Tag: Russia

BRICS Foreign Ministers Brazil Meeting: What is Uganda’s Status?

Posted on by Musanjufu Benjamin Kavubu

On Monday 28th of April, BRICS foreign affairs ministers met in Brazil and they were hosted by Mauro Vieira, their counterpart, they gathered in Rio de Janeiro to discuss the group’s role in addressing global and regional crises and their common response to the trade war with the United States. Uganda’s foreign affairs minister did not make the trip.

On January 1st 2025 Uganda became a partner state of BRICS, as part of its journey to join the organisation. While there was excitement both in Uganda and across the continent, it’s very vital to go about this development with realism and pragmatism. There is a new process in place to become a member of the BRICS. Since the 3rd BRICS summit when South Africa joined in 2010, there were no additions to that formation until 2024 when the Arab Republic of Egypt, Federal Democratic Republic of Ethiopia, United Arab Emirates, Republic of Indonesia and Islamic Republic of Iran joined something that spurred the global South as a multilateral world was being birthed.

During the 16th BRICS summit in Kazan Russia, a framework was put in place to ensure those sovereign countries that found it logical to join were able to. At the moment a state must first be an observer state and fortunately Uganda never underwent this phase because it was prior to the Kazan developments, instead it acquired the partner states status and then the final stage will be member state. Uganda’s journey to join BRICS started on 11th November 2024 when the foreign minister Jeje Odongo Abubakher met his Russian counterpart Sergey Lavrov who extended a formal invitation for BRICS partner state status along with 13 other countries.

By January 1st 2025 Kampala had met the criteria that was put in place in the Kazan Summit in 2024. This implied that Uganda had proved herself as a partner and was ready to start the integration phase as a member state. The criteria has aspects like economic stability, geopolitical alignment, institutional reforms and consensus approval from the existing member states. The 10th member to be admitted, Indonesia was averaging an annual economic growth of about 5% before it proved itself for membership status. Geopolitically a partner state should commit to the organisation’s tenants like equal sovereignty. Countries should comply with the forum’s financial and governance standards like anti-corruption measures and in the past Brazil was able to veto Venezuela’s bid over electoral disputes. Most likely Uganda’s magic bullet will be its strategic location in East Africa as a trade gateway for the other members of BRICS and its historical role in the global South.

There are incentives that will motivate Uganda along with the other 8 countries that attained partner state status in January 2025 to strive for Member state status. BRICS is not anti-West but instead it’s an outfit that is taking up the gap of the post West dominated world. For Uganda to move from partner state to a Member of the BRICS, a number of strategic wins are on the horizon, from economic outlook to geopolitical and development space. Uganda, will have access to the New Development Banks (NDB), the famous BRICS bank. The financial institution offers alternative funding to specific infrastructure projects with better loan repayment as opposed to the IMF and World Bank.

Members of BRICS have direct access to the markets of other members which offer economic diversification. Uganda can look up to growth of its agriculture and mineral export with an already boom in coffee output and expected Petroleum production. On the economic front, BRICS is also trying to come up with a framework that is Western sanction-proof with lower dependency on the US dollar, something that can also stabilize the Ugandan Shilling if membership status is attained.

Member states of BRICS also have the opportunity to work together on technology transfer, on renewable energy for example under the new Environmental working group that was put in place during the Kazan Summit in 2024. Collaborations on such aspects can bring about a robust industrial phase that the global South needs to undergo. Geopolitically, BRICS membership offers huge leverage diplomatically especially when it comes to the United Nations setup and the need for reform including more African representatives especially on the sticking issue of the security council and the unjust veto power factor.

For Uganda to be more pivotal and influential in East Africa, BRICS membership would go a long way to facilitate its position as a regional power house, which is already a key player in Somalia’s rebuilding and the establishment of the sovereignty of South Sudan as a new country in the world. BRICS has proved itself an a balancing force that has seen China and India considered to be global rivals work together, this can give a chance to Uganda to widen it’s foreign policy beyond the established world hegemony and former colonial masters.

The beauty is that the partner status phase of the BRICS gives Kampala the flexibility to maintain its western alliances with Washington and Brussels but at the same time being watchful of over reliance on any side which is the essence of multipolarity. The stage is also a time to align with the BRICS core principles while safeguarding national and Pan-African interests on the way to Member status.

