Tag: Foreign Policy

the growth of rwanda by way of multinational corporations

Development

Multinational corporations would benefit from an international agreement on foreign direct investment, but not all people and states would benefit from such an agreement. There are many preconceived notions about Multinational Corporations (MNC), which Balaam and Veseth work tirelessly to argue against. These notions are shared by many and in some ways cannot be overlooked in the grand scheme of MNC sot Transnational Corporations (TNC) as Balaam and Veseth define. MNCs bring a lot in the way of foreign direct investment and this brings up the age old question of exploitation and domination of a less economically developed country (LEDC). MNCs and TNCs are seen as huge companies originating in the economically developed countries that are very influential and hold sway in the international Political economy (IPE).

Do MNCs exploit and actually harm countries with foreign direct investment (FDI)? We first have to look at the positive side. FDI from MNCs in economically developed countries brings in much needed cash flow, jobs, and they create economic development. Many countries seek to draw in MNCs for this very purpose. This is all well and good until Balaam and Veseth turn their argument to include the Washington Consensus. In the 1990s the world saw an increase in FDI flows and these reflected the growing transnational markets, regional and global. Balaam and Veseth note that many ‘less developed countries’ (LDC) have adopted the Washington Consensus policies. They say that these policies create an environment more conducive to TNCs investment, but is that what is best for a LEDC? The effectiveness of the Washington Consensus is underscored by its failure to understand the many conditions of a LEDC and its governance. When a LEDC adopts the Washington Consensus it opens its, often, unstable economy and government to the world. There is very often a problem of foreign debt and the policies of the Washington Consensus require LEDC to focus capital on building pointless infrastructures while its people are dying because of lack of healthcare or are in need of an education system. Among the many policies outlined in the Washington Consensus one is the liberalization of FDI. Beyond the controversy of FDI many countries now actively seek it to grow their economic situations.

Earlier this month the Foreign Policy magazine claimed that the “next great place for multinational corporations to invest” may be Rwanda. The landlocked African country just might be the place as Rwandan President, Kagame, seeks to create a new view of the country as a business friendly venue. This is an instance where FDI by MNC very well may be benefiting both the state and the people. Kagame recently visited the US and met with the CEO of Starbucks and Costco to discuss specialty coffees. Other Rwandan officials have met with executives from Alltel, Bechtel, and Columbia Sportswear. Google has also been a part of Rwanda’s development by providing ad-free and free-of-charge web-based software to government ministries, each ministry gets its own domain name. This is an instance where the development of government may also lead to the advancement of the Rwandan people. However we need to be sure to look at the potential impact of FDI. Specialty coffees may increase the workforce, new corporations invested will also grow the workforce, but Rwanda needs to be sure that its people are not exploited for their labor. MNCs/ TNCs are often toted as companies that exploit LEDCs for cheap labor. This is most likely not the case.

Another great example of FDI by MNCs in Rwanda is the work of an American millionaire, Greg Wyler. Wyler and his company want to make Rwanda completely wireless to make Rwanda the most modern wireless, developing country. The Rwandan government hopes this project will make the country a rival to the high-tech Indian city of Bangalore. Wyler believes that with making the country wireless it will create so many opportunities for economic development and unrestricted entrepreneurship. This is an FDI by MNCs that I have to argee with skeptics in that if you have an economically developing country that has a starving population, then what good will free internet access provide? Nevertheless this increase in FDI in Rwanda is a prime example of how FDI by MNCs has the potential to change peoples lives and benefit both the state and those it serves.

Today MNCs/ TNCs are motivated not from monopoly power , but by investment abroad in the new competitive environment that is found in transnational markets. This environment where MNCs work best is brought about by a liberalization of trade and investment policy. The Washington Consensus pushes these changes and many countries are now working to adopt them to increase their FDI. This is where countries should take a warning and remember that they cannot forget the people that they serve. Economic advancement is important if a country is to grow in standard of living, but it has to be done where people are not left behind. Change in policy to facilitate MNCs investment has the great potential to bring positives for LEDCs.

Bibliography:
Balaam and Veseth. Introduction to International Political Economy. Upper Saddle River, New Jersey: Pearson Education Inc, 2005.

