Connect with us

INTERNATIONAL POLITICS

Biden’s Summit for Democracy: What Africa Needs to Bring to the Table

Published

on

Spread the love

By John J Stremlau

Seventeen African countries have been invited by US president Joe Biden to join nearly 100 other invitees for a virtual “Summit for Democracy” due to take place this week. A second summit, in person, is planned for next year. There are three issues on the agenda: defending against authoritarianism; addressing and fighting corruption; and promoting respect for human rights. Africans have a great deal to contribute. It’s also an opportunity for them to advance their interests – as individual countries as well as collectively.  The US claims it has already consulted widely with non-governmental actors. This means that the views of African media, scholars and other stakeholders should weigh in.

Taken together, the summit’s three topics all beg for greater specificity plus realistic action plans and resources. Africa can – and must – be seen as offering vital and affordable opportunities to design, test and scale collective efforts. On each of the three broad topics they can make important contributions.

The Democracy Question

It remains a US bureaucratic mystery how the host selected invitees. Of the 113 countries chosen, an estimated 69% are regarded by a Carnegie Endowment study to be “Free”; 28% are “Partly Free” and 3% “Not Free”.

Among the African invitees are Angola and the Democratic Republic of Congo. Even the host country, America, has been deemed in recent global surveys by Freedom House and the Swedish NGO International IDEA to have shown authoritarian characteristics. Its democracy ranking has been lowered. Europe too struggles with illiberalism.

Meanwhile, all 54 member states of the African Union have ratified an inclusive Constitutive Act that implicitly condemns authoritarianism and explicitly affirms democratic goals. These are given operational meaning with the later adoption of the African Charter on Democracy, Elections and Governance.

All African governments are obligated to hold periodic elections, subject to international observation. These are deficient in many ways. Nevertheless they constitute practical expression of a new norm in intra-African relations: the “principle of non-indifference”. This refers to the commitment to no longer tolerate internal abuses of domestic power. The pro-democracy practice has been praised as path-breaking globally by International IDEA.

Beyond formal commitments to defend against authoritarianism, there is also persistent popular support for democracy throughout the continent. This is despite many often volatile democratic deficiencies. Africans can also constructively disagree with the US host and engage others on two big issues related to tensions between illiberal and liberal democracies.

One is to seek constructive ways to engage all other nations, even in only limited ways, rather than to try to ostracise or penalise them. Today virtually all nations claim to be democratic, even the most autocratic. If the 2022 summit is to be credible then better ways must be found than for the US alone to decide who should participate and how.

A second issue where Africans can set a good example is their pragmatic but principled engagement of China. For African countries, the goal is a productive relationship with both China and the west. This point was made by Cyril Ramaphosa as the lone African guest at the last G7 SummitThis would advance Africa’s development as well as lower tensions between China and the US. It’s an outcome that deserves urgent attention from the other attendees at the democracy summit.

The Corruption Question

Corruption is a pervasive problem throughout Africa. It is abetted by the complicity, or at least lax regulations, of many non-African governments that will be attending the summit, especially the US.

This was a key conclusion of the High-Level Panel on Illicit Financial Flows from Africa, chaired by Thabo Mbeki and commissioned by the African Union and the United Nations Economic Commission for Africa. The panel focuses on driving the issue onto the agendas of African governments, and will meet again virtually on 12 December.

Recent revelations by the International Consortium of Investigative Journalists, the FinCEN Files and Pandora Papers show the scale and extent of corrupt practices that rob African countries of vital tax revenues. The founding president of the NGO Global Financial Integrity, Raymond W Baker, and a member of the high level panel, told me in an email that:

This is so serious as to be what is now probably the major driver of economic inequality and the key reason for the weakness of democracy. Aggressively addressing threats to democracy while inadequately addressing threats to economic and financial integrity will continue to bolster the global drift to authoritarianism.

Given Africa’s poverty and inequality, exacerbated by COVID-19 and climate change, pressing for necessary political resolve and institutional capabilities to redress this issue must and can become a global priority.  Last week the US government released a new Strategy on Countering Corruption. It could serve as a reference for the African High Level Panel to test US resolve to cooperate with Africans in this vital area.

