Africabeat

The post-election violence in Kenya is having devastating effects throughout East Africa as fuel shipments from Mombasa, the region’s largest port, ground to a halt. 

Enter the Ugandan army.

Joseph Karoki writes that Ugandan troops have entered Nyanza Province in Western Kenya to help secure safe passage of oil trucks bound for Kampala:

Last night I recieved news that there were reports of Ugandan militia
in or around Nyanza Province and Western Province. I waited utill I got
confirmation from the ground. After several late night phone calls, I
did confirm that Ugandan Forces were indeed within Kenyan borders. Just
within the last hour Ugandan Army Spokesman, Major Felix Kulayigye,
confirmed the deployment of the troops on Tuesday, saying “it is to
forestall possible spill over of violence in Kenya”…

…So if we do have Ugandan militia in Nyanza province, many of you might
ask why? Well, here is a simple answer. Uganda is a landlocked country
that relies heavily on the political stability of Kenya for imports and
exports through the Mombasa Port on the Indian Ocean and is dependent
on the the safe passage of goods through Kenya.The political
instability has had devastating effects on Uganda’s economy.  Uganda,
fuel prices have risen from USh2,400 (Sh100) to USh5,000 (Sh225). Most
oil importing companies have reported that they have not replenished
their stocks after their reservoirs dried up. So there is motive as to
why Uganda would get involved.

His Kenyan readers are not too happy.

The Monitor newspaper says Uganda was woefully unprepared:

[Energy Minister Daudi Migereko] had a hard time explaining to the media how the country
could suffer crippling scarcities almost immediately after the Kenyan
turmoil began, and why the nation’s reserves could not even last days.

Both the Monitor and New Vision report price gouging and long lines at the few stations in Kampala that haven’t run out of petrol.  The Ugandans are trying to redirect shipments through Dar-es-Salaam
(Tanzania), but are facing major logistical problems, i.e., ships to carry fuel across Lake Victoria.  Moreover,
because of the higher
transport costs associated with that route, importing via Dar would not normalize prices.

Continuing west, government officials say Rwanda, which (surprise surprise) still has several days of reserves, may be facing its own crisis unless it can start importing fuel again.

I can’t imagine what the situation must be like in Eastern Congo.

There’s been a lot of coverage of Western pressure on Kibaki (well, minus the Americans of course, who found in him a staunch "War on Terror" ally).  But I imagine that today, it’s Museveni and Kagame who are really giving him hell.

When it comes to Africa, much of the West’s anti-China furor is directed at China’s Sudan policy: China has major oil interests in Darfur and has appeared completely unwilling to divest or use any of its considerable political power to persuade Sudanese President Omar El Bashir to accept an international peacekeeping force.  China’s pursuit of its oil self-interest, these critics charge, is bankrolling genocide.

However, last Friday, the US special envoy to Sudan, Andrew S. Natsios, made a point of praising China for its efforts to bring an end to the genocide in Darfur.  "I think they’re engaging much more aggressively."  High praise indeed.

Has China’s policy really changed, or are the media just getting bored of their old angle?  Maybe Chinese foreign policy really is suspectible to public opinion after all – if not always their own public, than the international public.  In addition to the oft-repeated China -> oil -> Darfur -> genocide story, there is also that old familiar line about China’s desire to be perceived as a legitimate, respectable international power and member of the international community.

"China’s U.N. ambassador, Wang Guangya, was critical to securing Sudan’s
participation in a recent international accord aimed at replacing a flagging
African Union peacekeeping force in Darfur with a larger U.N. contingent," a Washington Post article reported. Read more…

China Dialogue, a bilingual, Chinese/English blog on China and the environment, has two recent posts on the environmental impacts of China’s investment in Nigeria and Angola’s oil industries.  And I’ve got commentary.

Continue reading

And so am I, apparently.  This article, which appeared in several publications back in August, explains that Japan, the world’s third largest oil guzzler (the United States and China occupying first and second place) gets ninety percent of its oil from the Middle East.  This obviously leaves Japan very vulnerable to oil shocks in that region.  Japan has recently started making overtures to oil-producing nations in Africa, but these are little more than fact-finding missions…

Many have criticized China’s involvement in Africa on environmental grounds.  Read some of China’s critics and defenders.

Continue reading

Tipped off by an Al Jazeera article, I stumbled upon a recent World Bank report, titled "Africa’s Silk Road: China and India’s New Economic Frontier."  The report paints rosy pictures of "South-South" international commerce and of African potential to produce and export to Chinese and Indian markets at very competitive prices not just raw materials, but "diversified, nontraditional exports such as processed commodities,
light manufactured products, household consumer goods, food, and
tourism."

