Kurt Bassuener September 16th, 2008
Just as addendum to the earlier post, this BBC article spells out in some greater detail the positions of various democratic governments regarding their sanctions. The EU will review its sanctions next month, for example.
The article also contains an organigram of the power sharing deal.
Kurt Bassuener September 15th, 2008
Zimbabwe’s bitter political rivals Robert Mugabe and Morgan Tsvangirai today signed a deal that will divide power between the two of them, with Mugabe retaining his role as President, and Tsvangirai taking on a new Prime Ministership. The ministerial positions will be split with Mugabe’s ZANU-PF holding 15 and the MDC’s two combined wings (the main led by Tsvangirai, and a smaller led by now-Vice President Arthur Mutambara) holding 16. Al Jazeera English reports the ministerial portfolio split thus:
Zanu-PF, the MDC and the smaller opposition grouping of Mutambara met in Harare on Saturday, agreeing to share out the 31 cabinet seats.
The powerful state security ministry was abolished while the justice portfolio was split into two and a new prisons department was formed.
The parties met again on Monday to allocate ministries, with the MDC reportedly pushing to take control of home affairs, local government, one of the justice ministries, information and finance.
The name of the individual heads of the ministries are expected to be announced later in the week, according to a government minister.
The whole agreement, courtesy of the Financial Times, can be seen here.
South African President Thabo Mbeki was at the Harare ceremony where the deal was signed, and introduced the main signatories. The ceremony was attended by the leaders of Swaziland, the Democratic Republic of Congo, and other regional leaders. Interestingly, Mutambara, who preceded Tsvangiarai, repeatedly called Tsvangirai “president.” The differences between the speeches of the main antagonists could hardly be more stark. Tsvangirai’s speech was mostly forward looking, dwelling predominantly on the dire situation of Zimbabwe’s citizens, and the need to work together to resolve their plight:
I, the prime minister of Zimbabwe, call Zanu-PF and MDC to unite Zimbabwe. Divisions belong to the past.
If you were my enemy yesterday, today we are bound by the same patriotic duty and destiny…
I have signed this agreement because I believe it represents the best opportunity for us to build a peaceful, prosperous, democratic Zimbabwe.
I have signed this agreement because my belief in Zimbabwe and its peoples runs deeper than the scars I bear from the struggle.
I have signed this agreement because my hope for the future is greater than the grief I have for the needless suffering of the past years.
Today, every one of us has a decision to make.
Should we be driven by feelings towards those we blame for the suffering we have endured, or shall we be driven by the hope of a new, better, brighter country - the hope of a new beginning?…
The international aid organisations came to help our country and found our doors locked.
We need to unlock our doors to aid… we need medicine, food, and doctors back in our country.
We need electricity, water, petrol for our vehicles, we need to access our cash from banks…
This unity government will let businesses flourish so our people can work and provide for their families with pride.”
Mugabe’s speech rewound all the way back to the liberation struggle, and tried to place his repression in anti-colonialist terms, implying that the opposition were agents of Britain and the US:
“Are we beginning today? No. We have been walking the same route without knowing it, or not recognizing each other. After all, we are all Zimbabweans and is there any other road, any other route to follow? History makes us walk the same route…
[Looking at Morgan Tsvangirai and Arthur Mutambara] I don’t see any British amongst them. There is no American amongst them.
Let us be allies.
African problems must be solved by Africans.
The problem we have had is a problem that has been created by former colonial powers, who wanted to continue to interfere in our domestic affairs and continue to have a share of our natural resources.
This is what we have resisted.
We have said the land - Zimbabwe’s land - belongs to Zimbabweans…
Democracy, democracy. Democracy in Africa is a difficult proposition.
Because always the opposition will want much more than what it deserves.
The opposition will want to be the ruling party and will devise ways and means of getting there, including violence [jeers].
