Tag: South Africa

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

Posted on by Admin

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.

 

 

 

 

Will Africa be Vindicated? The International Criminal Court Faces its Greatest Test Since Formation

Posted on by Admin

By Mpewo Alan Collins

2024 has been an interesting year thus far, and as the world approaches its mid season, more interesting events will keep unfolding. It commenced with an extension of the Russia-Ukraine war that many thought would not last until this day, and the Israel-Palestine war that started in the later months of 2023. The Hague has faced numerous controversies but with fairness, credit has to be accorded to where it has indicted and later successfully prosecuted persons that fall under its jurisdiction purview. Recently, Dominic Ongwen, former commander in the Lord’s Resistance Movement (LRA) that caused unforgettable scenes in Northern Uganda was found guilty of some counts, with more pending conclusion of trial. Such has been an example of how far positive it went.

The International Criminal Court (ICC) goes above than that to also make sure that the victims of the war crimes are repatriated under a repatriation fund it runs. There are also more mechanisms for the victims such as rehabilitation services. All these are timely mechanisms. What was of the end of the Second World War sent a stern message to all countries at the time and those that would come later that accountability should exist even during war. It is of little wonder then, that the Nuremberg trials were held shortly after the Second World war. Commenced in 2002, the ICC is tasked with issuing the close look to all those that participate in war crimes and/or crimes against humanity. The list of indictees has grown with recently some new entrants from Kremlin over war crimes allegedly committed during Russia’s invasion into Ukraine. But has it been all merry for the ICC?

Karim Khan, an ICC Prosecutor recently shocked the world with the announcement and later application for an arrest warrant against Israel’s premier, Benjamin Netanyahu on alleged war crimes committed in Palestine. The announcement has been followed with earlier applications made by the government of South Africa in the ICJ against Israel’s actions in Gaza since October, 2023. But what has been more interesting, is the discussion around Israel’s premier who issues a communique and video showing discontent in the actions of the ICC Prosecutor Karim Khan. Among other things, Benjamin Netanyahu wrote, “The outrageous decision by the ICC prosecutor, Karim Khan, to seek arrest warrants against the democratically elected leaders of Israel is a moral outrage of historic proportions. It will cast an everlasting mark of shame on the international court.”

Clearly, the ICC has been indicted and the world is awaiting its response which by and large, will have far reaching consequences on how further international relations from global stakeholders will be with the court. But would it be the first time the ICC is being publicly criticised? Definitely not. Sometime in 2016 several African countries pointed intentional fingers at the ICC’s activities. This was on allegations of biased mode of selection of those it prosecutes. Among others were South Africa, Burundi, and The Gambia that threatened withdrawing from being party states to the Rome Statute which operationalised the ICC. Whereas steps were taken by these countries, The Gambia of those, was the immediate one to withdraw. Some truth did exist of the biases, as critics wondered that why since 2002, it has only been Africans indicted by the ICC. From war criminals in (among others) Darfur, to D.R Congo, Libya, and Kenya, it is only until 2023, that non Africans in over 19 years are being indicted. It’s not shocking that the new entrants are from Russia.

More allegations have been around that he ICC is a Western puppet, citing wonder that why, despite all war atrocities committed by most Western powers in the Middle East and Africa, no such leaders have been brought to justice by the same court. In fact, in September, 2020, the USA government issued sanctions against ICC Prosecutor Fatou Bensouda, and ICC official Phakiso Mochochoko for opening up investigations against some USA government officials for war crimes committed whilst the USA conducted activities in Afghanistan and Palestine. As if that’s not enough, upon ICC Prosecutor Karim Khan pronouncing his intention to pursue an arrest warrant against Israel’s Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, 12 Republican senators in the USA on 24 April, 2024 issued a letter to Karim threatening repercussions should he continue on his pursuit. US Secretary of State has also been put on notice of such intentions and is willing to tow way for the threatened actions.