‘Web Access for All Rwandans.’ Spiegel Online International. . (date accessed 17 April 2007)

‘We wish to inform you that Rwanda is open for business.’ Foreign Policy Passport Blog. . (date accessed 17 April 2007)

dogmatic america

Activism

Disclaimer: This is a piece of writing that I did in my sophomore year of High School for a presentation to attend Close-Up in Washington D.C. I rediscovered it and thought how sadly it has remained relevant nearly four years later. It was also an interesting look at how I was reacting to the growing “war on terror.”

11 November 2004

On one hand we are told by some that Bush is pushing war and bent on abandoning the international system of rules and instructions built up by previous presidents. Others argue that Bush has drawn a necessary line in the sand between America and a dangerous coalition of stateless terrorists and rogue nations.

As a presidential candidate Bush stressed the need for America to act like a humble nation in foreign policy and substitute narrow national interests. But, President Bush has led the nation in a less than humble manner. Since September 11th, the Bush Administration has aggressively deployed U.S. troops around the globe or has promised military aid to dozens of countries. Bush seems to have taken a very unilateral approach to global arms-control – all in the name of a “war on terrorism “. In these few months In these few months Bush has pledged or provided military aid and training to over two dozen countries, including Colombia, India, Pakistan, and Afghanistan in which the U.S. hope to establish a national army.

Some say it is because the Democrats had eight years to deal with challenges posed by Al-Qaeda and the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and largely failed.

But, the real debate on Bush’s foreign policy is not discrediting Democrats or between divided political parties. Some argue that America is gaining overwhelming power and we strike out on our own with no allies. Unilateralism is putting the interests of the U.S. first in foreign affairs. This steps on the toes of our enemies as well as our allies. This policy produces anti-American sentiment which most recently has occurred in the Middle East.

Unilateralism and bypassing the UN are not new, however, there is a dramatically accelerated military build-up in response to September 11th, almost hidden from detection there are now U.S. armed forces all over the globe.

All these events go along well with a Pentagon document that was leaked. It plans for the world order enforced by the U.S. preventing the emergence of another rival world power. American military intervention will be seen as a constant and although the U.S. cannot become the world’s policeman it will assume selective responsibility for threats to American interests and that of its allies.

What is all this leading to? We know the Bush Administration can wage war well – what we don’t know is whether it can produce peace as well. Can Bush translate power into influence?

Israelis and Palestinians kill each other without American interference. North Korea marches on towards nuclear weapons as we argue who will negotiate with them. The conflict in Kosovo of ethnic cleansing is still not resolved. In the African country of Sudan hundreds of thousands are being murdered by their own government. Where is American intervention now? Today many countries fear American power more than anything. Our failure in international public diplomacy most likely is the cause for failure to build a UN supported coalition against Saddam Hussein. There is a rising violence in Iraq and it seems we are torn between being the sole player in establishing a democracy and letting outsider’s impact the politics of the small yet diverse country of Iraq.

The Bush Administration needs to apply the same energy and focus to peace making as it has, since September 11th, to war making. The transition may not be easy, but the greater risk our country now faces is the world population will become convinced that the U.S. is the enemy of positive progress and change. We need to show the people of our interdependent globe that America is not a risk.

We must demonstrate that we can be as unified and directed in the pursuit of peace as we have proven in war.

our leaders skipped history class: revealing the u.s. foreign policy on africa

Development

Learning from the past and taking lessons from history are what we often pride ourselves in doing. Our elementary and high school teachers would often use this phrase when referring to wars and conflicts, strategies and crises, mistakes and wrong-doings. We work so often in history courses to note that great leaders learned or did not learn from past actions. What can be said now for the our current leaders?

We are now the recipients of a bad history grade in policy on Africa. The US has a unprecendented push to re-militarize Africa. Before I continue on this point we need to look back in time. The colonial legacy began with the arrival of Portuguese soldiers on African soil. The first encounter that any Africans had with Europe was with the military. Likewise, the colonial masters first established the institutions of the military and police to be able to ‘control’ their territories. Eventually the occupied Africans were incorporated into those systems and made to conform to the militarized method of ruling a colony. Much of the conflict, war, and strife in Africa can be linked back to this colonial legacy of militarization. The colonial era of militarization moved on into World War II, further on then to the Cold War – each time Africa became more militarized with the most advanced killing equipment.