I am not just referring to you, but I am referring to the system as we see it in Africa. That’s what it is. [Jeers]
I can give examples. What is happening in Mozambique? In Ivory Coast? It will take us some time to get to a position where opposition parties will confine themselves to peaceful ways.
People will want to see if what we promise is indeed what we strive to do… We are committed, I am committed, let us all be committed.”
It is, of course, a risky move on the part of Tsvangirai, but he must have signed when he saw no other way out. Mugabe, before he strode the podium, looked dejected - not having had to share the stage with a domestic rival since Joshua Nkomo, who he ultimately broke.
The international community is maintaining a wait-and-see stance on the deal, which asks for international sanctions to be lifted. The US State Department’s reaction in its daily press briefing is below:
QUESTION: My question is about Zimbabwe.
MR. MCCORMACK: Zimbabwe.
QUESTION: Now that the agreement has been signed –
MR. MCCORMACK: Right.
QUESTION: — and maybe you know a little bit better about it and whether –
MR. MCCORMACK: A bit more. We don’t have a full picture of it. We have not yet seen the agreement and all of its details. We have had some briefings on it, and from what we have learned from the MDC briefing us on the detail – what – the details of it, then we would welcome this agreement, again, with the caveat that we haven’t yet seen the full agreement. And it is our hope for Zimbabwe and the Zimbabwean people that they could – they can now move forward, that this – the agreement, as we understand it, can be fully implemented, and that the agreement be implemented in such a way that it reflect the will of the people, as expressed in the recent election.
QUESTION: And are you optimistic it will be able to implement?
MR. MCCORMACK: Well, we’ll see. You know, you can get agreements and it’s important to execute those agreements, implement those agreements. We’ll see how it’s implemented.
Yeah.
QUESTION: On that subject, the new power-sharing leadership there in Zimbabwe has called on Britain to accept responsibility for compensating farmers who lost their land during the land reform process there. I wondered what you thought of that idea. Should Britain be compensating farmers there?
MR. MCCORMACK: I think that’s for the parties involved to comment on, and not for us. We don’t seem to be an issue in that particular question.
That latter point is apparently a sticking point in Mugabe’s mind, who seems convinced Britain should have financed the buyout of white farmers.
The foreign ministers of the EU, meeting in Brussels, also adopted an implementation first approach (full conclusions here):
The Council will study the details of the agreement and will be attentive to its implementation, which will mean immediate cessation of all forms of intimidation and violence. It stresses that that agreement must provide the Zimbabwean people with the reforms awaited: democracy and the rule of law, including respect for human rights, and the restoration of the country’s economic and social situation.
What is clear is that Mugabe is weakened. What is less clear is whether he is weakened enough so that Zimbabwe can now begin to dig itself out of the hole he and his cronies dug it into.
Eric Witte September 15th, 2008
UPDATE: A Dutch translation of the op-ed is now available here.
UPDATE II: A translation in Bosnian/Croatian/Serbian is now available here [PDF].
Kurt and I have a new op-ed in today’s Wall Street Journal Europe, arguing that when EU foreign ministers meet today, the Dutch should continue to hold out against pressure from EU foreign policy officials and other member states to reward Serbia with implementation of an interim agreement (which contains many benefits of Serbia’s held-up Stabilization and Association Agreement). The Dutch have taken the position that implementation of the interim agreement, like that of the SAA itself, must await Serbia’s full cooperation with the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY). We argue that this is not only in the interests of justice, but also Serbia’s democratic reform:
When applied, conditionality requires Serbia to prove its willingness to enter Europe’s community of common values. It also has afforded Serbia’s democrats an opportunity to outflank nationalist opponents. Quietly, Serbian officials admit this. But politicians everywhere avoid heavy lifting when given the chance. The EU has repeatedly granted this chance, retarding Serbia’s democratic development and demonstrating that their definition of conditionality is itself conditional.
