Opinion Out to Africa

While many in the West were ready to acquiesce in Pretoria’s racism in the name of respecting its sovereignty,India’s first prime minister,Jawaharlal Nehru,imposed unilateral sanctions against South Africa,which included cutting of trade,travel and sporting links. India’s campaign for decolonisation and its emphasis on “Afro-Asian solidarity” provided the basis for the construction of the non-aligned movement.

But the notions of “collective self-reliance” (aka South-South Cooperation) and “collective bargaining” (the New International Economic Order) with the North on economic issues that so animated India and Africa in the 1970s and the ’80s did not survive the tsunami of globalisation that enveloped the world in the ’90s.

Despite the many fears in Asia and Africa,globalisation altered the international distribution of economic power in favour of China,India and many other nations in the developing world. The emergence of China and India as economic powers has brightened Africa’s prospects by increasing the demand for its resources and making its markets more attractive. Beijing and Delhi also offer African leaders economic and political choices that did not exist in the immediate aftermath of decolonisation. Africa’s ability to bargain with their former colonial rulers in Europe and the international financial institutions dominated by the West has significantly improved thanks to the new economic and commercial options generated by China and India.

The notions of South-South Cooperation and the New International Economic Order were merely aspirational objectives,devoid of any substance during the heyday of the non-aligned movement.

Similarly,the concept of Afro-Asian solidarity was entirely political in nature and had little economic content. Today the rise of Asia and its deepening economic integration with Africa is breaking up the old geopolitical axes — North-South and East-West — that shaped our understanding of international relations for so long. Implicit in all this is indeed a change in the nature of Africa’s relationship with China and India — from the notions of political solidarity to ideas of economic and strategic partnership.

While Beijing and Delhi prefer not to acknowledge their improving power positions in Africa,the continent’s leaders have no difficulty seeing it. For Africa,the question is not about the reality of the power shift in favour of China and India. African leaders want to know what kind of powers and partners that Beijing and Delhi might become. This precisely is the question that Dr Singh must address in Addis Ababa. The PM’s answer must have at least three parts — economic,political and military.

On the economic part,India says its emphasis is on helping Africans help themselves through capacity-building. India argues it is not driven by an obsessive focus on resource security that is seen as colouring Chinese approach. India’s private-sector role in Africa is contrasted with the Chinese engagement that is led by large state-owned enterprises.

While these arguments have much merit,Delhi will need to do a lot more to ensure that its economic interaction with Africa is principled,in tune with India’s own political values and not liable to charges of “neo-colonialism”.

Dr Singh must assure African leaders as well as Indian taxpayers that its growing aid volumes are well conceived,implemented with reasonable efficiency and free of corruption. Having been a major aid recipient once,India should know the importance of preventing the kind of resentments that foreign aid often breeds in recipient countries.

Delhi also needs a serious conversation between the government,private sector and the foreign policy community on how best to manage the risks and rewards of India’s massive foreign investments in Africa and beyond.

Unlike China which has made military cooperation — including the sale of arms — a major element of its Africa initiative,Delhi has paid a lot less attention to the security dimension of its cooperation with Africa. To emerge as a comprehensive partner for Africa,India needs to develop domestic capabilities and a strategy for military diplomacy in the continent.

As a major contributor to the United Nations peace-keeping operations in Africa,India is deeply aware of the depth and expanse of violent intra-state conflict and its debilitating impact on nation-building in the continent and its economic cooperation with foreign partners.

Does its democratic experience have any relevance to India’s partnership with Africa and the pacification of the continent’s many internal conflicts? India has no reason to imitate the United States or Europe in preaching democracy or imposing freedom from outside.

But Delhi can’t simply emulate Beijing and argue that state sovereignty and non-interventions are absolute principles. After all,Nehru’s active opposition to apartheid was based on the recognition that there are universal values that must at least occasionally prevail over narrowly defined national interests.

India,then,must find ways to support the slow but steady evolution of African states towards political pluralism,federalism and respect for the rights of religious and ethnic minorities.

In offering to share its own democratic experiences,proposing mutual exchange of best practices on the management of diversity and offering help to build political institutions,India will have a chance to differentiate itself from a crusading and domineering West and a cynical China in the engagement with Africa.

The writer is Senior Fellow at the Centre for Policy Research,Delhi
express@expressindia.com