For now, the path is set and clear in the Kazan Summit declaration of 2024 on how Uganda can attain full member status of BRICS and the work should be cut out for the respective government department, agencies and ministries to cross the line. Membership Status will bring about academic cooperation and research which is vital for innovation, there a global South common interests, a promising acceleration of nuclear power output to change the energy sector, BRICS members have demographics that transition to a market for what could take up Uganda’s potential agricultural output and most importantly membership status will provide equality among the sovereign nations for starters in the formation and in the long run at the United Nation.

The writer is a research fellow at Development Watch Centre.

 

Policy Volte-Face In Washington as The U.S Validates China’s Position on the Ukraine Conflict

Posted on by Musiime George

The principles of mutual respect, peaceful coexistence, common development and political settlement of conflicts have always been a hallmark feature of Chinese diplomacy. For China, this position meant more than just rhetoric; extending  into policy implementation with the principles built into all of China’s partnerships. China resolutely chose to uphold these principles when it declared the “friendship with no limits” with Russia in 2022 which some western commentators argue is behind China’s stance on the conflict in Ukraine. China and Russia however, maintain that this friendship was not intended as  a direct challenge to the current global order but those that governed for always using it for their own geopolitical gains. Nevertheless, some commentators always  paint this friendship as an Anti-West alliance. Coming out of the Biden Administration which only  purposed to replenished Ukraine’s capacity to fight on not withstanding of the gravity of the crisis, China advocated for a negotiated end to the conflict from the start. This is why a policy volte-face on Ukraine in the US  is such a significant development in the global effort to restore peace in Eastern Europe.

The NATO alliance; a rigid anti-Russia stance and the brightest of all red lines. Russia has maintained, its interests in this conflict were purely self-defense unlike the West describing it as aggression or invasion. Albeit the different points of view, this essay is not dedicated to delving in the technicalities of this nomenclature. However, it is worth mentioning here that the push of NATO towards Russia’s doorstep has been highlighted as a strategic threat both from within Russian and the west alike. The expansion has been criticized in the West,  among others by,  Biden CIA director Bill Burns who referred to it as “…needlessly provocative at worst during the Clinton administration in 1998. He also went ahead to describe NATO Expansion in a 2005 letter to Secretary of state Condoleezza Rice as “the brightest of red lines.” Moreover, French president Francois Mitterrand, had earlier in the 1990s proposed dismantling the alliance after it had served its purpose following the end of the cold war. While different scholars have faulted this sustained expansion of the Alliance as a key factor in this conflict, the Validation of China’s position on the conflict could imply fresh hope for the region.

During a period when the world is dealing with a diversity of security concern, China is proposing The Global initiative is built on the principal pillar of security of all nations regardless. Therefore, with Trump’s reversal of Biden era policy on Ukraine, the world can expect to see progress in efforts to find a solution to this conflict. Indeed, were are at that point where a world weary of the prolonged conflict can expect to see some progress in as far as bringing the conflict and its associated negative impact on the world to an end. Additionally, president Trump has been moving first in this direction having already had a high level meeting involving secretary of state Rubio and Russian PM Sergei Lavrov in Riyadh, coinciding with restoration of diplomatic relations between the two nations. On the other hand,  parallel meetings with the Ukrainian have happened, putting together the conditions for a peace deal. The holding of parallel meetings also signifies a commitment to reaching a deal as the absence of both Ukraine and the EU in Riyadh might be interpreted as a move seeking to avoid stalemates characteristic of having NATO members-some of whom might still harbor the rigid anti Russia sentiments. Critics of this approach, have thus been,  those outspoken about the wanting to see the conflict going until Ukraine attains Victory, something Trump clearly does not see as a viable outcome, at least not in the short or medium term.

More so, the presidents view is not one shared by everyone of uncle Sam’s partners as expressed by frustration of some white house staff. Amid these frustration, Ukraine and some EU presidents have been faulted for attempts to denigrate President Trump’s peace efforts. However, his resolve to find a solution to this conflict at any cost has been demonstrated by his implied proposal that saving the lives of innocent civilians might even be so important to justify Ukraine ceding some territory. Additionally, Trumps earlier expressed position on the implications of  the “NATO burden” on the United States economy could be another factor informing his policy reversal. This with the fact that The US has been Ukraine’s biggest backer in the war also signal how room little President Zelensky might have to wiggle out of the deal especially that the US is considering scaling back its European deployment which would directly affect NATO deployment as well.