Serbian reformers now in power continue to argue against EU conditionality. But President Boris Tadic and Prime Minister Mirko Cvetkovic reaped substantial political benefits from the Karadzic arrest. The aftermath of the arrest revealed the ultranationalist Radical Party’s inability to create significant protests. The Socialist Party, drawn into coalition with Mr. Tadic’s Democrats, is accused of “treason” by the Radical Party and its other erstwhile nationalist allies and wants to avoid new elections. This makes Serbia’s current coalition its most stable in the post-Milosevic era.
Belgrade can finish the job by arresting Mladic and Croatian Serb separatist leader Goran Hadzic. Mladic’s whereabouts have been less mysterious than Karadzic’s were, but in some ways his is a harder case. He enjoys greater loyalty among nationalists and elements of the military and intelligence services, who help to protect him and could lash out following an arrest. But this, too, provides the Tadic government with an opportunity to root out elements that have long proved lethal to reform. Prime Minister Zoran Djindjic’s assassination in 2003 demonstrated the cost of delaying a purge that should have begun after Milosevic’s ouster in 2000.
The security-criminal nexus burdens Serbia with organized crime and corruption that make later fulfillment of EU-required technical reforms more difficult in any case. Now is the best — and perhaps only — time to confront it, while radical elements in Serbian society are in disarray and demoralized by the arrest of Karadzic, and soon after the electorate has demonstrated its preference for pro-European policies. Waiting to tackle the hardest reforms will only give the hard-liners time to regroup. Dutch resolve on EU conditionality has given Mr. Tadic another chance to clean house and to justify arrests to an electorate that expects him to take bold steps to meet European standards.
You can read the whole thing here.
Kurt Bassuener September 10th, 2008
In an excellent op-ed in Monday’s Financial Times, the Center for European Reform’s Tomas Valasek wrote that the EU should end Ukraine’s limbo on the Union’s periphery, and finally open the door for eventual EU membership:
At the summit, the EU should begin to restore its influence in eastern Europe by putting Ukraine on a track to accession. The EU should call its new partnership deal with Ukraine an “association agreement” – this would echo past arrangements with the now-new member states of central Europe. The EU should also say that it wants closer relations with Ukraine. This would tell the Ukrainians that they are not destined to be eternal neighbours, and will be welcome to join the EU once they meet the accession criteria.
British Foreign Secretary David Milband had made his view clear that this was the course he favored:
Britain is among those backing eventual Ukrainian membership. “It is important that Europe’s leaders make clear that we are determined on a long-term relationship with Ukraine with membership as a long-term goal,” David Miliband, the Foreign Secretary, said at the weekend.
Unfortunately, at the Ukraine-EU summit today in Paris, where Ukrainian President Viktor Yushchenko met French counterpart Nicolas Sarkozy, the EU took Valasek’s advice about the “association agreement,” which was the opening step toward membership of the Central and East European members of the EU, but without openly stating that membership is the goal. Ukraine’s ongoing political instability among erstwhile “orange” allies, but now bitter rivals for the presidency in elections next year, certainly contributed to this. But one suspects that the real reasons are Ukraine’s size and fear of Russian resistance. Sarkozy hinted at the resistance from Italy, Germany, Belgium and the Netherlands:
“It is the maximum that we could do, and I believe that it is already an essential step,” Mr Sarkozy said.
Mr Sarkozy emphasised that the accord was a recognised first step for countries with aspirations of EU membership.
Ukraine’s President Viktor Yushchenko recognised the difficult timing of the summit and welcomed the association agreement as a successful outcome.
“We understand very well the conditions of this dialogue at present. This isn’t the best time, given the situation in the region but we’re patient,” he said.
Another report from The Times gave the following Ukrainian reactions:
President Yushchenko called the agreement an historic step by the EU, which would likely end in membership. “It is the first step in a long road that was taken in the 1990s by all the [Eastern] states which have since become members,” he said.
Other Ukrainian officials voiced disappointment. Andriy Veselovsky, the Kiev Ambassador to the EU, said: “At this point the European Union is not ready to give what we want, because the European Union did not acquire a concerted position.”
