Tag: Japan

FOCAC and TICAD: The Competition for African Partnership

Posted on By Nnanda Kizito Sseruwagi

As economic stagnation and major country rivalries for economic and political partners continue to shape global politics, the focus is increasingly shifting to Africa. It is one continent that now occupies a strategic position due to its large natural resource reserves and its great potential as a continent with the world’s youngest population and nascent industries. Unlike most continents, Africa has room for growth and transformation. It is therefore not surprising that the Far Eastern countries of China and Japan have uniquely shown a deeper interest in Africa, each organising summits for African leaders at the Forum on China-Africa Cooperation (FOCAC) and the Tokyo International Conference on African Development (TICAD), respectively. On one hand, China’s expansive approach in its relations with Africa focuses on state-orchestrated financial commitments while also pursuing ideological alignment through its global initiatives. For Japan, the focus is on innovative, private-sector-driven engagement with a focus on building multilateral resilience.

This article focuses on the Ninth FOCAC Summit, which was held in September 2024 in Beijing and the Ninth TICAD Summit, held in August 2025 in Yokohama, Japan. We shall compare the number of African presidents in attendance at each summit, analyse the significance of the issues discussed in plenary sessions, while also weighing the promises made by China and Japan to African countries in pursuance of their development goals as articulated in Agenda 2063 and the SDGs.

China’s FOCAC seems to always draw more numbers of African leaders, although both FOCAC and TICAD summits are strategically organised to alternate between African countries and China or Japan every three years. Having the two summit diversifies opportunities for African leaders to complement the benefits earned from both countries.

We can have a picture of the significance of FOCAC and TICAD based on the turnout they registered of African heads of state. In 2024, more than 38 African presidents attended the FOCAC summit in China. All African countries were represented at least by a Vice President, Prime Minister or Foreign Minister, except Eswatini, the only country without diplomatic relations with the People’s Republic of China. Among those in attendance were South Africa’s Cyril Ramaphosa, Nigeria’s Tinubu, Kenya’s Ruto, Tanzania’s Samia Suluhu Hassan, Zimbabwe’s Emmerson Mnangagwa, Senegal’s Bassirou Diomaye Faye, Togo’s Faure Gnassingbé, Mali’s Assimi Goïta, Sudan’s Abdel Fattah al-Burhan, Comoros’ Azali Assoumani, Djibouti’s Ismaïl Omar Guelleh, and Madagascar’s Andry Rajoelina. Others included leaders of; Mali, Sudan, Burkina Faso, Guinea, and Niger. In attendance was also Moussa Faki Mahamat, the chairperson of the African Union Commission. It is easy to observe China’s vitality as Africa’s development partner, given the pull and success that the last FOCAC summit had. At the end of the summit, over 100 agreements were signed, in comparison with 64 cooperation documents signed at TICAD 9.

By comparison, at least 13 African presidents, 15 prime ministers, and three vice presidents attended the ninth edition of TICAD in Yokohama, Japan.

 

 

The TICAD 9 Summit featured vibrant discussions on a wide range of development themes concerning Africa. The summit was segmented into various sessions to discuss pertinent issues. There were discussions about Africa’s urban awakening and catalysing economic growth and jobs. The conference examined challenges and the potential of urbanisation in Africa. The panellists shared insights from the latest World Bank reports and cases from Japanese cities, and explored how to leverage urbanisation to expand economic opportunities and improve employment outcomes. It should be noted that the World Bank was a co-organiser and, therefore, was actively involved in shaping and implementing the core themes of the conference.

The ninth TICAD summit also brought together venture capital firms, Japanese public-sector partners, and a multilateral development bank to discuss how best to support startups and venture enterprises from Africa and Japan that contribute to addressing social development challenges in Africa. It also delved into how the global aid architecture impacts development outcomes in Africa, and discussions were held on practical recommendations to reform aid systems for maximum SDG impact.

