A few weeks ago, Belusconi gets a punch in the face. Now this? On Christmas eve? What is up with Italy?

Yesterday, the US suspended all non-humanitarian aid to Niger and placed travel bans on the country’s top officials, as a result of the President Mamadou Tandja’s refusal to stand down at the end of his second term, which ended yesterday. In June 2008, the President dissolved the national assembly and began to rule by decree after the assembly refused to go along with his proposal to hold a referendum on changing the constitution to allow him to extend his term in office and enhance the president’s powers. The president won the referendum in August, although the opposition boycotted it and, according to Nigerien legal experts, the referendum was not constitutional. US actions seemed to have some effect as AFP reports that the president and his allies have resumed stalled negotiations. This is the right move. I bet President Tandja is wishing Niger had oil…

In a recent post, I wrote that China’s lack of involvement in global governance is because the government’s main concern domestic economic growth. China’s foreign policy is simply its execution of this policy outside its borders, I argued. I think I get partial-credit for a correct prediction, although it was not on my mind when I wrote the post. The consensus is that the failure of the Copenhagen climate summit to come up with any serious policy to deal with climate change was in large measure due to Obama’s poor negotiating skills. Mark Lynas writing in the (UK) Guardian says that this is not true:

Copenhagen was a disaster. That much is agreed. But the truth about what actually happened is in danger of being lost amid the spin and inevitable mutual recriminations. The truth is this: China wrecked the talks, intentionally humiliated Barack Obama, and insisted on an awful “deal” so western leaders would walk away carrying the blame. How do I know this? Because I was in the room and saw it happen.

And why was the Chinese government so intent on wrecking the negotiations?  According to Lynas:

China’s growth, and growing global political and economic dominance, is based largely on cheap coal…Its coal-based economy doubles every decade, and its power increases commensurately. Its leadership will not alter this magic formula unless they absolutely have to.

So I get partial credit, but in a way that bolsters my argument. True, China did play a major role in these negotiations, contrary to what I wrote in the post. But the role it played was to make global cooperation more difficult because the Chinese government understands that combating climate change is bad domestic politics. This is not good news.

Edward Wong has a good article in today’s New York Times about how the use of Chinese labor to build and run Chinese foreign investments is generating a lot of anger in those countries.  Because China is investing in a lot of poor countries where jobs are hard to find, the anger is understandable. I think this gets to the central idea of why China’s model of capitalism is not a good one to export.  While many have praised China for its no-strings-attached model of foreign aid, this misses the danger the model presents. Minxin Pei recently pointed out that despite China investing and exporting all over the world, China plays a very small role in international institutions. Pei argues the reason for this is because the Chinese government is more concerned about domestic politics, specifically maintaining economic growth, than solving international problems.

I think this gets to the central problem of the Chinese model of development. China is perfectly happy to provide no-strings-attached-aid to get natural resources, for example. The reason for this is not because the Chinese are benevolent. Rather, its because access to the resources is important for China’s domestic policy. Exporting labor has the same effect: it creates jobs for Chinese workers. China’s model is not new; in fact its very old and it did not end well. It’s essentially economic colonialism. In the 19th century, all the Great Powers in Europe basically had China’s policy today and the result was World War I. The international institutions we have today – imperfect as they are – are based on the premise that coordination of foreign policy is necessary to avoid the problems that uncoordinated self-interested policy tends to create. If all countries followed China’s policies today, global war would be far more likely than global peace and prosperity.

Ted Piccone argues that Obama’s approach to democracy and human rights requires a difficult and delicate balancing act in the Global Post:

As pragmatic politicians who know that it usually takes compromises to get things done in Washington, Obama and Clinton want to preserve their ability to maneuver through human rights minefields on the world stage without being held hostage to inflated rhetoric that could expose them to charges of hypocrisy. At the same time, they have laid down an important marker that they will treat these issues not as isolated causes but as part of an integrated, interdependent whole.

…solutions to the inevitable conflicts between human rights principles and hard national security interests will be hatched on a case-by-case basis, with an open willingness to try new approaches when old tactics fall short. This is wise, given that the political context in each country is unique and requires tailored strategies. This means our diplomats in embassies around the world really need to do their homework and get out of their secure compounds and cocktail receptions. It also means a much more well-resourced development policy with a fortified battery of analysts, practitioners and aid experts who can sustain the long-term work of investing in legal reforms and strengthening civil society.

David Shorr at Democracy Arsenal pithily calls this “the walk-and-chew-gum problem” because it requires the US government to secure contradictory objectives at once in many countries: pushing for political reform without sacrificing cooperation in important areas. I think the more difficult challenge is reversing the Fortress America mentality at the State Department. The Fortress America mentality prioritizes security above all other objectives. In dangerous countries, it often means that embassy officials have very little contact with the society in which they are living.