The ICC is going to have a challenging time ahead now that the allegations have come to fruit. Perhaps the African states were right. Or will the ICC offer a judicially independent but just course of action. This is happening at the peak of heightened frequency instability in international relations. The fight for global dominance is continuously growing, and levels of international accountability seem to be determined by who barks louder. While Benjamin Netanyahu alleges democratic sovereignty, several African leaders were indicted by the same court while still serving leaders such as Yahaya Jameh of The Gambia, Muammar Gadaffi of Libya, and Omar Bashir of Sudan. The ICC’s decision will vindicate its critics, or showcase the independence that was intended by the Rome Statute. By and large, the Hague is faced with the greatest test since its formation.

Mpewo Alan Collins is a Research Fellow at the Development Watch Centre.

 

Israel at the International Court of Justice: A Stern Test for the United Nations and its Institutions

Posted on by Admin

By Marvin Hannington Kalema

The year 2024 promises to be yet another interesting one if the events that transpired at the close of the past year are anything to go by.

On the 29th of December 2023, the government of the Republic of South Africa formally filed a case against the state of Israel with the Hague based International Court of Justice, (ICJ) where renowned Ugandan legal brain, Mrs. Jalia Ssebutinde, sits as a judge. The application to institute proceedings, is in relation to the Israel’s conduct in its ongoing war against Palestine.

The eighty-four paged application filed in court lists a number of grounds for their complaint but perhaps the flesh to their application is their reference to the acts performed, condoned and threatened by the state of Israel to the Palestinian people as genocidal in nature – essentially contravening the principle of self-determination.

South Africa argues that such acts are genocidal as they are intended to bring about substantial destruction of the Palestinian national and ethnic community in the Gaza strip. The African nation points out further that such acts are in direct contravention of various provisions in the 1948 Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (Genocide Convention). South Africa further prays that the ICJ outlines provisional measures to be adhered to by Israel to stop the continued abuse of human rights in its ongoing war on Palestine before the situation becomes irreparable.

To scholars of international law, relations and diplomacy – and perhaps all objective peace-loving global citizens, this new development could be a major test of the objectiveness, impartiality and independence of the UN and its institutions in particular the ICJ.

I therefore highlight why it is important, in light of the current global reputation of the UN, for the court as scheduled between the days of 11-12th January, to swiftly and justly handle the application, if the global peace-keeping organization is intent on achieving its major aim and preserving its significantly damaged credibility.

It is additionally important to also note that much as the decisions of the ICJ are not binding and are more like advisory opinions, their relevance in influencing a global push to take further action against Israel in more appropriate forums like  the ICC must not be wholly dismissed like many already are.

Speaking plainly, the credibility of the UN has long suffered significant damage over the years and one may perhaps rightfully argue that confidence in the capability of the organization to execute the given mandate as established in its founding charter is waning fast.

Research into public confidence of the UN has produced statistics that do provide some insight. The World Value & European Value Survey (WVS/EVS) conducted between 2017-2022 in over 90 countries representing all geographical regions, indicated only about half of these countries maintain confidence in the organization.

Furthermore, more intriguing revelations from the WVS/EVS data indicate that confidence in the UN has been on a consistent decline since the 1990s in the Middle East, Northern Africa, Eastern Europe and Latin American regions. To anyone with keen interest in global events, it is quickly ascertainable that these are particularly the conflict-stricken areas, hence their low confidence in the global peace-maker is damning, if anything.  Obviously, this has not occurred in a vacuum as justifiable reasons do exist.

The peace-keeping body has generally failed to remain impartial and independent in its application and implementation of international law principles.

If anything has significantly contributed to the organization’s declining popularity of late, this has to be top of the list. Overtime, the world has witnessed major global superpowers especially and quite ironically, members of the Security Council influence the organization to condone or refrain from taking action on their abrasive and wanton abuse of said principles.

The organization has repeatedly appeared to have its hands tied as superpowers go about antagonizing world peace through various wars that align with their own selfish interests and not world peace.