In general, TICAD 9 reflected Japan’s shift from an aid giver/ donor to a trade partner that prioritises the private sector. This shift, if it gets implemented well, will certainly be more transformative for African countries as compared to donations/ aid.

At the 2024 FOCAC, China pledged $50 billion in financial support to Africa over the next three years. In contrast, Japan pledged to contribute up to a maximum of $5.5 billion for the next four years under the Expansion of the Enhanced Private Sector Assistance for Africa (EPSA). Japan also promised to mobilise $1.5 billion in impact investments through the Japan International Cooperation Agency (JICA) to foster private sector development in Africa.

At FOCAC, China highlighted some of the contributions it has already made. It has built over 10,000 km of rail and 100,000 km of roads. Over 100 clean energy projects have been funded under FOCAC, and 50% of public funding for Africa’s clean energy sector is funded by China. China has also been Africa’s number one trading partner for the past 15 years. 70% of Africa’s 4G Network was built by China, etc.

In conclusion, whereas TICAD has a longer history compared to FOCAC, over time, African leaders and their nations have tended to shift increasingly towards China in their bilateral relations, as shown by the number of cooperation agreements signed at each of the respective summits. It should be remembered that TICAD was established in 1993 with a goal to refocus international attention on African development amid the post-Cold War aid fatigue. The inaugural FOCAC summit was in 2000, and it was proposed by African diplomats in the late 1990s in response to growing bilateral ties between the two entities.

The writer is a senior research fellow at the Development Watch Centre.

Eighty Years Later, China Reflects Lessons Learned with Progress Shown

Posted on By Joshua Kingdom

When Japan signed the Instrument of Surrender on September 2nd 1945, the moment marked China’s great triumph over the occupying power. Things had not been easy in the time leading to the event though. For one thing, this particular resistance was the longest standing against fascism anywhere in the world (having started in 1931). To this day therefore, Beijing’s political vision continues to be driven in part by the lessons drawn from those years.

This is where President Xi was coming from in his remarks to the world during the eighty years commemoration of the victory. So while it might initially seem counterintuitive for the General Secretary of the Communist Party of China to make statements such as “Today humanity is again faced with the choice of peace or war, dialogue or confrontation, win-win or zero sum…” on the one hand while going on to display state of the art military weaponry on the other, it does not have to be if one appreciates the context as we will see.

In the forties, the Chinese people had to make do with the situation in which they found themselves. Doing so however, came at such a high cost. An estimated 35 million nationals (combatants and civilians) for example, lost their lives. The deduction of this reality hence, was that despite the fact that a prerequisite of freedom is enabling internal infrastructure that supports it, the same is not sufficient. Also key in this picture as the recent parade showed, is the protection of sovereign interests.

In the Tiananmen square on Wednesday, ten thousand men and women in uniform from the four services of the army (navy, rocket, infantry and air force) proudly displayed their skills to the admiration of thousands in attendance and millions watching live through television. And then there is the equipment showcased. Leading these were the nuclear warheads; DongFeng-31 land-based intercontinental missile (which is all new), JuLang-3 submarine-launched intercontinental missile, and the DongFeng-61 land-based intercontinental missile.

Another debuting stellar piece of hardware was the AJX002 underwater drone. This equipment is gigantic and yet it operates unmanned. Large lasers to be deployed in air and land fights were present too. Others were; stealth aircrafts, fighter jets, tanks, hypersonic missiles etc. Keeping to the day’s theme, several activities reminded onlookers of the nonaggression stance of China. Helicopters flying in the sky thus, carried messages such as; “Peace Prevails,”  “Justice Prevails,” and “The People Prevail.”

Elsewhere, there is no doubt that the message that China intended to send was received loud and clear. In the United States, the President took to his Truth Social account accusing Beijing of working with Moscow and Pyongyang to conspire against it. Now, the worthiness of this statement is barely existent but its implications tell a lot. What the Whitehouse was saying without saying is that it felt the strength that came across from China on Victory Day and we can look to pundits in the West for further clarity. Speaking to CNN’s Rosemary Church, Malcolm Davis of the Australian Strategic Policy Institute affirmed that “China is moving much more rapidly in this critical military technology area than the United States is” and that “they’re gaining an advantage that will give them the ability to make it much more difficult for the US and its allies to be able to project power into the Western Pacific in a crisis.”