Obviously, one cannot deny the fact that ‘war fatigue’ started setting in as early as the second half of 2024 with Poland and Czechia among the first professed EU supporters of Ukraine to want out. Despite promises to support the war effort for as long as it took, the withdrawal of significant US backing would most like dent and eventually dwindle European interest in the war even further- making continued fighting unsustainable. Moreover, a poll by the Council on Foreign Relations in Feb 2024, indicated most Europeans anticipating the conflict ending in a compromise. In addition, the same poll also put at 10% the chance that Ukraine might emerge triumphant. Consequently, this dynamic will have a direct bearing on the outcome of the new US led peace efforts. Conversely, for those that might be against the concessions by the US regarding its military presence in Europe, NATO and consequently the war in Ukraine, this might be a start of a possible reorientation of Europe’s security strategies. However, this development is also likely to relax tensions on the continent and Russia’s urgency to develop security capabilities against the threat from NATO.

When president Xi Jinping first proposed the Global Security Initiative in April 2022, he envisioned global security in the sense of a balanced security landscape, one where the security of one does not threaten that of another. This is what makes US validation of China’s initial position on the Ukraine conflict, a huge prospect for peace in the region. Therefore, a peace deal in Ukraine, should it go through would be a right step in the direction a stable Europe, and here is why. In what seemed like giving a nod to the propositions of President Mitterrand and Bill Burns from decades ago, Trumps defense secretary Pete Hegseth told NATO allies that it was unrealistic for Ukraine to join the alliance. Albeit not being a direct support for the GIS, this position gives props to the cardinal principle of the GIS that advises against promoting one’s security by threatening another. Hence halting NATO expansion keeps the threat to Russia at a safe distance and, just this is a positive move towards not just US-Russia relations but also global peace.

Georgemusiime@dwcug.org

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

2024 BRICS Summit: Geopolitics, Geoeconomics and Supply Chains; the Group to Set New World Order

Posted on by Musanjufu Benjamin Kavubu

Many experts have reduced BRICS to a mood, Economists are even saying dollarisation is a myth for left sympathisers and a new enchantment for the global South. Those who take it seriously see it as a threat to the World Bank and the IMF, the former dealing with short-term development plans across the world and the latter dealing with long term fiscal policies, this sets the dollar as the global leading currency and a tool for Western hegemony.

The USA’s economy is based on their military might and NATO. As the world changes there have been many developments and to counter Western led multilateral groups the global South has BRICS, which as of 2023  expanded to 10 countries.

The current BRICS Summit is today 22nd to the 24th of October 2024. For starters it’s reported that 34 countries in one form or another have applied to join the group. The is being viewed as a counter to the G7 and it’s taking even a grander shape on the security front which is a key pillar of its founding.

From the 10th of September to the 12th 2024 the Russian President Vladimir Putin hosted a meeting of National Security Advisors of all the members of the BRICS and that meeting was under the organization’s Political and Security Pillar of Cooperation. There are about 53 conflicts raging in the world today, the Russia-Ukraine and the Israeli brutal occupation of Palestine are the most outstanding causing seismic Geopolitical shockwaves world over. These conflicts disrupt global supply chains that are very vital to globalization in terms of trade especially amongst BRICS and the global South.

Let’s understand what Supply Chains and Geopolitics are first. A supply chain is the network of organizations, people, activities, information, and resources involved in the creation and delivery of a product or service from the supplier of raw materials to the end customer. It encompasses all the processes involved in sourcing raw materials, manufacturing, logistics, distribution, and retail, including the management of these activities to ensure efficiency, cost-effectiveness, and customer satisfaction. Basically the definition of Supply Chains can be swapped for the essence of the Belt and Road Initiative by China that is now a decade and has facilitate development of the world in general.

On the other hand Geopolitics that refers to  how geographical factors, such as location, natural resources, and physical terrain, influence the political power, decisions, and relationships between countries basically international relations. Geopolitics is how nations use their geographical advantages and go about challenges to pursue economic, military, and strategic goals on the global stage. If you look at the foundation of BRICS, you will notice how geography affects global politics and international relations.

Security situations throughout history have proven far and wide effects across the world, effects on every aspect of life, from social to economic. And in the last about 24 months there have been military drills amongst BRICS members aimed at safe guarding trade routes and ensure smooth flow of supply chains that are vital for humans civilization. In 2023 the Russian and South African Navies got together for a drill, in the Second quarter of 2024 the Russian Navy conducted drills with Cuba a vital global South country and very recently the Chinese Navy joined Russia for the Ocean 2024 drill. These drills are aimed to prepare for eventualities that may affect sea trade routes, that’s why they were conducted in the Arctic, Mediterranean, Pacific, Caspian and Baltic water ways.