I was in Ghana a few years ago, a very safe country. I drove by the recently-completed Fortress America in Accra with two Ghanians.  It looked like a prison: high walls, lots of security. We had a pretty interesting discussion about the embassy. One said it projected arrogance because of its size and menacing architecture. The other Ghanian said it projected fear because the embassy was walled off from the rest of the city. Both points seem accurate to me: in my opinion, arrogance and fear is a good way of describing US foreign policy since 9/11. It’s hard to have “tailored strategies” when you are walled off from the country where you are working. Can Obama tear down the embassy walls?

Not long ago I noticed two headlines that appeared in the national newspapers here within a week or so of each other: one of them was “China Doubles Aid to Africa,”(1) and the other was “U.S Slams Uganda’s New Anti-Gay Bill.”(2) These headlines raise some important concerns and contrasts. That the Anti-Homosexuality Bill now in Uganda’s parliament –which calls for the death penalty in “aggravated” cases and makes the failure to report a suspected homosexual a crime- enjoys significant support among Ugandans raises concerns about the levels of tolerance and protection of minority rights that is essential to a functioning liberal democracy. It also raises the question: To what extent will the democracies of the world – several of whom are significant donors to Uganda – care to or be able to prevent the bill’s passage? Uganda’s Ethics Minister, James Nsaba Buturo, has recently confirmed that, “…Western countries were threatening to withdraw aid if the current Anti-Homosexuality Bill was not revoked.”(3)

Then there’s China. The New Vision article relates that both Ugandan President Yoweri Museveni and Sudanese President Omar el Bashir attended the China-Africa Summit in Egypt on November 8th, 2009, during which China announced its intentions to dramatically increase loans to several African countries and to step up initiatives ranging from food security to research scholarships. Chinese Premier Wen Jiabao also took the opportunity to deny that China’s interest in Africa is based solely on its need for natural resources. According to the article, he also “[R]epeated that China would not interfere in the internal politics of any African country.”

Foreign aid represents 30% of Uganda’s operating budget, and while this is down from 50% three years ago (due largely to the global recession)(4), Uganda surely does not take alienating the donor community lightly. Carl Gershman and Michael Allen noted as recently as 2006 that, “Uganda appear[s] to be refraining from certain restraints on NGOs in no small part out of fear that foreign aid will be cut off.” (5)

Then again, Mr. Buturo has repeatedly asserted that, “…The integrity of our country and our values are more important than their aid.”(6) I cannot help but wonder if this statement is mere political rhetoric, or if there is (beginning to be) something to it. That is, I wonder if Uganda is better positioned to ignore the West’s moral outcries and monetary threats over illiberal practices due to the rise of China as a significant donor. After all, as Robert Kagan notes, “[China] will [not] impose conditions on aid to African nations to demand political and institutional reforms they have no intention of carrying out in China.”(7) While homosexuality has been de-criminalized in China, the government has essentially ignored campaigns to extend protections and rights to the gay community (8). And China’s human rights record in other respects requires no further comment here.

Uganda may very well pass this draconian measure, and if it does, what does this signify? Does it mean that Uganda has taken a step “backward” on the path towards becoming a democratic regime that respects human rights and protects citizens who are minorities? Does it mean that Western influence is being trumped by the aid and the attitude of the Chinese?

Until very recently the West – and the U.S. in particular – considered Uganda to be, as Larry Diamond puts it, “[O]ne of the brightest stars of African development.” (9) In my next blog post I will explore some of the reasons why this was case, and some of the reasons why it is the case no longer. Changing assumptions about the democratization process seem to have as much to do with this as developments within Uganda itself.

Sources:

(1) Josephine Maseruka and Agencies. 2009. China Doubles Aid to Africa. The New Vision. 09NOV.

(2) AFP. US Slams Uganda’s New Anti-Gay Bill. 29OCT2009. http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5jEEJXoeBrTi17hexzYZqvmPgpPxg

(3) Moses Mulondo. 2009. Pray for Replacement of Corrupt Officials. Sunday Vision. 29NOV.

(4) Liz Kobusinge. 2008. Let Us Examine the Role of Foreign Aid. The New Vision. 17NOV. http://allafrica.com/stories/200811180049.html

(5) Carl Gershman and Michael Allen. 2006. The Assault on Democracy Assistance. Journal of Democracy. Vol. 17, No. 2. April. P.46.

(6) Mulondo. Pray for Replacement.

(7) Robert Kagan 2008. The End of Dreams and the Return of History. Knopf. April 28. P.70

(8) The Economist. 2009. Comrades-In-Arms. 20JUN. Vol. 392 Issue 8636, p43-43

(9) Larry Diamond. 2008. The Spirit of Democracy: The Struggle to Build Free Societies Throughout the World. Times Books. P.250.

…and I see nothing wrong with that.  Why else would anyone have a blog anyway?

HT to Bill Easterly. Happy Snowpocalypse!  Stay safe everyone.