The other part of this equation of course, is that in building the capacities that it has, China has not only emancipated herself but also emerged as a counterbalancing power in a world that has long needed one. At the parade, this fact was evidenced by the twenty plus heads of states in attendance. The diversity of the countries represented (i.e. European, Asian, as well as South American) is also testament to the fact that this phenomenon is truly global.

Moreover, these nations exhibited high level commitment in honoring their invitations. With the current tariffs policy by the United States for instance, they had to wonder whether the Trump administration would not act in further hostility to them if they came through. Secondly, some of these leaders waited for this occasion from the time that the Shanghai Cooperation Organization summit concluded.

It is a fitting run so far then. With proper consolidation, nothing can come in the way of China in the next eighty years. The rejuvenation of the Chinese nation is unstoppable indeed.

The writer is a research fellow at the Development Watch Centre.

 

G7 Leaders’ Rhetorics a Threat to Pacifism and Global Peace

Posted on By Allawi Ssemanda

Over the weekend, we listened to leaders of Group of Seven (G7) countries who gathered in Hiroshima, Japan for this year’s G7 summit which started with promise of trying to address world’s challenges.

If we take a clear analysis of speeches of the leaders; from the United States, the United Kingdom, Canada, Germany, France, Italy, and Japan—plus the European Union, one can conclude that the summit veered off the original course – addressing global challenges and metamorphosized into a sort of anti-China grouping.

From press conferences to official communiqué, as the Atlantic Council analysis concluded; “make no mistake, it is all about China,” the U.S and “Japanese Prime Minister Fumio Kishida made the issue of combating China’s economic coercion a priority for Japan’s G7.”

While President Joe Biden told press that he supports the idea of having an “open hotline” with China, his rhetoric points at a president interested in maligning China with accusations of “China’s continued military expansion” and the so-called Beijing’s “economic coercion.” However, simple facts check points at the U.S being the leader when it comes to economic coercion especially influencing allies to follow Washington’s unilateral decisions.

While Biden claimed that Washington will not “decouple from China,” he told the same press that “with all the talk about China’s building its military, I’ve made it clear …I’m not prepared to trade certain items with China,” claiming that trading freely with China means China “using them to build nuclear weapons and other weapons of mass destruction, and I’m not going to do it.” Biden further boasted that allies have all agreed to restrict selling of certain items to Chinese firms stressing that “we’ve now got commitment from all of our allies they’re not going to either provide that kind of material that allows them to do that.”

While Biden claimed that the U.S is not seeking to “decouple from China,” if critically analysed, his comments reflect China’s accusation that Washington has been encouraging allies and companies to decouple from Chinese chain supply. Indeed, on 7th October 2022, the U.S took unprecedented steps announcing export bans to cut China off from certain semiconductor chips and chip-making equipment. Hence, the claim that the U.S does not seek to “decouple from China” is double standard considering that the U.S has been encouraging her companies to do exactly this. However, the U.S must accept fair competition and come to reality that attempts to isolate China will not help Washington and threaten global economy. As Elon Musk argued, it is not realistic to completely decouple from China and such efforts will definitely boomerang. For example, since 2013, China has been the engine of global economy with more than 38% compared to all G7 countries contribution of just 25.7%!

On G7 accusing China of increasingly “building its military” capacity, one can argue that compared to the U.S 2022/2023 defence budget of about $761 billion which is almost times four of China’s ($230 billion), this claim is baseless and misleading. It is also important to observe that all the G7 countries’ defence budgets have been steadily increasing over the past several years. Therefore, pointing at China as the only country whose military budget continue to rise is a keen to misinformation.