The world geography has these areas that are prone to military and naval blockages during times of conflicts. Areas like the Strait of Hormuz controlled Largely by Iran and BRICS member in the Middle East, connects the Persian Gulf to the Arabian Sea vital for global oil supply a lot of it ending China. It one the reasons China had to bring Saudi Arabia and Iran together through its Global Security Initiative GSI for normalizing diplomatic relations. The Strait of Malacca connecting the Indian Ocean to the South China Sea, essential for trade between Asia and Europe. The Suez Canal that connects the Mediterranean Sea to the Red Sea helping to bypass the longer route around Africa. The Bab el-Mandeb Strait  between Yemen and Djibouti, connects the Red Sea to the Gulf of Aden, vital for shipping between Europe and Asia, has almost all major Navies operating in the area.

The Panama Canal that Connects the Atlantic and Pacific Ocean, Bosporus and Dardanelles Straits in Turkey a member of NATO but also seeking BRICS membership bridges the Black Sea to the Mediterranean, vital for Russian and Eastern European exports. The Cape of Good Hope on the South African coast serves as an alternative route if the Suez Canal is blocked, crucial for global trade. The Lombok Strait in Indonesia which is an alternative to the Strait of Malacca. All are Geopolitical chock points that are pivotal to global supply chains.

As the new world order faces off with the Western hegemony and developments like the BRICS bank being formed to counter the Bretton Woods another aspect is brought into play. Which is Geoeconomics that is basically about how countries use economic tools, policies, and strategies to advance their geopolitical goals. These tools range from trade agreements and investments for example the $ 50 Billion announced at FOCAC 9 in Beijing, to control over vital resources, like energy or rare earth metals.

Economic strength is a powerful asset in shaping global political power and achieving strategic ambitions. Sadly the West led by the USA and the whole EU see sanctions as the best tool to further this endvour. Today USA sanctions are used to disrupt global South supply chains which hinders development. It’s through embargoes that supply chains have taken the hit affecting even the most basic of traders in your local market to all kinds of consumers.

Supply Chains controls and disruptions even take extreme measures for example the latest case of Israeli operations in Lebanon, when a whole supply chains was compromised to plant explosives across the country.

The cross roads of supply chains, geopolitics, and geoeconomics is going  to shape the Multipolar world order, and the BRICS formation as a counterbalance to Western hegemony. It’s going to take everything for example naval drills and economic partnerships. Multipolarity is going to redefine everything. The current situations, mostly driven by the West, show how supply chains are no longer just about movement of goods but affect every aspect of modern human civilization.

Benjamin is a research fellow at the Development Watch Centre.

 

 

 

 

America’s 2023 Country Report on Human Rights Practices: Who Policies the USA?

Posted on by Alan Collins Mpewo

On 22nd April, 2024, the US Congress with a fore note from the Secretary of State, Antony J. Blinken, issued the 2023 Country Reports on Human Rights Practices for all other countries that are on earth, except itself. It has been a practice it has committed itself into fulfilling since 1977 and not so much can be said as having started with bad intentions. In deed, human rights are a concern supposed to keep every person (individual or artificial) on high attention to either advance, protect or preserve. It’s therefore a commendable practice thus far. Many countries across the globe have its citizens suffering at hands of human rights violators in all forms. Some of these are out of territorial breaches, while others are internally castigated by kinsmen and kinswomen whose jobs it should be to do better. Lives still get lost for example, in many African, Latin America, and the Middle East at hands of both internal and external perpetrators. In unison with the subject reports, this is wrong, and should never be normalized as practice anywhere.

The forewords by Antony Blinken were interesting, especially how they described Kremlin’s actions in Ukraine, versus the description of Israel’s actions in Palestine. Interesting still, the language used to condemn practices by the People’s Republic of China. But while on a look out of a balanced analysis of the report, of all the countries as noted, the US could not bring forth a report on itself and how it’s ‘respecting’ human rights both internally and abroad. So, who polices the US foreign policies? It remains an unsolved question for many years despite many dissenters pointing it out, that while it’s commendable to make focus of other world key players regarding human rights practices, the watch should equally be made on the US, by itself and other state and non-state actors. As noted in the reports’ forewords, it points to major monitoring on states from whom US aid is supplied. That shouldn’t be passed off as a conflicting situation for the recipients, and therefore a compromise on taking equal watch on the donor.

