By Salman Rafi Sheikh*
(Opinion) Geopolitical competition knows no bounds. This is especially the case when superpowers with global ambitions compete.
As long as competition is fair, it can foster development, although it may still have its socio-political and economic discontents.
But when competition itself is projected as a phobia, it becomes more of an anomaly than a catalyst for growth and development.
Also Read: Check out our coverage on curated alternative narratives
The latest example of superpower rivalry being framed in terms of ‘Sinophobia’ and ‘Russophobia’ is Washington’s newly unveiled ‘Africa Strategy’ – a document that aims to bring the US into Africa not as a competitor, but as a place alone. responsible for giving “democracy” and “openness” to the so-called “backward” societies of Africa.
This is the classic colonial state recast as a strategy for ‘engagement’ and ‘development’.
The document sets out a US strategy to “foster … open societies”, “deliver democratic and security dividends” and “support conservation, climate adaptation and a just energy transition”.
This is an ambitious agenda with very ambitious targets. But are these real objectives?
These are only auxiliary objectives.
From the outset, the strategy document makes clear that Washington’s real objective is to counter — and displace — China and Russia in Africa.
The document says that as the US – and its allies – seek to develop meaningful engagement with Africa,
“The People’s Republic of China (PRC), in contrast, sees the region as an important arena to challenge the rules-based international order, advance its own narrow commercial and geopolitical interests, undermine transparency and openness, and to weaken US relations with African peoples. and governments.”
The US, therefore, is a ‘best’ partner for Africa, according to the document. Washington is in equal contrast with Russia in Africa,
The document states that,
“Russia sees the region as an enabling environment for parastatals and private military companies, often fomenting instability for strategic and financial gain.”
“Russia uses its security and economic ties, as well as disinformation, to undermine Africans’ principled opposition to Russia’s further occupation of Ukraine and related human rights abuses.”
Apart from the fact that the document projects Russia and China as two ‘enemy’ states, the overall US policy also includes an expectation from the African continent to do the same.
Indeed, when US Ambassador to the United Nations Linda Thomas recently visited Ghana and Uganda – the visit came just days after Lavrov’s visit to Africa – she was quick to outline the key anti-Russian nature of US engagement of Africa.
To quote Linda, “Countries can buy Russian agricultural products, including fertilizer and wheat,” but “if a country decides to engage with Russia, where there are sanctions, then they are breaking those sanctions,” so they can be punished for this disobedience. in Washington.
Since steering Russia – and China – is the primary goal of US engagement in Africa, many African countries will have little difficulty understanding that African interests will always be secondary to Washington’s.
African interests are served only to the extent that they are consistent with the primary US objective of expelling Russia and China from the continent.
Few, if any, will agree with this idea.
In fact, there is already a reaction coming from Africa.
In her recent meeting with Antony Blinken, South Africa’s Minister for International Relations and Cooperation called the so-called “Countering Russian Malignant Activities in Africa Act” an “insulting piece of legislation”.
Standing alongside Blinken, Naledi Pandor was clear in calling out the US policy of choosing sides as a means of dictating geopolitics to African states.
To quote him:
“And one thing I definitely don’t like is being told, ‘You either choose this or that.’
“When a minister talks to me like that, which Secretary Blinken has never done, but some have, I’m definitely not going to be bullied in that way, nor would I expect any other African country worth its salt to agree to treated.”
Even Uganda’s current president, Yoweri Museveni, who has been in power for 36 years and has always enjoyed bipartisan support from various US administrations, thinks so, as he recently told the BBC in a conversation focused on Ugandan relations. with global partners, “trying to transplant the polarization of Europe [i.e., the geopolitics surrounding the ongoing Russia-Ukraine war] it is a mistake, and those who are trying to do it are simply imitating the European way of life.”
As most African states have refused to take the US side in the Russia-Ukraine war and/or have maintained a non-aligned stance, it becomes clear that the US strategy to counter Russia in Africa, with active assistance from African states, you are very unlikely to get any traction, let alone find any significant success.
Despite the resistance to the US rhetoric of “choosing sides”, what also dims the chances of this strategy’s success is the extent of China’s investments in the continent, ranging from the construction of dams, roads, highways, etc.
The US strategy provides no plan to restore Chinese investment, which has grown from US$490 million in 2003 to US$43.4 billion in 2020.
China has been ahead of the US since 2014 as Africa’s fourth largest investor. Why would African countries risk this investment by “choosing sides” to appease the US?
As desirable as it already sounds, Washington’s policy also makes no sense.
Therefore, while the US Africa strategy document acknowledges that the success of this strategy will not be “easy”, the most important thing that makes its success quite unlikely is the very anti-China and anti-Russian product that the US is looking to sell.
There are simply no takers for a strictly partisan form of geopolitics and geoeconomics.
*Salman Rafi Sheikh, Research Analyst of Pakistan’s International Relations and Foreign and Internal Affairs, exclusively for New Eastern Outlook online magazine.
Join us on Telegram: t.me/theriotimes