Telling journalists that “now, we’re also united in our approach to the People’s Republic of China, and the joint statement released yesterday outlines the shared principles we’ve all agreed at the G7 and beyond in dealing with China,” Biden argued that as a result of alleged China’s continued military building, “we’ve ended up where you have Japan stepping up in a way that’s of real consequence, in terms of your defense budget, number one, and a beginning of a rapprochement with South Korea.” If analysed, Japan’s decision to abandon pacifism which Tokyo has maintained for decades as per its post-war constitution – adopted in 1947 with a clause commonly referred to as Article 9 in which first paragraph renounces war, and the second paragraph promises to never maintain military forces, today, Japan’s decision to consider own military as well as growing its defence budget can be traced from US’ influence and courting Tokyo to join Washington’s anti-Beijing club with their so-called countering China agenda which is informed by America’s libido dominandi, a Latin phrase for lust to dominate others.  We can argue that using China card, the U.S has created China scare and forced countries including Japan into group formation with the latest being the so-called QUAD which analysts argue is meant to counter what US calls China’s influence in Indo-Pacific.

Indeed, addressing press alongside G7 summit in Hiroshima, president Biden was categorical explaining that he convinced India, Australia and Japan to join the U.S and form Quad. “I bet you — I would — maybe some of you thought it, but I doubt many people in this audience or any other audience would have said that two years after being elected, I’d be able to convince India, Australia, Japan, and the United States to form an organization called the Quad to maintain stability in the Indian Ocean and the South China Sea,” boasted president Biden.

The formation of Quad left a number of countries in the region entering defence competition with Japan abandoning its pacifism policy, South Korea announcing increased military spending and the U.S promising nuclear submarines to Australia on the other hand claiming Washington is committed to ensuring nuclear proliferation in the region.

Also, the G7 summit addressed their so-called “shared commitment to the G7 Partnership for Global Infrastructure and Investment (PGII)” and promised $600 billion to among others support infrastructure development in both South and Global north.  Analysts argue PGII is meant to counter China’s Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) which has so far been embraced by over 151 countries and at least 32 international organizations creating tens of thousands of employment opportunities and growing a number of countries GDP projections, G7’s PGII largely remains on paper. Despite G7 promises of speeding up their push for new supply chains ostensibly to leverage the PGII as an alternative to BRI, it is very unlikely this will be realised. Indeed, since its announcement two years ago, in Africa, it is very difficult to trace how many countries have benefited from it. The U.S which is arguably a de facto leader of G7 and pushing PGII itself has serious infrastructure deficits and the Biden administration has more than twice failed to convince congress to fund it. It therefore remains strange to imagine congress will approve money to address infrastructure deficits abroad yet it failed to approval similar spending at home.

In conclusion, the G7 summit which started with promise of trying to address global challenges ended up as a small group of rich countries discussing how to counter China and ignored real issues affecting the world especially developing countries. On global peace, in efforts to their so-called countering China, the group instigated Japan to abandon its pacifism policy as Tokyo embarks on building and growing its military. Also, the choice of Hiroshima which suffered the first nuclear attacks at a time when Russia-Ukraine crisis is raging makes one wonder what message G7 leaders were sending. It is not a surprise there was no talk of diplomacy as a possible way of addressing the crisis but many choose to announce military support to Kiev.

Dr. Allawi Ssemanda is a Senior Research Fellow at the Development Watch Centre.

The G-7 Summit was yet another “US against Them” Political Rally

Posted on By Admin

By Moshi Israel

The 2023 G7 summit, in Hiroshima, Japan started on 19th May and concluded on 21st May. The participating G7 countries include; the United Kingdom, Germany, United States, Canada, Japan, Italy, and France. The European Union also participates in all discussions as a guest represented jointly by the Presidents of the European Council and the European Commission. An invitation was also extended to BRICS members and emerging economic powerhouses, India and Brazil. The president of war-torn Ukraine also participated in the summit. Additional countries were invited to fill up the sixteen sits available at the summit including Comoros and the Cook Islands representing the African Union and Pacific Islands Forum, respectively, as their current chairs.