The Human Rights Question

On this, too, Africa can make a vital global contribution. Human rights are not just a moral imperative. In Africa’s international relations the emphasis is pragmatic. “Today’s human rights abuses are tomorrow’s refugees” has become a politically salient cliché in a continent struggling to mitigate and prevent forced migration and all the human suffering and instabilities, nationally and regionally, the phrase implies.

Human rights abuses are “early warning” signs of conflict that have given political impetus to the “principle of non-indifference”. Preventing unregulated mass migrations to the European countries that comprise the biggest contingent – 39 – invited to the Summit for Democracy should ensure a rapt audience for African ideas about what can and should be done cooperatively to address this problem.

In fact, most of the forced migration occurs among African countries. But ways and means to address this key human rights problem have global implications, with Africa the vanguard.

African Agency

African leaders and publics can – and must – set their own agendas on the issues to be raised at the summit. This is because they must shoulder the primary responsibilities for the issues on the agenda – defending against authoritarianism, addressing and fighting corruption, and promoting respect for human rights – from two perspectives.

Firstly, they must deal with the consequences of these big challenges. Secondly, they must implement policies to achieve the objectives of plans to tackle them. The credibility of African governments is at stake at the summit. So is the possibility for building mutually beneficial partnerships that can become more inclusive.

Currently, wealthier democracies have not been reliable partners with African nations in their common battle against the global pandemic. Unless the summit can lead to real partnerships with African countries striving to sustain democracy, African countries invited to the 2022 summit would be justified in declining to attend.

John J Stremlau is a Honorary Professor of International Relations, University of the Witwatersrand

Courtesy: The Conversation


Spread the love
Continue Reading
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

INTERNATIONAL POLITICS

Botswana Democratic Party’s Historic Loss: The Rise of Duma Boko and the Challenges Ahead

Published

on

By

Spread the love

From our Special Correspondent

The shock electoral defeat of Botswana’s long-dominant Botswana Democratic Party (BDP), led by President Mokgweetsi Masisi, has sparked surprise across neighboring states. The BDP, which has comfortably ruled Botswana since its independence in 1966, was decisively unseated in the national elections held on October 30, 2024. Of the 61 seats in the National Assembly, the Umbrella for Democratic Change (UDC) coalition secured 36 seats, followed by the Botswana Congress Party with 15 seats, while the Botswana Patriotic Front and the BDP managed only five and four seats, respectively, and one independent candidate claimed a seat. Botswana’s electorate chose Duma Boko, an opposition leader largely unknown beyond Botswana’s borders. Who is Duma Boko, what does he stand for, and what challenges will he face as he steps into his new role?

Who is Duma Boko?

Duma Boko, leader of the Botswana National Front and the driving force behind the UDC coalition, has established himself as a pivotal figure in Botswana’s opposition landscape. He played a central role in forming the UDC coalition in 2012, initially merging the Botswana National Front, Botswana Movement for Democracy, and Botswana People’s Party. For the 2024 elections, the coalition expanded to include the Alliance for Progressives.

A human rights lawyer with a degree from the University of Botswana and Harvard Law School, Boko is known for his strong advocacy of social justice and support for marginalized communities, including the Basarwa (San) people. Raised in the modest village of Mahalapye, 200 kilometers from the capital, Gaborone, Boko has built a reputation as a social democrat with a deep commitment to improving conditions for Botswana’s economically disadvantaged population.

Boko’s Vision and Campaign Promises

Botswana, a nation of 2.5 million people, grapples with high unemployment at 27.6% and a poverty rate of 38%. Boko’s campaign centered on addressing these pressing economic issues. His message resonated with the lower-income strata, focusing on economic diversification away from diamonds, which currently account for 90% of Botswana’s exports. He pledged to raise wages, student allowances, and pensions, and promised to prioritize issues affecting the youth, who make up about 70% of Botswana’s population.

As a human rights lawyer, Boko advocates for a humane and inclusive approach to governance. His commitment to social justice aims to confront the socio-economic challenges facing Botswana, especially for underrepresented communities. His pledge to address human rights issues, strengthen social protections, and drive economic reform has positioned him as a new hope for Botswana’s future.