The Financial Times reports today:
“Be clear that this agreement shuts no door, and maybe it opens some doors. This is the most we could offer, but I believe it to be a substantial step,” Nicolas Sarkozy, France’s president, told reporters.
Diplomats said Germany and the Netherlands, and to a lesser extent Belgium, were the most reluctant to state clearly that Ukraine could one day join the EU.
The three Baltic states, the Czech Republic, Poland, Sweden and the UK all sympathised with Kiev’s aspirations while recognising that accession was not an immediate possibility.
To Sarkozy’s credit, he made clear his view that Ukraine’s territorial integrity is “non-negotiable,” but it is hard to see how that can be too reassuring, given the negotiations he just returned from with Russian President Dmitri Medvedev on Georgia’s territorial integrity.
The pity is that EU membership, unlike that of NATO, is not controversial even among eastern and southern Ukrainians. Most citizens see the potential benefits of membership, not least the eastern oligarchs who recognize the importance of EU markets for their steel and other products. Chalk up another lost opportunity for the EU to help encourage Ukraine’s politicians to cohere behind a sold program to meet European standards, so as to attain membership. Without that incentive, the persistent infighting that has squandered much of the hope generated in the Orange Revolution will no doubt continue to degenerate - and at a very dangerous time for the country. An open door policy for the neighborhood, combined with technical assistant in meeting the EU standards for candidacy and membership, would be a far sounder policy for the EU and the countries on its eastern frontier.
Kurt Bassuener August 27th, 2008
British Foreign Secretary David Miliband spoke in Kyiv today - the BBC gives a good capsule on his remarks here. Miliband met with Ukrainian President Viktor Yushchenko:
Victor Yushchenko told Mr Miliband that the brief conflict between Georgia and Russia earlier this month had exposed serious weaknesses in the powers of the UN and other international bodies.
He called for Ukraine’s defences to be strengthened and said his country would consider increasing the amount of money Russia pays for the lease of the port of Sevastopol, where it stations its Black Sea Fleet.
In his remarks to students later, Miliband said:
…the Georgia crisis had “provided a rude awakening”…Moscow’s “unilateral attempt to redraw the map marks a moment of real significance”.
The Russian president, he said, had a “big responsibility not to start” a new Cold War.
The foreign secretary said the response of the EU and Nato to such “aggression” should be one of “hard-headed engagement”.
“That means bolstering our allies, rebalancing the energy relationship with Russia, defending the rules of international institutions, and renewing efforts to tackle ‘unresolved conflicts’,” he explained.
Mr Miliband again rejected calls for Russia to be expelled from the G8, but did suggest the EU and Nato needed to review relations with it.
French Foreign Minister Bernard Kouchner also had strong words for Moscow, referencing Crimea, among other potential future flashpoints:
Asked on Europe 1 radio whether Russia would now regularly choose to confront the West rather than cooperate with it, Kouchner said: “That is not impossible.”
“I repeat that it is very dangerous, and there are other objectives that one can suppose are objectives for Russia, in particular the Crimea, Ukraine and Moldova.” Like Georgia, Ukraine has a pro-Western president who wants his country to join NATO, a move away from Moscow’s sphere of influence which has angered the Kremlin. It also has a large Russian-speaking population, but is much bigger than Georgia…
Kouchner repeated his call on Russia to comply with international commitments, including a French-backed peace plan under which Russia agreed to pull back its forces to the positions they held before the crisis. “We cannot accept these violations of all international law, of agreements on security and cooperation in Europe, of United Nations resolutions, and the seizing for the first time in a long time of one territory by the army of a neighbouring country,” Kouchner said.
“It (Russia) is an international outlaw. That is not just the opinion of the European Union,” he added. The leaders of the European Union’s member states are due to hold an emergency meeting on Monday to discuss their response to Russia’s actions, but Kouchner would not be drawn on what decisions they might take.