Additionally, the organization has been ambiguous and unclear in its response to various conflicts all over the world that have drastically claimed civilian lives. There has generally been strong criticism and punishment for African war lords by the UN but often times, it has remained shockingly complicit when Western led actors such as the U.S and allies with their so-called anti-terrorism campaigns in the Middle East kill millions of innocent civilians due to reckless actions that are in their entirety, gross violations of international laws of war.

In essence, such tactics of selective application of the law, similar to the setting in George Orwell’s classic the Animal Farm, do not inspire much confidence in a body charged with promoting equality in the quest for world peace.

In the case at hand, the ICJ ought to decisively and objectively assess the case before it, and pronounce itself accordingly. It is in the interest of the court to ensure that its decision is as rational and just as it can be, free from any overt or covert influence. The court must strive to steer away from the precarious position, its sister institution, the International Criminal Court finds itself. The court’s independence and credibility are increasingly questioned yet it is supposed to play a major role in promoting world peace.

Comments from then National Security Advisor John Bolton in 2018 to the effect that the White House would no longer cooperate with the ICC, and would block any efforts to pursue U.S. or Israeli citizens, must only drive the ICJ to remain objective and not bow to any external pressure in the instant case.

The massacre of over 22,000 people including women and over 7,000 children in the Gaza should be reason enough for a swift and unequivocal response to the situation. It regrettably took weeks of back-and-forth discussions at the UN, just to secure a humanitarian ceasefire to ensure delivery of food and medical supplies to the Gaza population. The ICJ is hereby tasked with remaining extremely objective and delivering justice, restore confidence in the public as well as offering the much-needed relief to the Gazans.

It is important that the court duly assesses the overwhelming evidence of mass human rights violations as laid out in the application and take a step to address this. The applicants rightly note in their application that there is no attack on a state’s sovereignty, no matter how drastic, can be used to justify and defend breach of the Genocide convention. There is absolutely no moral or legal ground upon which the state of Israel can rely on to justify the massacre of children and families or razing down of homes, schools and hospitals.

At the 78th UN general assembly last year, part of the event’s theme reiterated the need to rebuild trust and reignite global solidarity. Before global states can trust each other, their unwavering trust in the UN as the body uniting them must be assured and confirmed. Additionally, in his 2022 address to the UN general assembly, the organization’s chief Antonio Guterres rightly cited geopolitical tension and lack of trust as the factors that poison the dream of international co-operation. He must have borne it in mind that recent developments have plunged public trust in his institution, hence action must be taken by its institutions to counter that.

On the other hand, as a parmanent member of the UNSC, the U.S must act responsibly and support upholding international laws. For this to happen, U.S officals like White House National Security Council spokesman John Kirby who told press that South-Africa’s suit against Israel is “meritless, counterproductive, and completely without any baisis,” must be called to order to let ICJ determine the case without such prejudice.

Also, there is need for all UN member states especially the Parmanent Security Council Members (P5) to strongly advocate and support dilague and diplomacy as a way of ensuring peace and tranquility globally. On this note, one can argue that today, more than ever, China’s proposed Global Security Inititive which seeks to address global security throgh dialogue, diplomacy, consultantion and respect of international laws is relevant and should be embraced by the entire world.

In conclusion, the UN and the ICJ, if desirous to further exert global influence, may borrow from the words of former US secretary of state and diplomat, Colin Powell that; credibility is built upon trust, integrity and consistency, as it goes about its business of hearing the application and pronouncing itself on the matter. It should be in the minds of all the judges that the world is watching with keen interest, how the court will conduct itself in the grand scheme of global peace and protection of human rights.

The writer is a Law scholar at Johannesburg University and a research fellow with Development Watch Centre.

BRICS STRUCTURE TO DEVELOPMENT MORE RELEVANT TO AFRICA

Posted on by Admin

By Balongoofu Daniel

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

 

15 th BRICS Summit: Is this Africa’s Time to Step Up onto the Global Stage?

