Partner and Nuisance
BERLIN (Own report) - German government advisors are laying benchmarks for a comprehensive German strategy for Africa. The German Institute for International and Security Affairs (SWP) is saying that Berlin has been hiding "too much behind the dogma of an 'African solution for African problems'," whereas it should have been engaged in intensive lobbying to significantly strengthen the German position in Sub-Sahara Africa. They say that German national interests must be more actively pursued. With this objective in mind, even so-called non-governmental organizations (NGOs) that until now have been pursuing their independent goals should be compelled to submit to state directives. The SWP sees great importance in securing maritime transport off the coast of Africa and expresses doubts in the preeminence of the promotion of "democracy" and the "protection of human and individual rights" in Berlin's political PR. They also advise that German foreign policy focus on the cooperation with influential African states and differentiate between "partners" and "nuisances". Above all, Zimbabwe is one of the "nuisances," to be fought, because that country "is currently the most offensive opponent of the western liberal model of stability."
Poorer
The point of departure of the SWP's strategy paper, published a few days ago, is a realistic analysis of the situation on the African continent under the conditions of current global policy. The SWP writes that the Sub-Saharan countries remain "by far the poorest region of the world."[1] "A substantial percent of the population is even more poverty-stricken today than at the time of independence." Thus in the period from 1981 - 2001, the proportion of the population living below the poverty level rose from 42% - 47%. It is estimated that only four countries will be able to attain half of the UN's Millennium Development Goals. Drought and natural catastrophes could even accentuate the destitution, says the SWP - "particularly in the Sahel belt and in Southern Africa."
German Interests
This is why Berlin's government advisors are calling for German policy toward Africa to be more strongly oriented on German interests. The SWP places a high priority on the limitation of migration [2] and the maintenance of economically useful biological diversity.[3] The strategy paper places a lower priority on assuring access to raw materials. The authors point out that German companies do not hold significant positions in the petroleum or mineral raw materials global market. Therefore German foreign policy cannot "consist of establishing or insuring direct access to the raw materials of African countries." Berlin should rather use "European" companies and "concentrate on the unobstructed supply of raw materials to the world market." Therefore the "responsibility for maritime security" takes on exceptional importance. "To a greater extent than in the past" the German government must "through diplomacy, development cooperation and police and military measures, devise a plan" for insuring this security.
Cultural Policy
The authors of the strategy paper express their doubts concerning Berlin's prevalent political PR. It "still remains to be proven that democracy and the protection of human and individual rights are prerequisites for development" the document states. Therefore the SWP recommends that the engagement for democracy not be concentrated on carrying out regular elections, but rather declare the foreign cultural policy, aimed primarily at building ties between foreign elites and Germany,[4] to be the alleged promotion of democracy.
Assistants
In addition, the SWP advises that the Africa policy be focused on cooperation with the most influential African states. Above all, South Africa, the paper says, is "of very great importance" for Berlin. Due to its "significant capacity for organizing foreign policy," it should be convinced to become a partner "to help in organizing the system of regional and global policy." The SWP rates Nigeria's power potential as "relatively high." Nigeria is "an indispensable factor of stability in West Africa" and must be used "regionally". For the SWP Ghana, Kenya, Mali and Senegal are of "intermediary importance" - all four are currently top priority countries for German "development policy". The government advisors claim to have found in Angola, Ethiopia, Ivory Coast, the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Rwanda and Uganda a "medium" power potential. These countries are "ambivalent", they don't always concur with Germany's objectives and interests, but demonstrate "a certain willingness to reform".
Opponents of Western Order
SWP considers particularly Zimbabwe ("intermediary importance") and Sudan as nuisances. Sudan is the only Sub-Saharan nation, besides Nigeria, whose power resources are rated as "relatively high". Sudan is not only considered a "nuisance" because of its human rights violations in Darfur, but also its support for Islamists - and because it has become "the heartland of Chinese engagement on the African continent."[5] On the other hand, Zimbabwe is considered a "nuisance" "because it is currently the most offensive opponent of the western liberal model of stability, seeking to position itself as the vanguard in the struggle against an assumed neo-colonial oppression of Africa." The SWP demands that the "disruptive potential" of these two states be "shown their limits." In the long run, they judge that ties to Zimbabwe are possible. "Following a change of government" the country could even "become an important partner of German African policy."[6]
Instrument of Power
To provide greater impact to Germany's Africa policy, the SWP is calling for a stronger concentration of governmental and non-governmental means. It is not only a question of the quick resolution of the numerous conflicts particularly between the desks of the Foreign Ministry and the Ministry of Development. Beyond this it is above all a question of enhancing "coordination with the semi- and non-governmental participants." Non-governmental organizations, for example religious development services, are financially dependent upon government subsidies and could therefore be brought to submit to governmental objectives, according to the strategy paper. The mobilization of forces for the purposes of enhancing German influence, forces that until now have escaped complete government control, demonstrates how, under pressure of global rivalry, humanitarian engagement can be transformed into an instrument of Berlin's power.
[1] all quotations: Stefan Mair, Denis M. Tull: Deutsche Afrikapolitik. Eckpunkte einer strategischen Neuausrichtung, SWP-Studie S 10, März 2009
[2] see also our EXTRA-Dossier Festung Europa
[3] see also Die Schatzinsel
[4] see also Dichter und Lenker, Third Pillar and Action Africa
[5] see also Sudan: Zerfall nicht ausgeschlossen, Hegemonic Rivalry and Smash and Rebuild
[6] see also Ein krimineller Plan, No Better Opportunity and Human Rights in Africa (II)