As noted in the report, it coincides with the 75th anniversary of the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR), and at its inception, Eleanor Roosevelt, one of the authors of the UDHR noted, “The destiny of human rights is in the hands of all our citizens in all our communities.” It is an indictment on everyone to take center attention. The US as it did at the time of inception of the UDHR, committed to preserving human rights especially abroad but 2023 was quite an interesting year regarding the US foreign policies and it remains a non shocking scenario that the US couldn’t publish a similar report on itself and its activities. Rather, as many years before, any such statements on global state of affairs come as justification for their actions rather than self condemnation.

2023 was an equally busy year for the US especially in the middle east, and while the Israel-Palestine and Ukraine-Russia conflicts steal the attention for US actions, in similar measure as it maintained focus on Uganda’s Anti-Homosexuality Act, and consequential withdraw of funding, Cuba’s regime actions, Nicaragua’s government crackdown on dissent, Russia territorial breach on Ukraine’s border, and much more, the US had a run on Iraq and Syria. For many years now, the middle east has been a military play ground for the US. Many countries have consistently condemned the US involvement in the region’s politics citing instigation of more incitement. Baghdad condemned the strikes by the US on its territory which occasioned deaths and wounding of Iraqi citizens.

Of these attacks in the region since October 7, 2023 since the Israel-Hamas war peaked, there have been reported more than 66 separate attacks in the region. This comes off as though it’s the US so much concerned about stability of the region, using war to being more war. The attacks have been gazetted as warranted and even with the wanton killing of numerous civilians in the region by the US in 2023, it didn’t call for equal urgency to issue a report on its own human rights violations. Much as there are numerous world actors that have consistently showed concern and more especially with the players with valuable commercial interests in the area, not many are willing to raise a finger at the self appointed global police. This happens at a time when the United Nations, a body supposed to be impartial has been spotlighted as running selective interests to the West bloc.

As of April 2024, the US faces internal concerns regarding respecting the freedoms of expression and association that are guaranteed by the first amendment of the country’s constitution. Over 200 students across major Universities have been arrested and more crackdowns are still ongoing on the students protesting Israel’s war actions in Palestine. From the Northeastern University in Boston, to Yale, Columbia, Southern California, and more Universities joining the protests against the ongoing war, many peaceful protestors have been arrested and charged with inciting violence, vandalism, and criminal trespass, accusations many have criticized as unfounded, embarrassing to the national image, and illegal. But just as Anthony Blinken quoted Eleanor Roosevelt, human rights are a concern for all, and it’s only fair that in 2024 and years to come, similar documentation on both triumphs and condemnation be issued against the US by the US as it does annually for other global actors.

Alan Collins Mpewo is a Senior Research Fellow, Development Watch Centre.

Dying Empires and Shifting Powers: Western Nightmares of the Ascendant Dragon

Posted on by Moshi Isreal

The world is undergoing rapid transformation, a reality of which nearly everyone is acutely aware, thanks in large part to the advanced technologies at our disposal that capture these shifts in real time. This has led to a palpable sense of alarm over the intensity and pace of these changes. Many current and Traditional World powers are coming to terms with a noticeable shift in global political dynamics, as control seems to be gradually eluding their grasp. This situation can be likened to the precariousness of clinging to the sharp edge of a skyscraper to prevent a fall. While this might seem like a natural progression from the viewpoint of the average citizen, from the perspective of established authorities, the scenario unfolds with far-reaching implications.

Observing that the Western bloc is experiencing a decline does not constitute an assault on its integrity, although there is justification for assaulting western integrity. Moreover, such acknowledgments have even been made by Western leaders themselves. Josep Borrell, the European Union’s chief diplomat, has starkly proclaimed that the “era of Western dominance has definitively ended.” However, my perspective is not as bleak as Mr. Borrell’s. I maintain that there is still an opportunity for Western nations to reassess their approach towards global political governance. The essence of Borrell’s argument hints at a potential solution to the swift decline of the West. He cautions against dividing the world into ‘the West against the Rest’, highlighting accusations from many in the ‘Global South of double standards.’ This insight underscores the need for a more inclusive and equitable international framework that eschews divisive narratives.