Posted on by Admin

By Moshi Israel

From the 22nd of August 2023 to the 24th, BRICS nations will be holding their 15th annual summit themed; BRICS and Africa- Partnership for Mutually Accelerated Growth, Sustainable Development, and Inclusive Multilateralism. The summit will take place in Johannesburg, South Africa. President Cyril Ramaphosa will chair this summit as agreed by all five member states of BRICS who host the annual summits on a rotational basis. The heads of state for Brazil, China, and India will attend in person with the exception of the Russian president. Mr. Putin will be represented by his foreign minister, Sergey Lavrov because the former has an arrest warrant from the ICC out for him and the host nation is a signatory to the criminal court. He is expected to attend via a video link.

BRICS countries represent around 42% of the world’s population and about 25% of the world’s Gross Domestic Product (GDP). The five members also account for around 18% of international trade. Since its creation in 2009, BRICS has been courted by over 30 eager countries that have either applied to join or have expressed interest to be part of the group. Some of these countries include; Argentina, Iran, Saudi Arabia, UAE, Ethiopia, and Egypt. This interest highlights one of the summit’s key agendas of focus, BRICS expansion.

The expansion of the bloc is being pushed by China and Russia with Brazil and India still on the fence. The seriousness of the expansion agenda can be deduced from the fact that well over 60 countries have been invited to the summit, including all African countries. Also, the fact that the last day of the summit is dedicated to ‘Friends of BRICS’ focusing on talks with leaders from other countries speaks volumes. The invited countries span four oceans; Asia, Latin America, Africa, and the Caribbean. 

Economic cooperation will also be key on the agenda as the member states seek to improve their economic ties. Discussions will center on trade and investment opportunities in sectors ranging from energy cooperation and infrastructure development to the digital economy and the job market. Under the umbrella of strengthening ties, special attention will be given to the relations between BRICS and African countries which blends in with the theme of the summit. A major area of focus will be the exploration of opportunities within the African Continental Free Trade Area.

It is unfortunate that the world’s recent and current crises are what it took to bring a major focus on the role of the African continent on the global stage. The pandemic saw Africa do well in mitigating the spread of the virus, the global oil crisis has put a focus on Africa’s major oil producers and the War in Ukraine has shown Africa as a potential peacemaker. The competition among the West, Russia, and China to have Africa in their corner also highlights the growing geopolitical importance of the continent. The trajectory is slowly shifting from Africa being a backyard market for the global north to being a respected partner in international discourse.

It is up to African countries to step in and show up when a positive light is shining on the continent. The recent events in Niger present an interesting conundrum. But African states must handle the issue diplomatically with African interests in mind and not at the behest of any foreign power. BRICS presents an opportunity for the continent to get on board something that has been and could be even more mutually beneficial. African countries are still lagging behind the digital revolution and our social and physical infrastructure is still in need of upgrade. These are the key issues African leaders and representatives should aim to address during the summit.

The BRICS National Development Bank (NDB) can play a vital role in Africa’s growth. It was created in 2015 as an alternative to major lending institutions of the IMF and World Bank. The BRICS bank has had over $30 billion in investment in infrastructure development projects both for members and other developing countries. Moreover, the bloc aims to boost local currency fundraising and lending within the NDB. According to South Africa’s finance Minister Enoch Godongwana; local currency use will aid in de-risking the impact of foreign exchange fluctuations.

Furthermore, Brazil and China have signed a bilateral agreement to settle their trade in their local currencies. This adds meat to the bone of the notion that BRICS seeks to use member’s national currencies for trade and perhaps even adopt a common payment system long-term. However, a South African senior BRICS diplomat, the ambassador at large; Asia and BRICS during a press Briefing in July said that there will be no talks about a common BRICS currency.

Another important development at the BRICS summit to watch out for is the previous month’s announcement by BRICS education ministers expressing interest to create their own international university rankings system. This comes at the heel of Russia’s complaint that the current global university rankings are biased against it and extremely Eurocentric.