“The 27 heads of state will obviously react,” Kouchner said. “The European Union, the 27 countries, 500 million people, Europe’s economic power, must manifest themselves in this crisis to stop it and negotiate a political solution,” he added.
Kurt Bassuener August 26th, 2008
Following an overwhelming vote in the Russian Duma yesterday to recognize the independence of South Ossetia and Abkhazia, two separatist regions in Georgia that came under total Russian military control earlier this month, Russia’s President Dmitri Medvedev today announced in a televised address his decision to recognize their independence. He added:“Russia calls on other states to follow its example.” This is a signal to CIS members to do so.
In his speech, given from Sochi, he accused Georgia of perpetrating “genocide” in its bombardment and seizure of the South Ossetia’s main city, Tskhinvali:
“I have signed decrees on the recognition of the independence of South Ossetia and Abkhazia,” Medvedev said in a pre-recorded address broadcast on national television.
“This is not an easy choice but this is the only chance to save people’s lives,” he said a day after Russia’s Kremlin-controlled parliament voted unanimously to support the diplomatic recognition.…Medvedev said Mikhail Saakashvili, the Georgian president, had forced Russia’s hand by launching an August 7 attack to seize control of South Ossetia by force.“Saakashvili chose genocide to fulfill his political plans,” Medvedev said.“Georgia chose the least human way to achieve its goal - to absorb South Ossetia by eliminating a whole nation.”Al Jazeera English correspondent Jonah Hull, reporting from Sochi, noted that the recognition was a direct contravention of the six-point peace plan that Medvedev agreed to, point six of which was to enter into some international dialogue on the issue of the two separatist regions. Hull, who has proved a precient and perceptive on-the-ground analyst since before the August 7 Georgian effort to retake Tskhinvali, opined that this was a direct challenge to the West. Georgians believe the recognition is only a brief stop to the territories being absorbed by Russia formally; they are already integrated economically:
“Russia has legalized what it was threatening to do for a long time now,” Kakha Lomaia, head of Georgia’s Security Council, said by phone. “This means these two regions are about to join Russia. Make no mistake about it.”
As of yet, there has been no collective European Union reaction, nor a formal US reaction. US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice is on the Middle East, and has yet to comment. Yesterday, US President George Bush criticized the Duma vote, calling on Moscow not to recognize the regions and to accept Georgian territorial integrity.
Both Britain and France registered their objections:
Britain accused Russia of acting against UN security council resolutions. “We reject this categorically and reaffirm Georgia’s sovereignty and territorial integrity,” said a Foreign Office spokeswoman. “This is contrary to obligations that Russia has repeatedly taken on in [UN] security council resolutions. It does nothing to improve the prospects for peace in the Caucasus.”
France said it regretted Russia’s decision and the French foreign ministry reiterated France’s commitment to Georgia’s territorial integrity. France, the current holder of the rotating presidency of the EU, has called a meeting of EU leaders to discuss the crisis next Monday.
Just before Medvedev’s announcement, German Chancellor Angela Merkel stated today that the EU will maintain recognition of Georgia’s current borders, including South Ossetia and Abkhazia:
German Chancellor Angela Merkel said that the European Union will back maintaining Georgia’s borders when members meet to discuss the fallout from Russia’s incursion and decision to recognize two breakaway Georgian regions.
“The principle of territorial integrity is one of the basic principles that international cooperation has to be based on and the EU will very clearly stand by this principle,” Merkel said during a joint press briefing with Estonian Prime Minister Andrus Ansip in Tallinn today. The recognition of South Ossetia and Abkhazia “is something that we don’t consider to be part of international law,” she said.
The EU is set to meet next Monday to discuss the Georgia-Russia crisis:
Merkel said she was “relatively optimistic” that the emergency EU summit called for Sept. 1 in Brussels will find a common voice in addressing the aftermath of the five-day conflict in Georgia.
“Georgia must be supported,” Merkel said. “We have a lot of options there, with one instrument being the EU neighborhood policy under its eastern dimension.” That may mean rallying support for “the economic rebuilding of Georgia,” she added.
