The Lofty Lantern

On an Australian foreign policy blog, there are currently intensive discussions on the necessity for Japan, and by implication other Asian countries, to feel secure about China’s position. What is striking about this is the extent of certain foreign policy discussions, even in countries with very close relations to the United States, that are simply not under discussion here.

As China and India become greater international forces, the United States will become increasingly Pacifically-oriented. This isn’t new. Henry Luce suggested that this would happen as recently as the 1940s. But for all of the attention paid to China and India, however, it might be useful to consider some of the things that Australia, probably our closest ally in the region, is doing.

When the Labor Party’s Kevin Rudd, with his long experience in China and his opposition to the Iraq War, was elected over the conservative John Howard to be its Prime Minister, some took this as to be a crucial sign of a developing relationship between Australia and China and a weakening one with the US. Instead, however, he seems to be charting his own particular course in the region, with highly ambitious goals though few actual accomplishments.

Rudd is trying to make Australia into a regional force, ignoring grave international challenges like the Middle East, and instead proposing some remarkably aggressive plans on his continent, including a potential EU-type organization for Asia. The idea is so ambitious, in fact, that nobody seems to know how to respond. As a rule, most seem to be positive but uncertain.

Though the more ambitious elements of it haven’t - and probably won’t for the forseeable future - he has tried to construct an independent Asia that can handle its own problems. Rudd has taken the opportunity of his close relationship with China to criticize it, particularly on human rights concerns - in Mandarin. While he remains close to China, there are some indications that the Indian-Australian relationship is strengthening too, further confusing and complicating the developing Asian picture

Posted under Politics | No Comments »

Four centuries after European countries realized that slavery pays, the world is again interested in the economic potential of Africa.

The obsession du jour is about China; just how much are they investing in Africa, and what does this mean for world efforts to isolate dictatorships in countries like Zimbabwe and Rwanda?

But investment in Africa is anything but a Chinese phenomenon. In fact, it seems like everybody is jumping into the continent, head first.

A new buy-out fund with a focus on sub-Saharan Africa raised 325 million dollars, largely from members of the Saudi monarchy. Run by Zephyr Management, a group that has decided to avoid Russia and China, feeling that they are already over-invested in. A British cellphone company recently spent 900 million dollars to get a 70% stake of Ghana Telecom.

But like it was during the race for colonies, money and power are interlinked. Countries from China to India, to France and the US, are seeking both economic gain for their companies, and influence for their governments.

Though India has been notably slower to capitalize on the region than China or even some Western countries, they are trying to catch up. A few weeks ago, business papers were abuzz with the possible purchase of MTN, the major South African cell phone company by the Indian Reliance Communications that could have been a behemoth in the developing worlds.

For India, the sub-Saharan African countries have a triple value: they possess immense resources needed by developing and developed economies, they could become a significant market, and they wield more than a quarter of the votes in the UN, which could be crucial in getting them the permanent seat on the UN Security Council that they covet.

Though the chase for resources in Africa is reminiscent of the Great Game of colonialism in the 19th century, there are some who argue that the influx of capital is a generally positive addition to the continent. Then again, there were those who made - and make - similar arguments about colonialism.

India is trying to appear as a nicer China, offering also large amounts of money but not to genocidal dictators. They want to “add value” to the region.

Generally, though, there are some sub-Saharan African countries which seem to be naturally rising. After a nearly three decade civil war, Angola, for example, seems to be on the road to a profitable peace. The Council for Foreign Relations published an influential memo arguing that Angola could be an oasis of stablity in the region, and a potentially useful US ally. This doesn’t mean that there are no issues, but there certainly seems to be the increasing sense that Africa is open for business for everybody.

France is becoming particularly active, stepping up its economic interests in Africa. Recently, they signed a deal to build nuclear reactors with the possibility of the deal expanding to military equipment like helicopters in their former colony, Algeria. Sarkozy has promised a “rupture” in Franco-African relations; On their agenda is an increase of 1 billion Euros to Africa through the French Development Agency with a particular focus on African entrepreneurs. A rupture may be exactly what is needed as French Ambassadors in Africa reported that the French reputation in the continent is still afflicted by its history of colonialism. More recently, French actions in Rwanda and other countries have done little to impress the region. Now, however, France has been a strong backer of Chad whose position is being weakened by aggressive action on the part of Sudan.

The impact of all these moves is uncertain. Notably, in Goldman Sachs’ recent report declaring the most economically important developing countries, none of the top four (Brazil, Russia, India and China i.e. BRIC), were found in sub-Saharan Africa. Still, a country like Kenya, which had been percieved as being a highly successful state, almost collapsed under the weight of ethnic hatred and a disputed election. But the increased attention, however, being paid by big companies and big governments alike, may have an impact. Eventually.

Posted under Uncategorized | No Comments »