In the current global political atmosphere, it is impossible to talk about BRICS without mentioning China. As the second largest global economy, China’s geopolitical moves are always under scrutiny by both its allies and adversaries. During this summit, President Xi Jinping will co-chair the China-Africa leaders Dialogue as reported by the Chinese foreign ministry. This is an event that should be paid special attention to and could have significant implications for African countries. China’s presence on the continent keeps growing and presents new opportunities.

Therefore, African countries, should pay close attention to this summit and take this moment to step up and contribute significantly to global discourse. This summit must exceed expectations and produce some major announcements. The fight for a functional multipolar world could formally begin here on the mother continent. It is high time African countries stopped playing for different teams and play for themselves by taking the mantle presented by BRICS and run away with it into a new era of global order.  

The Writer is a Senior Research Fellow with Development Watch Centre.

 

Vaccine nationalism poses a major threat to Africa as the West gobbles up supplies – we need to up our game

Posted on by Admin

By David Monyae and Sizo Nkala counsel

The race to inoculate world populations against Covid-19 has begun in earnest and Africa is losing it. According to The New York Times, as of 4 February 2021 a total of 107.3 million vaccine doses had been administered to individuals across the world. North America leads with 6% of its population having been vaccinated, Europe is on 3.6%, Asia is on 0.9%, South America is on 0.7% and Africa lags far behind with fewer than 0.1% while Oceania has none.

In Africa, only four countries have begun administering vaccines to their populations. Morocco is ahead of the pack having administered 200,081 doses, Seychelles is a distant second on 30,861, Egypt has managed 1,315 while Algeria is fourth with a measly 30 vaccinations. South Africa will soon roll out its vaccination campaigns after receiving one million doses of the Oxford-AstraZeneca Covid-19 vaccines (ED: Doubt has now been cast on the efficacy of the Oxford-AstraZeneca vaccine to protect against what is commonly called the South Africa strain).

The latest numbers paint a gloomy picture for the continent, which has recorded just under 3.6 million cumulative cases, more than 407,000 active cases and 92,391 deaths. South Africa has been the hardest hit on the continent with more than 1.4 million confirmed cases to date and 44,946 deaths making up 48% of the continental total. Even more worrying is that the Covid-19 death rate has spiked from 2.1% in July 2020 to 2.5% at the moment, and in 21 African countries the rate is above the global average of 2.2%.

This is compounded by the emergence of a new coronavirus variant first identified in South Africa known as 501.V2 which reportedly spreads faster than the original virus and may undermine the efficacy of the current vaccines. The Africa Centres for Disease Control and Prevention (Africa CDC) has said that the continent needs to inoculate at least 60% of its population to achieve herd immunity. As such, Africa needs access to Covid-19 vaccines as soon as possible.

However, vaccine nationalism presents a formidable challenge as developed countries rush to hoard the available vaccines, leaving nothing for developing countries.

According to the Bloomberg vaccine tracker, rich countries have ordered vaccines from manufacturers multiple times their own population. Canada has ordered 123.8 million doses, which is more than 330% of its population. The United Kingdom ordered more than 201 million doses, which is about 302% of its population, and the United States has placed orders for 555 million, which is 169% of its population.

More than 4.5 billion vaccine doses have been reserved under bilateral pre-purchase contracts with various manufacturers – 46 African countries account for only just over 189 million (4%) of the doses under the pre-purchase contracts of which more than 128 million (67%) are due to Morocco and Egypt.

With vaccine prices ranging from $10 (R148) to $60 (R890.50) per dose, most African countries have been effectively priced out of the market. The Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine costs $19 per dose, Moderna and the AstraZeneca-Oxford vaccines cost $25-$37, Johnson & Johnson is priced at $10, Russia’s Sputnik V vaccine also costs $10 and China’s Sinovac is the most expensive at $60.

President Cyril Ramaphosa, who is also the African Union chairperson, decried the hoarding of the vaccines which is “being done to the exclusion of other countries in the world”. The African Vaccine Acquisition Task Team set up by Ramaphosa in August 2020 has reportedly secured an additional 270 million doses from Pfizer, AstraZeneca and Johnson & Johnson to be supplied later in 2021.