Her Estonian counterpart, Prime Minister Ansip, advocates opening the door to membership to Georgia and fellow “European neighborhood” member Ukraine:
The chancellor’s hopes for a unified EU stance were dulled by Ansip’s comments that Georgia should be offered an action plan for membership of both the EU and the North Atlantic Treaty Organization. Merkel, who led opposition to fast-track NATO membership for Georgia in April, said two days ago that she hadn’t changed her mind. NATO leaders at the Bucharest summit declined to give Georgia and Ukraine a timetable for membership.
“What is happening in Georgia is a turning point” that should allow the Caucasus nation “to speedily accede to the EU and NATO,” Ansip said. “At this moment it is especially appropriate to stress increased activity of the European Union in this region. Estonia considers it important to decide on awarding a membership action plan to Georgia and Ukraine as soon as possible.”
OSCE Chair and Finnish Foreign Minister Alexander Stubb condemned the Russian move in rather strong terms for the consensus organization, and demanded that Russia live up to its commitments made just over a week ago:
OSCE
Press ReleaseHELSINKI, 26 August 2008 - The OSCE Chairman-in-Office, Finnish Foreign Minister Alexander Stubb, today condemned the decision by Russia to recognize the independence of the breakaway Georgian regions of South Ossetia and Abkhazia.
“The recognition of independence for South Ossetia and Abkhazia violates fundamental OSCE principles. As all OSCE participating States, Russia is committed to respecting the sovereignty and territorial integrity of others.”
“Russia should follow OSCE principles by respecting the territorial integrity and sovereignty of Georgia. Russia should immediately withdraw all troops from Georgia and implement the ceasefire agreement, including the modalities defined in the 16 August letter of French President Nicolas Sarkozy. The international community cannot accept unilaterally established buffer zones,” said Stubb.
The OSCE will continue to monitor the implementation of the ceasefire agreement. It stands ready to further assist in stabilizing the situation.
It will be interesting to see how French President Nicolas Sarkozy will react to his six-point plan being so openly violated by Russia.
It will also be quite tense when a US Navy ship, the USS McFaul, comes to the Georgian port of Poti tomorrow with relief supplies - Russia has said it will search all supplies that come through the port. That visit had seemed solid until just minutes ago, when according to one wire report, the Navy began refusing to confirm where the vessel would dock.
Meanwhile, Russia’s emissary to NATO, Dmitri Rogozin, seemed bizarrely to hint at World War Three with an absurd analogy:
Russia’s envoy to Nato, Dmitry Rogozin, compared the tension between Russia and the west to the eve of the first world war, saying a new freeze in relations was inevitable.
“The current atmosphere reminds me of the situation in Europe in 1914 … when because of one terrorist leading world powers clashed,” Rogozin told the RBK Daily business newspaper. “I hope Mikheil Saakashvili [the president of Georgia] will not go down in history as a new Gavrilo Princip.” He was referring to the assassin of the Austro-Hungarian archduke Franz Ferdinand.
What is clear is that Russia is not at all intimidated by the Western and international reaction to its aggression in Georgia so far.
Eric Witte August 25th, 2008
Radovan Karadzic has his second court appearance this week at the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia, when he will have another opportunity to enter a plea. (He refused to do so at his first appearance.) Karadzic is charged with crimes across Bosnia and Hercegovina, including the July 1995 massacre by Serb forces of some 8,000 Bosniak men and boys in and around the eastern Bosnian town of Srebrenica.
On Sunday, Kurt had an article in the St. Petersburg Times, which offers a bleak but fascinating look at the tremendous effort by the International Commission on Missing Persons (ICMP) to account for Srebrenica’s victims:
In ICMP’s mortuary in Tuzla the air hangs thick and musty - the dank odor of mortal remains excavated from mass graves, placed in numbered plastic burlap sacks, stacked seven high and 15 wide. Brown paper bags of clothing found on or with the remains, also carefully labeled, top the shelving. A neighboring room contains personal effects, such as walking canes, ID cards and canteens.