The Challenges Awaiting Boko’s Government

  1. Combating Unemployment and Poverty:

The economic challenges facing Botswana are substantial. High unemployment and poverty levels worsened under the previous administration, and Boko’s government will need to find new strategies to create jobs and alleviate poverty across the country.

  1. Tackling Corruption and Reforming Institutions:

Corruption emerged as a defining issue during Masisi’s administration. Reports of government contracts benefiting his relatives and allegations of the Directorate on Intelligence and Security Services (DISS) obstructing anti-corruption investigations led to widespread mistrust. Restoring the independence and effectiveness of institutions like the Directorate on Corruption and Economic Crime and the judiciary will be crucial to rebuilding public confidence in governance.

  1. Healing National Divisions:

Botswana has experienced increasing division, partly due to regional and tribal biases in government appointments. The rift between Masisi and former President Ian Khama exacerbated these divisions, with DISS often at the center of their conflict. Boko’s government must prioritize national unity and build trust across Botswana’s diverse communities.

  1. Economic Transformation and Diversification:

With a global diamond market downturn affecting Botswana’s largest revenue source, Boko faces the daunting task of diversifying the economy to generate sustainable employment. His administration must find alternative revenue streams and industries to stabilize the economy and drive long-term growth.

The Path Forward for Botswana’s New Leadership

Duma Boko’s administration must approach these challenges with transparency, accountability, and a commitment to public consultation. His success will depend on the government’s ability to effectively involve citizens in decision-making processes and maintain robust checks and balances. By fostering public trust and empowering institutions to ensure accountability, Botswana has the opportunity to usher in a new era of equitable growth and development.

Boko’s vision reflects a shift toward social democracy in Botswana. His path to success, however, demands collaboration, resilience, and a fundamental transformation of the governance structures that have long defined the nation.


Spread the love
Continue Reading

INTERNATIONAL POLITICS

The Pentagon’s THAAD Deployment in Israel: A Signal to Iran and the Question of Global Double Standards

Published

on

By

Spread the love

By Baba Yunus Muhammad

The Pentagon’s decision to bolster Israel’s air defense systems with a Terminal High Altitude Area Defense (THAAD) system, supported by 100 U.S. troops to operate it, sends a powerful message. The THAAD is designed to intercept ballistic missiles, with Iran clearly in the crosshairs. This deployment is an escalation, illustrating the United States’ unwavering support for Israel in its regional confrontations, particularly with Iran. But it also raises significant questions: Who stands with Iran in this looming confrontation? And does America’s uncritical backing of Israel expose its double standards on human rights and international law?

America’s Stance: Double Standards and Duplicity

The United States’ support for Israel has long been criticized as riddled with hypocrisy. While Washington postures itself as a global advocate for democracy and human rights, it continues to supply the arms that fuel Israel’s military machine, which has been implicated in the deaths of thousands of innocent Palestinian women, children, the elderly, and the infirm. The moral outrage America projects against other regimes, particularly in the Muslim world, is conspicuously absent when it comes to Israel’s transgressions. This duplicity reflects a clear bias that undermines America’s credibility as a global arbiter of justice.

One of the most troubling aspects of U.S. foreign policy is the selective application of international law. Israel, despite numerous violations of human rights, continues to receive billions in military aid annually. Meanwhile, countries like Iran are sanctioned, demonized, and isolated for far less egregious offenses. Is this about justice, or does Israel’s strategic importance in the Middle East render its violations invisible to Western eyes?

The Forgotten Two-State Solution

As the world watches the current crisis, one fundamental issue has been almost entirely ignored: the two-state solution. Once at the center of every peace process, the notion of a Palestinian state coexisting alongside Israel has been sidelined. Instead, the narrative is now dominated by military escalations, airstrikes, and defense systems. The right of Palestinians to self-determination, to a land they can call their own, is no longer part of the discourse.

Israel, with the tacit approval of its Western backers, continues to pursue its “Greater Israel” agenda. Settlements expand, Palestinian homes are demolished, and Jerusalem is increasingly Judaized, all in direct contravention of international law. The West’s silence on this is deafening. Why has the right of the Palestinians to a country of their own been so easily brushed aside in the name of ‘security’?