African countries are also relying on the 600 million doses to be distributed through the World Health Organisation’s Covax initiative, which will cover about 20% of the population.

The shameless and irrational hoarding of vaccines by Western nations has shown that when it comes to survival, the ever-busy Western supply chains will suddenly grow cold. Africa’s long-standing relationship with the West has historically necessitated a Western-inclined approach to African problems. This historical bias needs to be scrutinised. Over-dependence on the West can undermine the continent and its people’s survival when supplies of essential medical products like the vaccines become nationalised as they have been.

Just recently the European Union announced that it will institute export controls on vaccines made in European factories, further constricting already fragile supply chains. Even the notion of multilateralism, so fervently proselytised by the West, seems to be only viable in good times. In the rush to survive the pandemic, it is quickly cast out of the window.

The Covax initiative, which promises fair and equitable access to vaccines and which presents many poorer nations’ best chance to get the vaccines, has also been beaten to the market by the developed countries, some of which are even part of the initiative. According to the Economist Intelligence Unit, only three countries in Africa (Gabon, Libya and South Africa) have made financial contributions to the Covax facility. The rest of the countries joined the initiative under the Advance Market Commitment (Covax AMC) which relies wholly on donations through official development assistance. This reinforces Africa’s dubious distinction as an aid-dependent continent.

The emergence of China’s Sinovac and Sinopharm vaccines and Russia’s Sputnik V vaccine will diversify the supply chains to the advantage of Africa and other poor regions. Indeed Egypt, Morocco and Seychelles are inoculating their populations with China’s Sinopharm vaccine while Algeria is using Russia’s Sputnik V vaccine. The vaccines are less of a logistical nightmare as they can be stored in standard refrigerators whereas Pfizer, BioNTech and Moderna need to be stored at between -70°C and -20°C.

In a diplomatic offensive, China has already offered $2-billion to Africa and pledged to make the vaccine available to the continent. While this is a welcome offer, it is not sustainable as it makes Africa dependent on the goodwill of others for lifesaving medicine.

The continent should harness and develop manufacturing and research and development capacities of its own so as to cut the dependency on foreign-controlled supply chains, especially for pharmaceutical products. Although there are fairly vibrant pharmaceutical industries in Egypt, Kenya, Morocco and South Africa, the continent depends on foreign suppliers for 80% of its pharmaceutical and medical supplies. Chronic shortage of human resources, lack of capital and modern technology, and the Balkanisation of African markets are some of the factors that have to be addressed urgently to stimulate the growth of the all-important pharmaceutical industry in Africa.

The implementation of the new African Continental and Free Trade Area – especially the elimination of tariffs and non-tariff and technical barriers to trade and the application of the rules of origin – may give a new lease of life for the pharmaceutical industry. The establishment of the Africa CDC in 2016 to boost the continent’s public health policies is also a step in the right direction.

While Africa welcomes the assistance in the construction of its CDC by its strategic partner, China, it nonetheless raises questions about the ability of its leaders to invest in health infrastructure. It certainly does not inspire confidence that the AU will be able to independently source the funds to support the activities and the work of the CDC.

Moreover, there is a need for a paradigm shift in the understanding of national security among African leaders. African countries spend between $8 and $129 on health per capita per annum, far below the $4,000 average spent in high-income countries.

While Africa carries 23% of the disease burden, it accounted for only 1% of global health spending in 2015. Major countries like Nigeria, Kenya and Ghana spent 0.5%, 2.1% and 1.1% of their budgets on healthcare respectively in 2017, which is way below the 15% threshold recommended at the 2001 Abuja Declaration.

Yet military spending has gone up 20% in the past 10 years. As such, there is a need to move away from a traditional understanding of national security as military spending, to embracing a holistic view of security as inclusive of poverty reduction and, much more importantly, public health preparedness. With a shift in budget priorities, Africa can build a robust public health system and wean itself off foreign supply chains whose sudden nationalisation has crippled the continent’s response to the Covid-19 pandemic, putting the very survival of its people in jeopardy.