Regrettably, certain Western governments are persistently engaging in divisive tactics, particularly targeting China. The underlying motivation for such actions, despite various ‘moral’ justifications presented by the West, stems from China’s rapid ascent. A number of Western political analysts and policymakers are unwilling to coexist in a world where China assumes a leading role in political, military, cultural, and economic spheres. They position themselves as the defenders of Western ‘exceptionalism,’ yet often, their views do not reflect the sentiments of the broader populace within their nations. Nonetheless, their relentless quest for perpetual dominance and their constant fixation on the potential threats posed by China’s growth have contributed to a global environment steeped in turmoil.

The global landscape is currently fraught with challenges, from the ascendancy of gangs in Haiti and the humanitarian crisis stemming from the Gaza conflict, to ongoing hostilities in Ukraine and heightened tensions across the Middle East – including in Yemen, Syria, Iran, Iraq, and Lebanon. Additionally, unrest in the Sahel region, renewed conflicts in the Democratic Republic of the Congo, and the looming menace of climate change, seemingly present a formidable agenda for global leaders. Unfortunately, there is no clear plan or indication that all of these crises are being managed cooperatively within the United Nations framework. Instead, everyone is either choosing sides or completely turning a blind eye to these issues, with the notable exception being China which has overly sung the chorus of strategic cooperation to a disinterested crowd.

Recent reports indicate that Niger has severed military relations with the United States, following a similar disengagement from France, which has been increasingly displaced by Russia across Africa. Furthermore, Russia has been actively eroding Western influence globally, while efforts to manage Netanyahu have proven futile, and threats from Iran and North Korea are escalating. As Josep Borrell, European Union’s High Representative for Foreign Affairs noted, the Global South is reevaluating its perspective on the West, and the outlook is far from favorable. The BRICS+ continuous growth is also chipping away at Western dominance. In this context, it is imperative for Western policies to evolve, focusing on genuine promotion of Western exceptionalism of democracy without hypocrisy, moral standards without double standards, Global prosperity with active Global South participation. The West indeed needs to ‘build back better’ but this time with entirely new and different construction material because the existing system is damaged beyond repair.

Many of today’s global crises could be resolved through compromise and negotiation, particularly when the parties involved hold no malice towards each other. Indeed, simplicity often underpins the solution in such scenarios. Notably, among the world’s major powers, China stands out as the most committed to pacifism.

At present, the immediate concerns for Western nations primarily revolve around Russia and Iran. Yet, in a long-term perspective, political leaders in the West have consistently identified China as the most significant security challenge to the prevailing global order. China’s ascendancy is undeniable, and in the context of its cultural symbolism, the dragon—a figure believed in Chinese lore to govern water phenomena—serves as a metaphor for the potential impact of China’s rise on the West. Depending on the West’s approach, China’s advancement could be perceived either as beneficial rainfall or as overwhelming floods.

This raises a critical question: faced with a binary choice between relinquishing global dominance or precipitating a cataclysmic Third World War, what decision will certain Western governments make?

The Writer is a Senior Research Fellow at DWC.

 

BRICS STRUCTURE TO DEVELOPMENT MORE RELEVANT TO AFRICA

Posted on by Daniel Balongoofu

The steady traction of the emergence of the BRICS in the contemporary global order reflects a potential shift of the global governance structure to a more economic led mechanism of cooperation through trade and the formulation of coordinated political positions on global issues to secure and under guard a collective path to economic development. The BRICS, a bloc that represents emerging economies; Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa have gained much traction in the international arena due to their firm positions and structures of engagement specifically favorable for south-south relations, a structure that the global south has upheld to achieving economic development.

This year’s BRICS summit currently underway in south Africa is one of the most followed and widely anticipated political engagements globally due to the blocs’ spread popularity and attraction of interest from over 40 states including the UAE, Ethiopia, Saudi Arabia among others.  The state of turbulence in global governance characterised with war, economic recession and post -pandemic recovery have made this 15th summit a much anticipated one on forging a way through for development. However, I find the bloc’s structure to development a more relevant reality to Africa and the global south as follows,

In this year’s summit’s special mug, a compilation by the south African government highlights the blocs’ special achievements, challenges and way forward in south Africa’s context thus far seeks to  highlight the beauty and advantages of the adopted strategy for BRICS economic partnership that looks forward to increasing access to each other’s markets, promote mutual trade and investments and creating a business friendly environment for investors in all BRICS countries. The authorities in south Africa further highlight that the most important part of this strategy is to diversify the trading of finished products as opposed to raw materials, a strategy that Uganda, Africa and the global south needs to broadly adopt in order to realize home production and control trade deficits.in the same vein, south Africa notes that its exports share to the BRICS countries have recorded strong growth since 2016 and registered a 7.1% per annum on average reaching US 817.6 billion in 2022. The mug further highlights that the principal contributor to such growth was exports to china over the same period.