Iran: A Nation Standing Alone?

In this complex geopolitical landscape, Iran is portrayed as the villain. Yet, it is important to ask: does Iran truly stand alone? While it lacks a superpower willing to defend it from Israeli aggression, Iran is not without allies, both politically and ideologically. More importantly, as an Islamic republic, Iran’s identity is rooted in its faith, particularly in tawheed (the belief in the oneness of Allah) and its reliance on divine justice. Iran may not have the might of THAAD systems, but it has the conviction that Allah’s help is greater than any worldly power.

The strength of the Islamic faith is not found in military arsenals, but in the belief that the oppressed will eventually triumph over the oppressors. As history shows, superpowers come and go, but the power of the oppressed, united in their faith and resolve, can overcome even the most insurmountable odds. Iran, in its resistance against Israeli aggression and Western duplicity, is likely to turn to Allah for protection and justice, embodying the Qur’anic verse:

“And if you remain patient and conscious of Allah, their plot will not harm you at all. Surely Allah is fully aware of what they do.”** (Qur’an, 3:120)

This verse speaks to the resilience of those who trust in Allah against overwhelming odds. It is a reminder that no matter how powerful the aggressor, the ultimate victory lies with those who maintain their faith and stand firm in the face of oppression.

Other Critical Issues

There are additional issues worth considering. The first is the long-term impact of America’s military involvement in the region. By sending troops to operate the THAAD system, the U.S. is not just providing arms—it is becoming an active participant in the defense of Israel, making it complicit in whatever actions Israel takes. This blurs the line between defense and aggression, and America must ask itself whether it is willing to shoulder the moral responsibility for Israeli actions.

Secondly, the deployment of advanced defense systems like THAAD only exacerbates the arms race in the Middle East. As Israel strengthens its defenses, neighboring countries will feel compelled to enhance their own military capabilities, increasing the likelihood of conflict rather than reducing it.

Finally, the question of international accountability must be addressed. If Israel, with its advanced military capabilities and the backing of the world’s most powerful nation, continues to flout international law without consequence, what message does this send to other countries? Does might make right? And where does this leave global efforts to maintain peace and justice?

Conclusion

 The Pentagon’s THAAD deployment in Israel is a reminder of the dangerous escalations that are taking place in the Middle East, with Iran as the primary target. Yet, the broader context reveals a troubling picture of global double standards, where Israel is given a free hand to violate human rights while the rights of Palestinians are ignored. As Iran prepares to defend itself, it does so with the faith that no system, no army, no alliance is greater than the power of Allah. The verse from the Qur’an serves as a powerful reminder of where true strength lies: not in missiles, but in faith, patience, and the belief in divine justice.


Spread the love
Continue Reading

INTERNATIONAL POLITICS

Escalating Conflict in the Middle East: Iran’s Retaliatory Strike against Israel and the Growing Regional Tensions

Published

on

By

Spread the love

The ongoing conflict in the Middle East continues to devastate countless lives, particularly in Gaza, Israel, and Lebanon. Recent escalations, including Iran’s ballistic missile strike on Israel, highlight a dangerous shift in the region’s dynamics. In this article Baba Yunus Muhammad delves into the circumstances surrounding Iran’s aggressive response, the motivations behind it, and the broader implications for regional stability. It also questions the role of global powers, particularly the United States, in perpetuating the conflict, while reflecting on the absence of a unified military alliance among Muslim nations to defend against Israeli aggression. 

The recent intensification of conflict between Israel, Gaza, and Lebanon has further deepened the tragic cycle of violence in the Middle East. The situation, marked by Israel’s military actions and retaliatory strikes from its adversaries, particularly Iran, is emblematic of decades of geopolitical tension, occupation, and armed confrontations.