Now in the age of a supposed ‘war on terror’ the US is propogating the re-militarization on Africa. Back in January I wrote about the birth of the African Command and past US/ CIA ventures in Africa. This was a timely development as conflict grew on the African continent, the colonial military legacy expanded also in a time of great strife and forced division of Africa. Recently one of my professors gave a lecture on the current US involvement in Africa. Much of what he had to say I already knew, but an equally large amount was new information to me. He told the class that he had been invited to the Selfridge Air National Guard Base in Mihigan to talk to a unit about Africa. However, he soon learned that this was no introductory talk about Africa as everyone in the unit had traveled to the African countries where US interest is strongest. This month I wrote about the presidential candidates and their stances on African issues as well as the growing amount of military training and weapons supplied to Africa. Is all this really in the name of terrorism? Or is there a greater underlying issue? Oil? The US triangle of influence in Africa includes all of the African countries that have discovered and exported oil. Coincedence?

The new African Command is seen by some as a milestone in US foreign policy showing that the US actually does care about Africa. I would say this is a great representation of how we have seen Africa throughout our policy writing – only important when the US has a self-interest or gain to achieve. I have to agree with the growing number of people who are not pleased with AFRICOM. So far there is only a handful of African countries that agree to hosting the AFRICOM base. It seems that the only future for US foreign policy in Africa will be military based. Our ‘development’ and aid work will be conducted by the military and people will begin looking to the military for aid and assisatance. In a BBC article a Kenyan columnist sums up the fears of many, “The military now is going to be working with civil society, to promote health and education. Africa is going to look at all its development efforts through the lens of the Pentagon. That’s a truly dangerous dimension. We don’t need militarisation of Africa, we don’t need securitisation of aid and development in Africa.” For a comprehensive archive of US military involvement in Africa check out the Association for Concerned African Scholars (ACAS).

I cannot remember where I read, but in an article about the history of the US’s foreign policy an expert had said that it was, “one bad decision after another”(hopefully I can track down the quotee). From my study and knowledge of US foreign policy I can see the obvious truth of such a statement. The truth of this statement is relevant especially in regards to Africa. “One bad decision after another.” Zimbabwe is all over the news after Mugabe kicked out the white farmers and now the country’s economy is plummeting. What many people do not know is that as the Rhodesian conflicts waned and constitutions to grant freedom were written the US played a crucial role. When the new constitution was revealed with no mention of land for Northern Rhodesia’s majority population, Mugabe and Nkomo were ready to leave the talks. The British government reached out to the US President Carter to back a deal to pay white farmers for their land, which would then be redistributed.

taking another lesson from the french

Development

Our long time allies, in this day is added to the long list of former friends, the french have not surprisingly been turned away by the near idiotic foreign policies of the Bush Administration. However, yet again we stand to learn a lesson from the French. The newly elected leader of France, Nicolas Sarkozy, is setting a shining example of a how to build a foreign policy with meaning. Even as the leader of a former colonial power, he is showing the US how to have a policy in the African continent that is not all words. A policy that is not bent on capitalist gains and military conquest in the name of fighting terrorism.

All this as President Bush is attacked at the UN General Assembly for being a hypocrite of upholding human rights and promoting democracy. Bush is railed for furthering the ‘industry of death’ with his wars and ‘arms race.’ I hope that the calls of a new arms race are inflated, but world leaders make a valid point that Bush, who is supposed to represent freedom and equality for all as President of the USA, has come to represent a harbringer of death and a squanderer of basic freedom. President Mugabe of Zimbabwe, who by no means has a clean record, called out Bush saying that he had, “much to atone for and little to lecture us on.” While Mugabe is not a great leader by any stretch of the imagination, he does make a good point and thankfully was not afraid to call Bush out on his hypocrisy.

Bush’s lack of a foreign policy is challenged as France builds with positive steps. Sarkozy, elected in May, promised to “rupture” every issue. This rupture has been made very clear in ending the corrupt dealings with former African colonies. In his campaign Sarkozy called for a “healthier relationship” with Africa. When he traveled to the continent in July he called for a “partnership of equal nations.” While he goes along with the typical pitfall of referring to Africa as a monolithic mass, he has made great strides to create this health relationship and build the partnership of equals. He has not limited his Africa focus to former colonies and welcomes the interest of the US and China in Africa, saying that it was a good thing. I am not so sure how I agree with that statement, but maybe he can lend some advice.