In many cases, the whole male line of a family was wiped out. Just last month, on the 13th anniversary of the fall of Srebrenica, 308 bodies found in mass graves and identified by the ICMP were reburied.
…
The center painstakingly links the remains of individuals killed at the same execution sites but spread among many secondary mass graves. The bones of some 140 individuals were laid out on long tables and shelves in the large room, each bone and fragment individually marked with a numbered foil tag. The skeletons of three brothers are laid out side by side. DNA from parents can only ensure identification as a child, but not which one absent other data. Two of four missing brothers could be positively identified by other distinguishing features, relative age, or because they themselves had children with matching DNA. But one partial skeleton could only be narrowed down to brother number three or four. More evidence is needed to positively identify him.
Every year on July 11, the remains of those identified are buried at Potocari, near Srebrenica. Families have sole discretion as to whether to bury a loved one who has been only partially found. Great is the trauma suffered by some who have buried a loved one only to find more remains later, and face the choice of disinterring the previously identified remains. ICMP refrains from contacting families until a significant amount of remains have been identified.
The man who was in operational command at Srebrenica, Ratko Mladic, remains at large in Serbia. European Union foreign ministers meet next month, with Serbia again on the agenda. Karadzic’s arrest would likely not have been possible without Dutch and Belgian insistence on Serbia’s full cooperation with the ICTY prior to implementation of its Stabilization and Association Agreement and other EU benefits. As Kurt argues, the pressure should be maintained:
Will the man accused of being operationally responsible for creating the tangle of human remains that is still being sifted ever see justice? That largely depends on the continued lonely leadership of the Dutch and Belgian governments, and the readiness of those, including the U.S. government, who bankroll the international tribunal to continue financing its work until justice is done.
Eric Witte August 23rd, 2008
The Economist provides a nice overview of Liberia’s gradual recovery under President Ellen Johnson Sirleaf*, who took office in January 2006. While she has tackled corruption and sought to spur economic growth to the advantage of average Liberians, Liberia has received substantial aid from the United States and Europe, as well as benefitted from mounting international investment. As The Economist notes, China is among the countries putting cash into Liberia:
The Chinese are getting involved too. They have resurfaced the decrepit William Tubman Boulevard, Monrovia’s main artery, named after the country’s longest-serving president, and will take on similar projects throughout Liberia.
China’s influence across Africa is growing, which has rightly sparked concern. In such places as Sudan, Chinese investment serves as a crutch for dictatorial (and in Sudan’s case, genocidal) regimes. By contrast, Chinese investment in democratic Liberia seems unproblematic at first blush. Yet it still poses a potential risk.
If Liberia’s fragile new democracy were to falter, there is a decent chance that western aid would be used as leverage to keep democratic governance on track. The response of the United States and European Union to the August 6 coup in Mauritania, for example, could eventually create real pressure for the restoration of democratic order in that West African nation. It is evident that Western defense of democracy in the region (and beyond) is far from guaranteed. Witness, for example, the West’s appalling, passive acceptance of outright dictatorship in Liberia’s bauxite-laden neighbor, Guinea, or its cozy diplomatic relationships with the despots of oil-rich Gabon and Equatorial Guinea.
While use of the established democracies’ leverage cannot be taken for granted in pressing for democratic change or seeking to prevent democratic backsliding, it is clear that China doesn’t care about democracy or good governance at all. As long as natural resources from African countries continue to fuel China’s rapid economic development, Beijing will maintain support for the most odious of regimes. To the extent that China becomes a major player in Africa, potential leverage from established democratic governments for maintance of human rights and democracy declines.
Liberia remains one of the poorest countries in the world and obviously cannot afford to turn up its nose at any aid or investment. But China’s no-strings-attached approach to investing in Africa raises the stakes for Liberia by cutting away part of the safety net under President Johnson Sirleaf’s impressive high-wire act.
