The Terms of Engagement

Our Common Strategic Interests: Africa’s Role in the Post-G8 World

A Chatham House Report

Tom Cargill June 2010

According to Tom Cargill, the global order is “currently undergoing dramatic change of a kind not seen since the end of the Cold War.” Against the backdrop of the recent global financial crisis, Cargill assesses the role of the G8 and analyzes how the emergence of the G20 as the principal forum for global economic governance will affect the future of Africa. The G8, despite its ambiguous achievements, served as an anchor for consensus in humanitarian, governance and aid terms. This consensus must be embedded within G20 countries’ thinking, while drawing on the strength of a more investment-led economic growth as conceived by many emerging powers, such as Brazil and China.

Some critics fear that the G20 will merely reflect the priorities of the G8, but, as Cargill accentuates, the emergence of the G20 is representative of a fundamental shift in the way power is distributed globally. One African state—South Africa—is a part of the G20, while others, such as Angola, Ghana and Nigeria, are becoming more active internationally and are more prepared to organize across international forums, highlighting the importance of leadership within African states. Indeed, the progress made over the past decades diminished as leadership weakened, signifying that African development should in no way be taken for granted. Strong African leadership should be reinforced by external diplomatic support. This logic has led Cargill to argue that the African Union should be granted a permanent place at the G20.

It would be a mistake to characterize the incentives for renewed engagement with Africa as charitable, as there are also vital self-interested reasons behind a new approach, a key point in Cargill’s report. These reasons can easily be understood as threats, such as unmanaged migration, disease and terrorism. However, the strategic benefits of engaging with Africa must also be acknowledged and integrated into approaches to the region. Africa possesses almost 40 percent of the basic mineral resources for global industry, as well as 15 percent of the world’s agricultural land. The United States now imports more oil from Africa (22 percent) than it does from the Middle East (17 percent). A more economically active Africa could add up to $4.7 trillion dollars (or 7.8 percent) to global GDP—roughly equivalent to another China.

Although this figure is admittedly rather optimistic, it reveals the potential in the region. Furthermore, many factors indicate that increased African influence in international affairs is becoming inevitable. Aid is still crucially important to Africa, but governance, stability and the business climate have improved markedly in many parts of the continent.

Concurrently, African states are becoming more assertive international actors, pursuing coherent foreign policies on the world stage. Examples include the impact of African coalitions in WTO negotiations, in the Copenhagen climate summit and in the Doha trade talks; as well as the rising numbers of interventions by the African Union within the continent itself.

Recognition of this change in Africa’s place in the world is made difficult by the strong sense in which Africa is treated as a distinct issue, stigmatizing a diverse continent with a single set of assumptions. The flaws of this view are further exposed by the fact that many non-African countries around the world have many of the same problems as those associated with Africa. For example, India has more people living in poverty than the whole of Africa does. Cargill thus importantly questions the very notion of “Africa” as representing the needs of poor people everywhere, leading to “ghettoization,” which is reflected in the way many G8 countries define their relationship with most African countries as primarily developmental in nature.

Cargill argues that this is an emotional response to the complexity of the continent and is likely to be counterproductive to development goals, because such a relationship institutionalizes an unequal power relationship between donor and recipient. What is needed is a strong, diplomatically framed engagement with Africa, one that respects the sovereignty of the recipient government.

The new approach to Africa must take place within a strong regulatory framework to ensure legal and responsible investments so that developmental issues are not forgotten. Yet the Western humanitarian-dominated conception of Africa currently in place prevents a sober recognition of these issues. Instead it oversimplifies and stigmatizes the continent with a detrimental impact on its commercial activity. This is counterproductive as it leaves greater opportunities for companies from countries with less focus on concepts like corporate social responsibility. China, for example, seems to be realizing that political engagement is an important guarantor of sound business deals and stability. In these cases there is a risk of returning to short-term, exploitative relations, which would reproduce the very conditions that contributed to Africa’s underdevelopment. Political, legal and moral oversight will be required to ensure that relations remain rules-based and mutually beneficial.

“Our Common Strategic Interests” touches upon the consequences of an increasingly multilateral, fragmented world order, which creates room for alternative views of development and power in international relations. In other words, the West no longer dictates the terms of engagement, and it must realize this to retain global influence. If, as appears to be the case, a significant number of African states rebound from the financial crisis, Africa will take on a new role in the post-G8 world. This presents a range of opportunities globally and within Africa. Although Cargill does not say so explicitly, the increasingly multilateral nature of international relations, which the creation of the G20 signifies and builds on, may benefit African development in the long term. This will be a fragile process, which must be recognized and supported, while the stereotypical view of Africa should be abandoned for the benefit of all. Africa should be able to have both: humanitarian development with economic growth and international influence.

To read the report, follow this link.