admin
Gibson Nyikadzino
Correspondent
In June this year, five people aboard the Titan submersible in the United States died in what oceanographers and marine biologists termed a “catastrophic implosion” of the vessel that was having an adventure to the sea-bed site where the Titanic wreckage lies for 111 years now.
Experts who broke down the complex misfortune, in their conclusions, indicated that the external environs of the submersible surpassed the internal pressure leading to an implosion.
What was also key to note was that for submersibles to combat any form of pressure, they ought to be designed spherically, but the Titan was designed cylindrically.
Those manning the submersible wanted to do things differently, but without success.
Importantly, without proper designs and mechanisms to contain pressure, all work and investments can end up as catastrophic implosions, no matter how much people want to do things different at personal or institutional level.
The same goes for Africa. How the continent is designing the templates of its future success will stand to determine whether as a people Africans will withstand the external pressure in their environs to avoid life-threatening and catastrophic implosions.
The external global environment is piling lots of perplexing pressure on Africa for leaders to either give up their beliefs or give in to the demands of the external forces.
Statistics today indicate that one in four people in the world will likely be African by 2050, major global powers and emerging economies are shifting their focus to Africa and align or re-align their interests with the continent.
It is also believed that by the end of this century, Africa will be home to 40 percent of the world’s population.
With such anticipation, Africa’s representation in global decision making bodies should reflect that, but that will require a greater willingness from countries to the Global North to share power with Africa.
To engage with Africa and looking forward to changing demographics bringing the continent at the fore, established and emerging global powers are adopting a new form of diplomacy to engage with Africa to build new relationships, repair old ones and re-ignite lukewarm ones in primary furtherance of economic and military co-operation.
Areas of co-operation being fronted to use for Africa’s engagement; economic and military, have underlying representations that in other terms, project countries in Africa sometimes as fragile states.
The element of fragility, in other narratives, want Africa to be seen as lacking a legitimate foundation for authority and good governance.
As such, the intention to have co-operation with Africa in economic and military terms somehow is a reflection that African states are not capable of providing security to their people or protecting their livelihoods.
At the back of the just-ended inaugural Saudi-Africa summit is the recent inclusion of Africa in the G20 (Group of 20) bloc, prior to that, some countries have been using summit diplomacy to engage Africa.
These countries included China, India, Japan, the EU, Russia, Turkey and the US.
These countries are looking into the future and placing their interests in Africa. These summits increasingly highlight the importance of Africa to these countries’ foreign policies.
Even so, the absurdity of this summit diplomacy has seen countries as small as Latvia, with a population of 1,8 million people now wanting to have deepened cooperation with Africa. That is how absurd attempts to engage Africa have become.
This form of engagement is now premised on what has historically been known as “summit diplomacy”.
The reputation of summit diplomacy has moved from being exceptional, with momentous meetings of leaders to resolve urgent international crises, to its usefulness rapidly declining into an overused, ineffective tool for leaders to exploit.
The exploitation of modern summit diplomacy should not make the practice a fruitless and futile one, where engagements now only focus on style and spectacle over substance and genuine settlements that require appropriate global action for state-benefit.
It is, however, undeniable that globalisation has detonated in the sphere of international politics, shaking the foundations of traditional summit diplomacy.
Globalisation has facilitated and accelerated events that have resulted in substantial changes in the perception of international affairs which has resulted in an overloaded global agenda.
General assessment dictates that some of the countries that are now keen on “Africa Summits” at one point contributed to the economic failure in Africa as they sought short-term commercial benefits from their participation in the continent, in some instances leading to an economic environment unfavourable to needed private investment.
It can only be hoped that Africa is also planning for the future with its interests not being interrupted and disrupted by the interference of other global players to ensure the continent has a reasonable expectation of reconstruction and rehabilitation of the global political environment and that it is likely to reap benefits of summit diplomacy only if they negotiate as a bloc.
The need for enhanced economic co-operation as the basis of Africa’s engagement with external powers is anchored on the view that Africa’s economic plight is reflected in the depopulation of rural areas, rising urban unemployment, repeated fiscal crises and at times the collapse of the banking and financial services sectors.
These are areas where big powers and emerging regional hegemons want to invest in.
Basing on this, it will be difficult to establish the sincerity, for instance, of the US on matters of economic and military co-operation with Africa.
Considering the double-standards and hypocrisy of western countries, such countries have redoubled their efforts to re-establish lost influence in Africa, where they are currently stressing co-operation and mutual partnerships based on listening to the continent rather than lecturing it.
This significantly points to one issue that global powers are using summit diplomacy to attempt to win friends and influence people across Africa.
Populations are being primed to measure how they are receptive and open to the idea of their governments accepting alien cultures, ethics and standards in their mainstream.
The global context has changed significantly and political changes are happening at a faster and unique pace that traditional approaches to diplomacy are being replaced faster following developments like the Covid-19 pandemic, natural disasters, climate change problems and political instability in various regions.
For Africa, while it is important to engage all countries, it can be dangerous to have a big tent approach based on summit diplomacy because the nature of this diplomatic approach has shifted from substance to style.
It does not mean that all these countries care about Africa! They are targeting what we have the most, resources. Them aligning their interests to Africa means they are not meant to love the people, but to maintain a hegemonic and domineering approach.
It is time, once again, to withstand the external pressure targeted at Africa. Beware, these countries may be shedding their skins for the new one. Their intentions are likely the same, to keep Africans and Africa in poverty.
Online Reporter