Context of the Iranian Attack on Israel

Iran’s ballistic missile attack on Israel on October 2nd marked a sharp escalation in the broader conflict. This retaliatory strike was a direct response to Israel’s aggressive targeting of key Hezbollah and Hamas commanders. The killing of Hezbollah leader Hassan Nasrallah and Israel’s invasion of Lebanon pushed Tehran to act, signifying a growing frustration within Iran over perceived inaction. Iranian officials made it clear that the attack was not only defensive but also justified as a response to the increasing Israeli strikes across the region. Iran’s supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, issued the order, and the attack was supported by both the Supreme National Security Council (SNSC) and the Iranian defense ministry.

While Iran’s previous strike in April was seen as more symbolic, this latest assault was far more aggressive. It hit multiple urban centers, and Tehran claimed that 90% of its missiles reached their intended targets. Though the full extent of the damage is still unclear, this represents a significant shift in Iran’s strategy, moving from symbolic gestures to serious military reprisals.

Why Did Iran Retaliate?

Several reasons motivated Iran’s retaliation. First, the assassinations of Hezbollah and Hamas leaders by Israeli forces played a crucial role. Iran had already held off from responding to earlier provocations, particularly the assassination of Hamas political chief Ismail Haniyeh in July. Iranian officials believed this restraint, done in hopes of securing a ceasefire deal in Gaza, was a strategic mistake. Instead of quelling Israeli aggression, it rather emboldened Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s government to continue with escalations. Israeli strikes in Lebanon, coupled with the rhetoric from Netanyahu that recent actions aimed to “change the balance of power in the region,” convinced Iran’s leadership that not responding would further weaken their regional influence.

The Iranian response also reflects a growing divide within its leadership. Hardliners in Tehran, who felt that the country’s reputation as the leader of the “axis of resistance” was being undermined, viewed the lack of previous retaliation as a sign of weakness. This pressure led to the aggressive missile strike in October, highlighting that the country was ready for war if necessary. This response from Iran signals a turning point, where the threat of broader war no longer serves as a deterrent for Iran’s leadership.

US-Israel Relations and Broader Implications

The United States remains Israel’s staunchest ally, with its defense of Israeli actions viewed by many Muslim nations as part of a larger pattern of Western double standards. During Iran’s missile strike, US forces stepped in, intercepting some of the missiles, and US President Joe Biden dismissed the attack as “ineffective.” The unyielding support for Israel, however, continues to fuel resentment in the Muslim world, where many see this dynamic as part of an ongoing effort to suppress Muslim populations and movements.

The broader geopolitical context of this conflict cannot be ignored. While NATO is often lauded as a successful military alliance in the West, it is seen in many Muslim nations as a destabilizing force, responsible for chaos in places like Afghanistan, Iraq, and Libya. Iran’s frustration with NATO’s continued support of Israel, and its pivotal role in defending Israeli interests, underpins much of the animosity. Tehran views the Western military alliance as fundamentally biased, contributing to the marginalization and suffering of Muslim-majority countries.

The Role of the Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC)

As the conflict escalates, a question often asked is: why doesn’t the Muslim world form a unified military response to counter Israeli aggression? The Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC), the world’s second-largest intergovernmental body after the United Nations, has been relatively passive when it comes to creating an effective military coalition. Muslim countries, with their vast resources and manpower, could potentially form a powerful defense alliance, yet political fragmentation and differences in national interests have prevented such a coalition from materializing.

Historically, regional divisions, ideological differences, and varying levels of cooperation with Western powers have stifled the creation of a unified Muslim military front. The creation of a robust defense mechanism under the OIC remains elusive, as individual member states often prioritize their national interests over collective action. Nevertheless, the absence of such a coalition leaves Muslim populations across the region vulnerable to foreign aggression and continued conflict, with Israel benefiting from its military superiority and diplomatic support from the West.

If peace is ever to be realized in this volatile region, there must be a reevaluation of the global power dynamics, especially the role of the US and its unwavering support for Israel. At the same time, Muslim countries will need to overcome their internal divisions to form a unified front capable of protecting their interests against external aggressions. Until then, the cycle of violence is likely to continue, with devastating consequences for the people of Gaza, Lebanon, and Israel.

Baba Yunus Muhammad is the President of the Africa Islamic Economic Forum, Tamale, Ghana


Spread the love
Continue Reading

Trending

Copyright © 2024 Focus on Halal Economy | Powered by Africa Islamic Economic Forum