GRAPGIC/UGC
By MORRIS ODHIAMBO
This week, I found myself in the midst of a robust discussion on the BRICS Plus formation, the emergence of a multi-polar world and the strengthening relationship between African states, on one hand, and China and Russia on the other. The meeting point for this strengthening relationship is the BRICS Plus formation, which now has a number of African states as its members.
BRICS Plus is an expansion of the BRICS group of countries, which originally included Brazil, Russia, India, China, and South Africa. In January 2024, the group admitted six new members: Egypt, Ethiopia, Iran, Saudi Arabia, and the United Arab Emirates (UAE), and is now informally referred to as BRICS+.
There is a section of the African elite that believes that the BRICS formation is the antidote to continued neo-colonial domination of the continent and its vast resources by foreign interests.
In one of my conversations, I mentioned that this section of the elite is “over-glorifying” the BRICS Plus alliance, and by extension – China and Russia – in Africa’s assumed “imminent” salvation.
I shall call this first group, the BRICS optimists.
But there are also those who believe that the growing influence of China and Russia in Africa is simply continuation of the same neo-colonial cocktail served by Western imperialist interests on the continent.
They look at the role that both countries are playing, for example, in the Democratic Republic of Congo, and see the same interests that have captured that country’s resources, and led to death, displacement, destruction and destitution on a massive scale.
They also know that China and Russia have military bases in Africa a standard practice aimed at militarily safeguarding their investments and bolstering their geo-strategic interests. I have pointed out in my past reflections that those military bases are not coffee shops!
I mentioned in the conversation that this group is “over-simplifying” a complex phenomenon.
I shall call this second group, the BRICS pessimists.
The debate this week was spurred partly by the extraordinary joint statement issued by China and Russia on “Deepening the China-Russia Comprehensive Strategic Partnership of Coordination for the New Era.”
Symbolically, the signing ceremony took place at Beijing’s Great Wall of the People. Western countries, led by the United States of America, see the strengthening relationship between China and Russia as a threat to their global hegemony.
The extraordinary statement noted the continued rise of multi-polarity and the possibility of accelerating “the redistribution of development potential, resources, and opportunities in a direction favourable to emerging markets and developing countries, promoting the democratisation of international relations and international fairness and justice.” Big, generous and nice words!
While condemning the US, the extraordinary statement underscored two principles: (i) a world order with no “neo-colonialism and hegemonism” of any kind; an order where all countries have the right to independently choose their development models, and (ii) a world order based on the UN Charter: “both sides will continue to firmly defend the achievements of World War II and the post-war world order established by the UN Charter.”
With its positive message, the extraordinary statement has bolstered the position of the BRICS optimists. As I have already pointed out, the BRICS optimists believe that Africa’s fortunes are tied to the success of the BRICS as a counterweight to Western economic dominance and exploitation of resources on the continent. The pessimists are not sold to this idea and think it is simplistic.
Let me address the issue of polarity.
It is difficult to understand how the international system works without being aware of what we call “levels of analysis” in international relations. The challenge of levels of analysis was posited by David Singer in the 1960s. Singer’s was an attempt to structure the understanding of international relations by discerning the factors that lead to changes at different levels.
In his paper, “The Level of Analysis Problem in International Relations”, Singer noted as follows:
“In the vernacular of general systems theory, the observer is always confronted with a system, its sub-systems, and their respective environments, and while he may choose as his system any cluster of phenomena from the most minute organism to the universe itself, such choice cannot be merely a function of whim or caprice, habit or familiarity.
“The responsible scholar must be prepared to evaluate the relative utility – conceptual and methodological – of the various alternatives open to him, and to appraise the manifold implications of the level of analysis finally selected. So it is with international relations.”
Simply put, Singer’s two most important questions were: what do we observe when studying international relations? What CAUSES which EFFECTS in international relations?
President Cyril Ramaphosa of South Africa is leading the push for BRICS in Africa. PHOTO/Wikimedia Commons.
Polarity refers to the distribution of power in the global system. There are three types: uni-polarity, bipolarity and multi-polarity. For years, international relations scholars have grappled with the issue of which of these is likely to produce “the most” global stability.
But polarity is also perceived to have other effects on the “units”, in this case, states. During the Cold War, characterized by bipolarity, the world was polarised along the East/West ideological divide, with dire consequences. Coup d’ etats, political assassinations and overthrow of governments were among the tools used by the big powers to assert hegemony over their “spheres of influence”.
In this week’s discussion, the BRICS optimists argued that Africa stands to benefit if there is a more entrenched balance of power between China and Russia on one hand, and the Western world led by the United States of America, on the other.
They seem to reason that a multipolar world presents more opportunities for less developed countries than a unipolar world. By extension, a unipolar world has more destabilising effects on the fortunes of less developed states than a unipolar world.
The BRICS pessimists did not agree with this postulation and tended to regard China and Russia in the same lens as the Western states when it comes to the exploitation of Africa’s resources and destabilisation of the continent. To them, the effects of polarity are being overplayed.
The answer to me lies in the question of African agency.
In their influential paper, “The Question of African Agency in International Relations,” Ronald Chipaike and Matarutse Knowledge defined African agency as the ability of African actors to negotiate and bargain with other/external actors in a manner that accrues benefits to Africa.
The two scholars further postulated that African agency incorporates African initiatives taken by Africans to improve their socio-economic well-being.
Independent or sovereign decision-making is central to the exercise of agency. As long as African states continue, for example, to outsource security decisions to foreign powers, they will not exercise sovereign agency.
My argument is that, even though the nature of polarity may broadly determine the conditions under which states pursue their interests, such a variable is not in control of African states singularly or collectively. In any case, without the ability of African states to negotiate and bargain with others on equal footing, the exploitation of the continent will continue.
The unholy alliance that is wrecking havoc in the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC) is made up of states and multinational companies, which sponsor different factions to fight so that they can continue exploiting that country in that chaotic environment.
A lot of the conflicts on the continent today are not merely about internal socioeconomic conditions; they are enabled by weapons from the big powers in pursuit of their economic and geo-strategic interests. The case of the Sudan stands out like a sore thumb in this regard.
African states must develop their collective agency, or perish!