*Most media organizations - including The Economist - hyphenate her last name, but in interviews President Johnson Sirleaf has said that it isn’t hyphenated.
Eric Witte August 18th, 2008
As I noted on Friday, suspension of international aid to Mauritania following the coup earlier this month may have a limited impact on the junta so long as lucrative fishing and mining contracts continue to fund the government. Today, a spokesperson for the European Commission said that EU Aid and Development Commissioner Louis Michel will propose to the European Council that non-humanitarian aid and the fishing agreement worth Euro 75.25 million per year be frozen until there is an acceptable solution to the crisis. Mauritania will be on the agenda when the Council (foreign ministers of the 27 EU members) meets in September. The governments to watch are those of France, Spain, Portugal, Italy and Greece - those whose fishing fleets have access to Mauritanian waters under the agreement in question.
Eric Witte August 15th, 2008
Following last week’s coup in Mauritania, the United States quickly suspended non-humanitarian aid and the African Union suspended Mauritania’s membership, signaling a promising coordinated defense of Mauritania’s young democracy. On Monday, France followed suit in suspending non-humanitarian aid. The European Commission appeared to be working in the same direction, but leaving itself wiggle room. European Voice reported on Tuesday [subscription req’d]:
“A spokesperson for Louis Michel, European commissioner in charge of development, told European Voice that the EU executive is preparing to launch formal consultations with Mauritania, under the Cotonou agreement which governs the relationship between the EU and African, Caribbean, and Pacific countries. The agreement foresees the launch of such consultations when countries breach principles of democracy and respect for human rights. The spokesperson said that ‘the potential of suspension [of development aid] is there’, if the discussions do not produce satisfactory results.”
With international pressure mounting, things might seem bleak for the coup plotters who overthrew President Sidi Mohamed Ould Cheikh Abdallahi.
Or do they?
Reuters reports that international companies involved in extracting natural resources in Mauritania remain unperturbed by the coup. Their activities continue unhindered, and now provide remittances to an illegitimate government. Extraction in the areas of oil, gas and uranium are relatively young, meaning that the coup has occured as exploration is giving way to more lucrative production. The same Reuters report notes that Chinese demand is driving up prices for iron ore, so this staple of the Mauritanian economy is producing record profits.
In an additional bit of good news for General Mohamed Ould Abdel Aziz and other members of the junta, just five days before seizing power, a four-year fishing agreement between the European Union and Mauritania came into effect. In exchange for access to Mauritanian waters for fishing vessels from Spain, Portugal, France, Italy and Greece, the EU will pay Mauritania EUR 76.25 million per year. The $23 million (about EUR 15 million) in suspended American assistance to Mauritania suddenly seems less impressive.
Yesterday, the junta named a former Mauritanian ambassador to the European Union, Moulaye Ould Mohamed Laghdaf, as prime minister. Reuters quotes an anonymous diplomat saying, “Internationally speaking it’s a strategic nomination because he is pro-European and he knows how Brussels works.” But it gets worse. Digging deeper into Laghdaf’s background, Agence de Presse Africaine reports that he has specific experience in coordinating European support for natural resource extraction in Mauritania:
“He worked as an international consultant between 1997 and 2000 and before that as an expert at the Centre for Industrial Development (TDCI) of the ACP (Africa, Caribbean and Pacific) states and the European Union (1991-1997).
He was in charge of selecting adapted technologies for the development of ores at the TDCI, searching for European partners and institutions to finance identified projects.
He was in charge of developing the mining resources of the ACP states, particularly the implementation of the mining and industrial part of the Lome Convention.
He wrote and published practical guides on increasing the value of mining resources of the ACP states and developing the phosphates of Mauritania, Senegal, Mali and Togo.”
It appears that to really pressure the putchists, the European Union and its member states will have to prioritize the defense of democracy over mercantilism and parochial interests.