The summit concerned itself with two major perspectives; Upholding the so-called international order based on the rule of law and outreach to the Global South.

The choice to focus on these two perspectives provides an insight into the major itch on the back of G7 countries. First of all, it signals that the G7 is of the view that their international rules-based order is under threat and secondly, they acknowledge the fact that they are losing influence in the Global South. Naturally, the blame is always placed on some external enemy and little focus is put on self-reflection.

Furthermore, the summit discussed a couple of issues. On top of the list was the issue of Regional Affairs with Ukraine and the Indo-Pacific being of major concern. Other important issues included; Nuclear disarmament and Non-proliferation, Economic Resilience and Economic Security, Climate and Energy, Food, Health, and Development. Concerns on Gender, Human Rights, Digitalization, and Science and Technology were highlighted.

However, most of these important topics were not the highlight of the summit. Instead, the 2023 G7 Summit is now infamous for its anti-China rhetoric and has come off as yet another “Us Vs Them” political rally. This is a dangerous reinventing of the cold-war mentality that was detrimental to Global peace. The British Prime Minister cited China as representing “the world’s greatest challenge to security and prosperity.” Although many are left wondering whose ‘security’ and whose ‘prosperity’ Mr. Rishi Sunak is referring to.  Furthermore, the G7 leaders agreed to establish an initiative to counter economic ‘coercion.’ Jumping on the anti-china chorus, the leaders of the QUAD group- India, Australia, Japan, and the US called for ‘peace and stability in the Indo-pacific maritime domain’ in an attempt to jibe at China. Overall, the G7 countries released a communique that ‘warned’ China over its ‘militarisation activities’ in the Asia-pacific region.

On the other hand, Beijing hit back at the G7 by calling the summit a collective effort to ‘smear and attack China.’ The Ministry of Foreign Affairs of China also pointed out that the G7 was ‘hindering international peace, undermining regional stability and curbing other countries’ development.’ This statement will most likely resonate with many countries in the Global South. Also, on the summit’s final day, Chinese regulators barred Chinese infrastructure from using US chip maker, Micron Technology after the latter failed a two-month security review.

All this highlights the increasing gap in cooperation between Beijing and the West. Although President Biden expressed hope for the rejuvenation of China-US relations, it now sounds like empty rhetoric. The G7 countries tried to input a ‘positive note’ on the summit by claiming that they wanted ‘constructive and stable relations’ with Beijing and aimed to ‘de-risk’ rather than ‘de-couple’ from their relations with China. Unsurprisingly too, there was no active support for an end to hostilities in Ukraine but rather an escalation of the conflict through further military aid. The only viable solution to the situation in Ukraine according to the West is the complete defeat or withdrawal of Russian troops from the territory of Ukraine. Only time can be the judge of such a position.

It is safe to conclude that the G7 summit did not bring forward any new ideas or innovative ways to handle Global turmoil but instead resorted to tired and tried tactics that help no one by increasing tensions. The pattern is clear and spells tribal warfare where everyone joins a camp and fights to crush a perceived enemy.  It is a kind of politics where national interest takes precedence over any progressive notion of healthy competition and cooperation. It is perhaps, high time the words of seasoned diplomat Henry Kissinger are taken seriously. In an interview with the British Historian Niall Ferguson, published by the Spanish newspaper “El Mundo,” Kissinger noted that a ‘second cold war fought between the United States and China could be more dangerous than the first one.’ He further noted that such a war could ‘overthrow civilization, if not destroy it altogether.’  He also observed that waiting for China to ‘Westernise’ was not a plausible strategy and did not think ‘World domination is a Chinese concept.’

The global south eventually emerges as the loser from the summit because once again the West only reaches out not to reinvent relations based on equal opportunities and mutual respect but as a strategy to curb China’s influence and to rally support against Russia.

The Writer is a Research Fellow with DWC