Dr David Monyae is the Director for the Centre for Africa-China Studies at the University of Johannesburg and Dr Sizo Nkala is a postdoctoral fellow at the same centre.

Source: This article was first published in Daily Maverick

 

 

South Africa borrows from the IMF for the first time since apartheid

Posted on by Admin

And may not be the last.

Johannesburg.

 

Although it is rarely shy about spending other people’s money, the African National Congress (ANC), South Africa’s ruling party, has long been wary of the IMF. After Nelson Mandela came to power in 1994 the fund practically begged to help his new government. Mandela eventually saw the potential benefits of a cheap loan. But the ANC rejected the offer.

 

Opposition to the IMF has remained a shibboleth of the party. Yet on July 27th South Africa said it had agreed to a $4.3bn IMF loan. The deal signed by South Africa, one of 78 countries to have received covid-related help, is not a standard IMF programme and thus does not have stringent conditions. But the need for it nevertheless reflects the extent of the country’s underlying economic problems.

 

For some of the ANC’s self-styled comrades the worry about the IMF has perhaps been that it would make it harder for them to loot state coffers. For others, including Thabo Mbeki, Mandela’s successor, an IMF loan would have meant an intolerable violation of sovereignty.

 

Despite his doubts about the IMF, Mr Mbeki pursued macroeconomic policies so orthodox that a rabbi might have blessed them. Under Trevor Manuel, finance minister from 1996 to 2009, and Tito Mboweni, governor of the reserve bank from 1999 to 2009, South Africa closed its budget deficit, and tamed inflation, which had averaged 14% in the 1980s. Though the ANC’s patronage machine kept whirring, GDP grew by more than 5% a year from 2005 to 2007.

 

Then came Jacob Zuma. Under his presidency corruption thrived and public spending ballooned. The negative effects of rigid labour markets and affirmative action intensified. Real GDP per person has shrunk every year since 2015. The ratio of public debt to GDP rose from 26% in 2008 to 56% in 2018. As early as 2015 writers such as R.W. Johnson warned that South Africa was heading for a bail-out.

 

This condition-light deal is not quite the Rubicon-crossing that some envisaged. But it is a toe in the water. In a letter to the fund, Mr Mboweni, who in 2018 returned to the government as finance minister, and Lesetja Kganyago, the reserve bank’s current governor, made several pledges, primarily relating to public finances.

 

They promised to cut the share of spending that goes on public-sector wages and to speed up structural reforms, for example to state-owned enterprises such as Eskom, the indebted electricity utility. They are open to a self-imposed “debt ceiling” (public borrowing is projected to hit 87% of GDP in 2024 before declining). But little of this is new. In June Mr Mboweni gave a statement to parliament with similar commitments.

 

South Africa’s problem is not a lack of ideas. It is politics. Although he has said he supports Mr Mboweni, President Cyril Ramaphosa has done little to show it. He has often made the job of his finance minister harder, for instance by promising that there would be no “mass retrenchment” of public employees, and by dithering over state enterprises. Corruption remains rife. Credit-rating agencies doubt that Mr Mboweni will meet his targets. Few believe that Mr Ramaphosa will face down trade unions or his party ahead of its National General Council and local elections in 2021.

 

So this may not be the last time South Africa turns to the fund. The next bail-out would come with tough conditions, which would infuriate the ANC. But the party ought to appreciate what Mr Mbeki and Mr Manuel understood: that the way to protect your economic sovereignty is to avoid the need for the IMF in the first place.

 

Source: The Economist

DWC

Development Watch Centre

Kampala - Uganda

ADDRESS

Plot 212, RTG Plaza,3rd Floor, Office Number C7 - Hoima Road, Rubaga

CONTACT

+256 703 380252

info@dwcug.org

FOLLOW US
© DWC - All rights reserved - Cookies Policy - Privacy Policy