In light with the AFCTFTA, an economic initiative by the African union that seeks to achieve a liberalised African continental market and to address the challenges of Africa’s low level of participation in the global economy and world trade, the south African authorities highlighted the importance of merging markets and the building of more partnerships with the BRICS under such an initiative. This will not only unlock trade possibilities but also mutually beneficial opportunities for investment and infra structural development. This further underscores a much broader market and   more liberalism in trade and also promote self-reliance through encouraging industrialisation for production. It should be noted that BRICS brings together a 3.27 billion population of people that makes the question of market and diversity a more achievable reality necessary for production.

The relevancy of the New Development Bank (NDB) that the cooperation achieved through availing of funds for development seeks to solve the global south long unanswered question of funding. It should be noted that the bank has catalyses availability of funds for development that so far US$ 32.8 billion worth of developmental projects have been funded using this bank availed financial resources. So far, the funds have been invested in building and upgrading of 820 bridges, building and upgrading of 35000 housing units and the generation of 2800mw of renewable and clean energy. This therefore is a blessing and an alternative source of funding from the IMF and world bank that the global south has arguably criticised for politicising funding and unfair repay policies.

Balongoofu Daniel is a Junior Research Fellow at Sino-Uganda Research 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

 

 

 

 

A Multi-Polar World would be a Catalyst for Africa’s Development Ambitions

Posted on by Admin

By Moshi Israel

The distribution of global economic and political power among more than two States is vital to Africa’s development ambitions. The balance of power among several centers of power would curtail the destructive tendencies of hegemonism, unilateralism and great power conflicts. Going back to the cold war era between the USSR and the US, the African continent was a victim of great power politics. This manifested itself through proxy wars, coups and assassinations orchestrated by the two competing blocs of USSR and the United States.

For many years, Africa was only ‘independent’ in theory but practically a brand-new form of colonialism had taken shape. Different African countries were run by governments that shaped their policies in line with the two competing hegemonies of the time. Sanctions, regime change, and war plagued the continent, and it all served the interests of foreign powers with the approval of hand-picked corrupt African leaders.

The bipolar world, dominated by the Soviet Union and the United States and its associated political games left the continent in shambles. First, it was colonialism that exploited the continent and then the cold war came in to finish off an already weak continent. It is important to note that the Soviet Union largely supported Pan-African movements and personalities such as Anti-apartheid movements and Nelson Mandela.

With the fall of the Berlin wall in 1989 and the subsequent collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991, a new era was ushered into the world. African countries had a new challenge on their hands. The events of 1991, ushered in a new Unipolar world, where the United States remained the sole Hegemon on the global stage. As the world sighed in relief at the end of the cold war and potential nuclear annihilation, the dangers of having an unchecked global power grew exponentially. The United States and allies got entangled in interventionist wars in former Yugoslavia (1995-96), Afghanistan (2001-2021), Iraq (2003-2011), Somalia (2007-present), Libya (2011) and Syria (2014).

The African continent has since kowtowed to the dictates of a rules-based order established by a power that has no competitor. Currently there are nine African countries under US sanctions, which means 1 in 5 African countries. this is in addition to dealing with a system that imposes unfair trade rules on the continent, loans from the World Bank and IMF with unfair structural adjustment requirements. The United Nations on the other hand has also suffered from the dictates of its biggest funder (USA) and cannot curtail the unilateral tendencies of the US and other powers. The UN is supposed to be an organization where African countries should have equal power to other sovereign states.

It would be unfair to claim that the Unipolar reign of the USA has been all bad for Africa. There are instances of good partnership through foreign Aid, and collaboration in the fight against terrorism. Additionally, the United States has also been a great partner when it comes to public health and the fight against deadly pandemics and disease outbreaks such as Ebola, Malaria and HIV/AIDS. However, this relationship has been largely lopsided in the favor of the USA and is also largely overpowered by regime change politics, unfair trade policies and the Master-Servant political engagement from American politicians.

However, the rise of China, itself a country that has suffered similar experiences like the African countries, shines a new light on the horizon. Currently, many countries such as Brazil, India, Japan, Indonesia, China, Russia, and the EU are global economic powers. China and other BRICS member states are pushing for multi-polar world based on Mutual respect and win-win partnerships.