From the BBC News article:

“This policy – derogatively called “Francafrique” and epitomised by Mr Sarkozy’s immediate predecessors Francois Mitterrand and Jacques Chirac – was in many ways an extension of colonial rule. Personal links between French and African leaders bound Paris to friendly regimes which were given protection in exchange for political allegiance, votes at the UN, and deals with French firms that were lucrative for all concerned.”

Many are not so sure that Sarkozy will act the way he speaks and a secret arms deal in Tripoli, Libya reminded many of the African policies old ways. However others take Sarkozy’s words seriously. Unlike past presidents and policies, Sarkozy has no personal connections in Africa. This had made past presidents reluctant to call out corruption or to work on an equal footing with their African counterparts. France definitely has a shift in their African policy. Over the past decade France withdrew peacekeeping troops from Africa and cut aid to failing economies. Now France is supplying over half the troops for a UN-EU peacekeeping force in the Central African Republic. France has a military base in Chad. The president of Chad, Idriss Deby, was reluctant to allow the UN force, but agreed when France became involved. Sarkozy has also taken a strong stance on the genocide in Darfur and called world leaders to step up.

Sarkozy is all about using diplomacy to get things done and it seems that this policy is working for France. He does not need to call an executive war and send in the troops when things don’t go the way he wants. Our foreign policy could take a lesson from this new french president, his diplomatic policies, and his efforts to build a better partnership with African governments and the world. France would be a great ally to have back after the Oval office is wiped clean.

what is a failed state?

Development

After reading the question of the title, the first country that comes to mind is Somalia and a slew of African countries. Somalia always seems to be at the top of the list and always seems to fit the necessary criteria of a failed state no matter what happens. On returning from Ghana I was talking with my uncle about Africa and was very surprised about his views and ideas, especially when came to the subject of conflict. He wondered whether it would have made a difference if there had been no colonizers? Wouldn’t Africans still be fighting each other regardless of the colonial ‘divide and conquer’ strategy? Could it have been worse if the colonizers never ‘intervened?’

The failed states index states:

“For the second year in a row, Sudan tops the rankings as the state most at risk of failure. The primary cause of its instability, violence in the country’s western region of Darfur, is as well known as it is tragic. At least 200,000 people—and perhaps as many as 400,000—have been killed in the past four years by janjaweed militias armed by the government, and 2 to 3 million people have fled their torched villages for squalid camps as the violence has spilled into the Central African Republic and Chad. These countries were hardly pictures of stability prior to the influx of refugees and rebels across their borders; the Central African Republic plays host to a modern-day slave trade, and rebels attacked Chad’s capital in April 2006 in a failed coup attempt. But the spillover effects from Sudan have a great deal to do with the countries’ tumble in the rankings, demonstrating that the dangers of failing states often bleed across borders. That is especially worrying for a few select regions. This year, eight of the world’s 10 most vulnerable states are in sub-Saharan Africa, up from six last year and seven in 2005.”

Why is it that African countries grace the top of the list? This brings me back to my uncles pondering and the new myth of Africa. “Would Africans still be killing one another if European powers hadn’t ‘intervened’?” This is a difficult history to predict. From what I know of societies, kingdoms, and conflict in Africa I can venture to guess that the current political and conflict-related situations would not be worse. Africa consisted of a number of kingdoms and great societies. In the top failed state of Somalia there were consecutive kingdoms, sultanates, and rulers who conducted international trade with Asia and Europe. As in any region with multiple rulers and regions there was conflict over territory and resources. This was the same in Africa. Enter colonialism. Division of the territories of great kingdoms and peoples. Conquering of lands and resources as conflicts arose to fight the influences of colonialism, battle for resources taken away by colonialism, and heightened awareness of differences between ethnic groups and traditional territory. Africans were killing one another not because that was “what they did,” but because they were exploited, cheated, and decieved. Failed States may never have taken hold on the African continent if it hadn’t been for the wonderful legacy that colonial powers created and left behind.

