr Kim, who seems to be devoting even more of his country’s relatively meagre resources to it than his father did.

Japan and those in other neighbouring states have become increasingly anxious. They are concerned that the young Mr Kim is far less predictable than his father. While the strength of his grip on the regime is unknown, three of North Korea’s five nuclear tests have been carried out during his five-year rule. This suggests he remains adamant in projecting strength domestically. That might be because he feels insecure, but might equally reflect self-confidence.

The United States, Japan and South Korea have responded with predictably harsh statements. Even China, North Korea’s closest ally, said it ‘resolutely’ condemned the test. Despite Barack Obama having made nuclear non-proliferation and disarmament a personal priority, having pushed for a nuclear deal with Iran and visiting Hiroshima (one of the two Japanese cities on which America dropped nuclear bombs during the second world war), there is worrying little that America and its allies can do to restrain Mr Kim.

In response to the test in January, the United Nations tightened sanctions on North Korea in March. New measures include a somewhat leaky ban on exports of coal and other minerals, one of North Korea’s main sources of foreign exchange. The U.S. added further sanctions of its own in July, specifically naming and citing Mr Kim. Yet, none of these measures have appeared to change Mr Kim’s behaviour for the better, and is quite likely to have infuriated him still further.

Exhorting China to put more pressure on North Korea will be the main strategy of the triumvirate (America, Japan and South Korea), since the North Korean regime relies on China for its economic survival.

The Chinese government has become increasingly frustrated by Mr Kim – it voted in favour of the UN sanctions this year, though it has not always applied them rigorously. It is concerned that the collapse of Mr Kim’s regime might bring American troops to its frontier on the South Korean peninsula, along with a flood of refugees. China’s relations with America and its allies in Asia are also not at their best at the moment. It is disgruntled over the agreement between South Korea and America to host THAAD, a missile defence system, and has been unsettled over issues in the South and East China Seas. The West’s best hope of restraining North Korea is not only proving to be a slender one but hugely problematic.

Standard