Most of the African states are being faced with a dual set of problems and challenges, namely; domestic and global, Poverty alleviation, sustainable peace, sustainable human development and economic growth constitute the domestic set. Which are somehow interdependent. Interdependency produces a degree of integration among independent and sovereign African states. One cannot be achieved without the other, but they have to be solved in a blanket or else African states wil still wallow in the sea of poverty, civil wars and deficiency in the rule of law.
The impact of Globalization on african economies is another set of problems. Africans need to give a positive approach to global issues and challenges and the opputunities that come with it, otherwise they would be marginalized from the global economy and would be the poorer of it. Africans must mobilize the human and material resources, and build or acquire the capabilities to confront the two sets of problems and challenges.
Economic growth is the basic foundation for social and economic transformation and in acquiring the capabilities to respond to the global challenges and opportunities Africa must put all the reform machineries in place in order to play a bigger role in the globalizing world.. Africa is rich in human and material resources for the driving forward of economic growth, but there has been a cleavage in achieving the required rate of economic growth because of civil unrests, poor leadership and violent conflicts. A condusive atmosphere of peace, security and embracing the rule of law is imperative for a robust economic growth.. Neither the eruption of violent conflicts nor the existence of peaceful environment or the embracing of sustainable human development occurs by themselves. They must be the consequential actions of people.
Civil unrests and violent conflict are however the end products of poor leadership blended with bad governance. The role leaders play is thus important in creating a level playing field conducive for economic growth and the promotion of various mechanisms in order to face the global challenges and opportunities that comes with it.
In this contemporary world, a good intercourse between the donors and the recipients in terms of those who provide the required services and those that are in dire need, should be mutual, not based on reprocity.This kind of relationship is as well good for African Non governmental organizations and community Based organizations. But it has to be a partnership that is beneficial to all the partners.
Monday, September 14, 2009
Wednesday, September 9, 2009
WAR AND POLITICS: THE UN, PEACE AND SECURITY
Since 1945, there has been enormous increase of African states in the UN, this have showed a marked significance in two ways, first it exposed Africa to the international politics after so many years of slavery, in another way Africa could be an actor in the international relations rather than an object. Secondly the representation of African states in the general assembly and creation of African (regional) non permanent members in the Security Council implies that African issues can now receive international recognition.
The most contentious issues were those that were caused by colonialism, apartheid, cold war, great powers interference with states sovereignty and international economy in relation to African development. These issues not only happen in Africa but also in other developing countries though they have been felt in Africa more than any other developing countries because of their persistence. It's in Africa where the relics of colonialism remained through the three decades of UN. Due to low economic growth and lack of basic services, African states have given economic issues more priority to diplomatic activities in UN and in other international fora. The UN had acted as a refuge by all African government; as a body that might help restructure their socio-economic development. The participation of African states in the UN should not be viewed not only in accordance to the UNs objectives but also through the UN’s theoretical assumptions, however affect the way in which specific objectives can be realized or proven within the structure of the UN/org.
The UN has been viewed by all African governments as a body which might significantly contribute to the socio-economic development of their countries. The role of African states in the UN cannot be viewed mainly from the point of view of the objectives sought and the mechanisms utilized in pursuant of these goals. Account must also be taken of the underlying theoretical assumptions behind the establishment of the UN. These assumptions more or less affect the extent to which particular objectives can be realized within the framework of the organization whose primary purpose was to maintain peace and security could not ignore the dimensions of power and it's role in the international relations. The organization was not to operate as a democratic institution capable of making binding decisions on the basis of majority vote; instead the decision of the most important organ of the UN, the Security Council, could require the affirmative vote of the nine members including the concurring vote of the 5 members of the Security Council. This veto provision in the charter gave recognition to the importance of power and military capability as the key factors in international politics.
Actually the veto power just shows the impact great powers have in terms of socio-economic and technological developments, in addition to their military capabilities. This does not conform to the operational code of the UN whereby all member states should participate in the decision making instead the great powers only make the decisions armed with the lethal sword of "veto".
In relation to politics, Africa’s intercourse with UN started to show signs of mistrust during the so called Congo crisis 1960-1964, which later coincided with the shift of UN’s perceived role of the organization in crisis situations. This new shift resulted to preventive diplomacy and was considered as a substitute of enforcement action or collective military action under Security Council auspices. Preventive diplomacy was considered as a strategy of crisis management which aimed at inter-policing UN military and or political personnel between disputants with a view to preventing both the escalation of conflicts and possible intervention by the superpowers. The central thrust of preventive diplomacy was to quarantine local conflict situation and to insulate them from superpower meddling.
The Security Council lacks credibility and institutional responsibility to effectively address the contemporary international security issues.
The most contentious issues were those that were caused by colonialism, apartheid, cold war, great powers interference with states sovereignty and international economy in relation to African development. These issues not only happen in Africa but also in other developing countries though they have been felt in Africa more than any other developing countries because of their persistence. It's in Africa where the relics of colonialism remained through the three decades of UN. Due to low economic growth and lack of basic services, African states have given economic issues more priority to diplomatic activities in UN and in other international fora. The UN had acted as a refuge by all African government; as a body that might help restructure their socio-economic development. The participation of African states in the UN should not be viewed not only in accordance to the UNs objectives but also through the UN’s theoretical assumptions, however affect the way in which specific objectives can be realized or proven within the structure of the UN/org.