A multi-polar world means the end of Hegemonism, great power conflicts and Unilateralism. African countries should meet this opportunity by taking action to get rid of rampant corruption, ethnicism, illiteracy, civil war through power struggles and religious fanaticism. This can be achieved through building powerful and resilient institutions, good governance, technological innovation, sustainable development, increasing intra-African trade, industrialization, increasing the manufacturing base, investing in smart education systems, and modernizing infrastructure, among others.

A multi-polar world provides room for uninterrupted development, free from unilateral interventions from a powerful nation and free from the insecurity caused by great power competition. As a victim of both these systems, Africa has the right to welcome a multi-polar world based on real equality. The hope for such a world from the entire global south is not merely a naïve outlook or skewed understanding of global politics but a desperate and hopeful longing for a fair, just, and secure global system.

Moshi Israel is a senior Research Fellow with Sino-Uganda Research Centre.

 

 

 

President XI Jinping’s Russia Trip is Crucial for Global Stability

Posted on by Admin

By Moshi Israel

On Monday, the 20th of this month the Leader of China President Xi Jinping landed in Moscow on his first trip out of China since his re-election for a third term as President. Choosing Moscow as his first foreign trip re-affirms the close friendship between Russia and Beijing. President Xi’s long-awaited visit to Moscow inspired a lot of background noise around major capitals of the world. A close partnership between Moscow and Beijing is not in the geopolitical interests of most western countries. However, many other regions of the world that are eager for a new era of global politics in which multi-polarity is the norm, anticipated and hoped for the best outcomes from the meeting.

China, with President Xi at the helm, has taken up the mantle of peacemaker. After successfully brokering a peace deal between Saudi Arabia and Iran, China is increasingly being seen as a credible global power capable of prioritizing cooperation over confrontation. This comes as no surprise since the CPC has always championed win-win partnerships and diplomacy around the world. The evidence of this is embedded within China’s Belt and Road Initiatives (BRI), and Global Security Initiative (GSI) concept paper that encourages the Chinese tradition of peace above everything else.

China’s peace plan for Ukraine closely follows the core concepts and principles of its GSI. These concepts include but are not limited to, respecting the sovereignty and territorial integrity of nations, commitment to taking the legitimate security concerns of countries seriously, and abiding by the purposes and principles of the UN charter. These principles are crucial in maintaining global stability. Therefore, President Xi’s visit to Moscow can be seen as an extension of these principles and China’s role as a peace broker. China has proposed to Moscow a twelve-point peace plan that seeks to end hostilities in Ukraine. President Putin has welcomed China’s efforts to solve the crisis in Ukraine and proclaimed that Russia is ready for peace when Ukraine and its western backers are. Most of the world cannot wait for this conflict to be over with and welcomes common sense solutions to the conflict.

Washington for so long has proclaimed that the decision to negotiate for peace and end the war is for Ukraine to make. However, it did not come as a surprise when the White House through its national security spokesperson John Kirby rejected any idea of a cease-fire. The white house anticipated that China might seek to broker a cease-fire in Ukraine and rejected it two weeks ahead of Xi’s visit to Moscow on grounds that it would allow Russia to consolidate its gains in the Donbas. The International Criminal Court (ICC) even went further and indicted President Putin for war crimes in Ukraine ahead of President Xi’s visit. This move by the court has been interpreted by many as largely symbolic and an attempt to murky the waters and complicate Xi’s visit to Moscow.

China has a very large presence around the world, economically, diplomatically, and technologically and has used this power to support peace. This should be applauded by all responsible citizens of the world. World leaders should oppose any attempt to escalate conflicts by nefarious actors on the global stage. President Xi has insisted that the conflict in Ukraine should end at the negotiating table and that the concerns of the conflicting parties be addressed.

At a time when the world is under serious economic and political strain, China is standing up to be counted as the global power that has a practical plan to lead the world into a new era. China’s neutrality on the Ukrainian conflict despite deep ties with Moscow, and its goal of peace are testament to the country’s genuine desire for a functional multi-polar and anti-war world. The global south, itself a victim of proxy wars should support China’s efforts in the framework of the United Nations to promote peace in Ukraine and around the world. The years of lacking a coherent and independent foreign policy in the global south should be forgotten and dumped in the dustbin of history. China under the CPC has managed to uplift itself from a century of humiliation to a global power worth taking seriously. The same can be replicated in the global south and particularly here in Africa.

The writer is a Senior Research Fellow with DWC