In short, Africa could be for India and China what China and India have been for the U.S. and Western Europe (and vice versa).  South-South trade might one day be the engine that drives African development just as Chinese manufacturing exports and Indian service exports are driving economic booms in those two countries.

Continue reading

A lot of happenings this week on the Darfur front.  I have a roundup at my World News site which you can read there. 

My takeaway?  I love how the entire Bush administration is mobilizing to "Save Darfur" even as it has worked to bury proposed legislation that is the centerpiece of a divestment campaign that would force American investors to pull money out of any company doing business in Sudan. 

I suppose words are cheaper than turning one’s back to one’s oil buddies.

The less cynical voice in my head wonders if U.S. divestment would be enough to push the Khartoum’s hand and agree to allow UN peacekeepers into the country.  (I don’t have all the figures so I cannot even begin to guess, although apparently the equity at stake is reportedly in the tens of billions.)  Maybe the Bush administration is just waiting and seeing if it can convince the Chinese to use their "moral suasion" (i.e., soaring oil demand) to get the Sudanese government on board, and divestment might only piss the Chinese off. 

Oil companies that would be affected by  American divestment include: PetroChina, Sinopec, ABB, Alstom, Siemens, Schlumberger, Tatneft of
Russia, Italy’s Finmeccanica, Weir Group of the UK, and Shell. 

Yup…on second thought, my vote is on the oil vote.

I just ran across this article in the Asia Times Online which reports that the U.S. Department of Defense is on the verge of deciding whether to set up a separate military command for Sub-Saharan Africa, which is now currently "handled" by Central Command, Pacific Command and European Command.

"one official noted that talks were "intense"and another stressed that internal debate was stronger than it was six months ago and appeared to be on the verge of a positive verdict."

Apparently, the U.S. government is thinking of acting on its concern that weak states in Africa could be a haven for terrorism.

To quote myself from the post an earlier post I wrote on this topic for About.com:

I guess it’s nice that the fear of terrorism spurs rich countries to
funnel more aid to poor countries, but whenever I read about the failed
states/terrorism link, I always chuckle at how long it’s taken some to
get on board with the idea that the world is connected. Whether
we act to help poor countries out of altruism or to serve own
self-interest, we must act. In the end our neighbors’ misery affects us
all, however high we try to build our fences.

That said, a new, Africa arm of the U.S. military wasn’t exactly what I had in mind!

The article also notes that American oil interests may be at play,
stating that the Gulf of Guinea may provide a quarter of US crude oil
by 2010 (more than Saudi Arabia!).  The first thing I thought about
upon reading this was, of course, China.

Apparently John Pike, the guy at GlobalSecurity.org was thinking along these same lines:

"We
can see how the US would want to move and make preparations  for that
day when it matters whom states will turn to for protection," Pike
said. "When that day comes, the US wants to ensure key states are
looking its way."

The U.S., in addition to whatever security threats it might face (which, quite frankly, or not new; 1998
was after all a long time ago), is fighting a quiet battle for
influence on the continent, influence it may have had by default at the end of the
Cold War, but which it risks losing as China realizes its strategic (i.e., oil) interests and China’s public popularity grows.

In Africa, China Trade Brings Growth, Unease, Washington Post

"Chinese companies have developed a reputation for going where others
won’t because of political, environmental or ethical concerns, or
because profit margins are too slim. State-owned companies in China,
analysts say, have the ability to forgo short-term profits in pursuit
of the government’s long-term strategic interests."

As I’ve said before, what’s different about China’s engagement with Africa, as compared to Western powers, is that the Chinese are willing to go where others aren’t and to take a long view in an environment where most are trying to make money or build nations on unrealistic 3, 5, and 10 year plans.

The head of the Africa Division for Human Rights Watch, however, thinks China’s indiscriminate investment is a bad thing:

"Wherever there are resources, the Chinese are going to go there…They see no evil. They hear no evil. That’s very bad for Africans."

Yes, it’s bad that China’s investment in African nations will help to sustain unaccountable or abusive leaders, and it’s clear that the Chinese policy of non-interference in nations’ internal affairs suit their national interests: finding new markets for their products and new sources of raw materials to sustain China’s industrial expansion.

But I’m still hoping that infrastructure and social investments, even if they are self-interested, will have important spillover effects.  Small farmers will be able to more easily get their crops to market, children will have better healthcare and more access to schools, and that in the long run (I hope) will be good for Africa.

Nigerian newspaper Daily Sun reports that the Nigerian government is seeking military assistance from China, apparently having grown impatient of waiting for calls for US assistance to protect oil facilities from militants in the Niger Delta to be answered.

This is a prime example of one of the aspects of the China-Africa relationship that I find most interesting: how China’s involvement on the continent might influence African governments’ decisions by presenting alternatives to Western diplomacy.

Continue reading