The UN has been viewed by all African governments as a body which might significantly contribute to the socio-economic development of their countries. The role of African states in the UN cannot be viewed mainly from the point of view of the objectives sought and the mechanisms utilized in pursuant of these goals. Account must also be taken of the underlying theoretical assumptions behind the establishment of the UN. These assumptions more or less affect the extent to which particular objectives can be realized within the framework of the organization whose primary purpose was to maintain peace and security could not ignore the dimensions of power and it's role in the international relations. The organization was not to operate as a democratic institution capable of making binding decisions on the basis of majority vote; instead the decision of the most important organ of the UN, the Security Council, could require the affirmative vote of the nine members including the concurring vote of the 5 members of the Security Council. This veto provision in the charter gave recognition to the importance of power and military capability as the key factors in international politics.
Actually the veto power just shows the impact great powers have in terms of socio-economic and technological developments, in addition to their military capabilities. This does not conform to the operational code of the UN whereby all member states should participate in the decision making instead the great powers only make the decisions armed with the lethal sword of "veto".
In relation to politics, Africa’s intercourse with UN started to show signs of mistrust during the so called Congo crisis 1960-1964, which later coincided with the shift of UN’s perceived role of the organization in crisis situations. This new shift resulted to preventive diplomacy and was considered as a substitute of enforcement action or collective military action under Security Council auspices. Preventive diplomacy was considered as a strategy of crisis management which aimed at inter-policing UN military and or political personnel between disputants with a view to preventing both the escalation of conflicts and possible intervention by the superpowers. The central thrust of preventive diplomacy was to quarantine local conflict situation and to insulate them from superpower meddling.
The Security Council lacks credibility and institutional responsibility to effectively address the contemporary international security issues.
Sunday, September 6, 2009
CHINA IN AFRICA AND ITS IMPLICATIONS FOR USA
Since 1980s, Chinese leader have shown the necessity for economic development while at the same time highlighting the threat caused by emerging US supremacy. Chinese leaders who took over the national policy after Deng Xiaoping’s, however positioned their objectives opposite the American interest. Compelled by national feelings, desire to make up for the past humiliations and the push for global power, China is looking forward to substituting US as a leading power in Asia. During 1980s, China instituted diplomatic relations with most countries in Latin America, Asia and Africa. From 1990s, it expanded her diplomatic relations with countries like Israel, Republic of Korea and South Africa in addition to some of former Soviet satellites. By 2002, China had diplomatic ties with 165 countries.
The national security strategy for the US, 2006 declared that ‘ Africa holds growing geo strategic importance and is a high priority for the administration’- this must be true for a continent that supplies US with 16 % of petroleum and is a prospective oil supplier, about a quarter of it’s oil imports by 2015. Therefore the rising weight of another actor in the region could as well result under a watching eye of policymakers and other actors. The question is, is China’s bilateral relations with US the cause of criticism or is it about the Chinese foreign policy on the continent?
Never the less we must say that China does not pose any direct major threat to the US national interest, however it changes the strategic approximation in various ways. First, most Chinese firms have a competitive edge over the western counterparts because most of the companies are at least partially state owned. Their managers make decisions based on a less long term objectives rather than the financial gains, incase of long term objectives, their nation gains more. Although donor countries may provide some incentives for receiving states in Africa that do business with national firms, the OECD( which China does not belong) discourages direct connection with private and semi entrepreneurs.
Second is the separation of political and the economic involvement which gives a lifeline to states that would totally collapse under the western pressure. Sudan and Zimbabwe is a case in point ( Chinese investments have continued to flow into both countries including a coal joint venture, a glass factory, smelting plants and beef production in Zimbabwe and oil extraction in Sudan.
The international community in general and especially the US considers china’s strategy on Africa as a challenge. America may see China as a competitor for resources and growing political influence in the region, whereas Beijing may be cautious on the interference with countries internal affairs.
The national security strategy for the US, 2006 declared that ‘ Africa holds growing geo strategic importance and is a high priority for the administration’- this must be true for a continent that supplies US with 16 % of petroleum and is a prospective oil supplier, about a quarter of it’s oil imports by 2015. Therefore the rising weight of another actor in the region could as well result under a watching eye of policymakers and other actors. The question is, is China’s bilateral relations with US the cause of criticism or is it about the Chinese foreign policy on the continent?
Never the less we must say that China does not pose any direct major threat to the US national interest, however it changes the strategic approximation in various ways. First, most Chinese firms have a competitive edge over the western counterparts because most of the companies are at least partially state owned. Their managers make decisions based on a less long term objectives rather than the financial gains, incase of long term objectives, their nation gains more. Although donor countries may provide some incentives for receiving states in Africa that do business with national firms, the OECD( which China does not belong) discourages direct connection with private and semi entrepreneurs.
Second is the separation of political and the economic involvement which gives a lifeline to states that would totally collapse under the western pressure. Sudan and Zimbabwe is a case in point ( Chinese investments have continued to flow into both countries including a coal joint venture, a glass factory, smelting plants and beef production in Zimbabwe and oil extraction in Sudan.
The international community in general and especially the US considers china’s strategy on Africa as a challenge. America may see China as a competitor for resources and growing political influence in the region, whereas Beijing may be cautious on the interference with countries internal affairs.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)