It is important to note that Failed states are not restricted to sub-Saharan Africa as a few of the giants: China and Russia join with a group of Middle Eastern and former Soviet-block countries. The important thing to note is that the countries listed on the ‘Failed States Index’ have not yet failed.

no more foreign aid institutions. . . it’s china

Development, Featured

Foreign aid; development assistance; foreign investment; these terms are now gaining another synonym: rogue aid. In an excerpt from the Foreign Policy Blog, rouge aiders are defined as such, “Because their goal is not to help other countries develop. Rather, they are motivated by a desire to further their own national interests, advance an ideological agenda, or sometimes line their own pockets. Rogue aid providers couldn’t care less about the long-term well-being of the population of the countries they ‘aid’.”

China is now the largest rogue aid competitor. The author of the blog entry says, “My friend was visibly shaken. He had just learned that he had lost one of his clients to Chinese competitors. ‘It’s amazing,” he told me. “The Chinese have completely priced us out of the market. We can’t compete with what they are able to offer’.” China can outbid the World Bank in aid lending power! What does this say for the future of the aid community? What does this say for the future of development? When economically powerful, wealthy, nondemocratic countries can circumvent the aid policies of the established lending institutions what can we really expect for development and aid programs? China can outbid the World Bank for a railroad project in Nigeria and sets no stipulation for combatting corruption, it can sign environmentally harmful agreements, it can provide funding without regard to the transparency of governments.

The Foreign Policy article gives three simple answers as to why China and other countries are stepping up their aid game. “[…] money, access to raw materials, and international politics.” These countries are not so concerned to create development or provide aid and help as many people as they can. There are obvious underlying motives to China’s upswing in development aid. This is not to say that China is the first to use rouge aid as a international relations tool. The United States and the Soviet Union used rogue aid to gain the allegiance of dictators. Our world is not in the position now to allow such initiatives to continue. The World Bank and other large aid agencies are monitored closely by watchdog groups, but these ‘rogue’ countries can lend and corrupt and ignore as much as they want.

The greatest threat that I see, and which I wrote about in an earlier post, is the obvious – China is set on getting all that it can from Africa. China has a great lust for Africa’s resources and their thirst is becoming unquenchable. Will Africa be drained and left with people living without basic infrastructure, left empty handed, left to die in ‘under-development.’ There is a quote from the FP article that sums up my thoughts, “Worse, they are effectively pricing responsible and well-meaning aid organizations out of the market in the very places where they are needed most. If they continue to succeed in pushing their alternative development model, they will succeed in underwriting a world that is more corrupt, chaotic, and authoritarian. That is in no one’s interests, except the rogues.”

why the US does not become involved in african conflicts

Development, Featured

The title of this entry is a question that very often crosses my mind as I continue to read the news and stay up to date on the various African conflicts across the continent. How can the country with the most power sit idly as conflicts that tear nations and governments apart worsen? How can the country with the most power get involved in its own political war games and ignore the dying?

“If I look at the mass I will never act. If I look at the one, I will.”

Mother Teresa spoke these words and they can possibly lend us an answer to why there is inaction with mass conflict. I found this quote used on the Foreign Policy news page with an article called Numbed by Numbers. The argument of the article is that “people don’t ignore mass killings because they lack compassion. Rather, it’s the horrific statistics of genocide and mass murder that may paralyze us into inaction. Those hoping that grim numbers alone will spur us to action in places like Darfur have no hope at all.” The article says that it is our own human psychology that hinders our action. We are unable to comprehend the numbers and put them into terms of massive human tragedy. The article also notes a study where aid to a young child, when accompanied by large statistics, declined sharply. We cannot comprehend mass human tragedy and apply our actions. Now there are worries that just one more major security incident could create a ‘humanitarian collapse’ in Darfur. I suggest reading the full article on Foreign Policy.

Another possibility of an answer lies in the blog of an American who has just returned from living in Uganda. The conflict, or civil war some say, that is being revealed in Northern Uganda is another conflict in the scope of mass human tragedy. Peace talks were started and stalled last month in Uganda, but are set to re-start in April. The blog entry on March 19th from ‘In an African Minute’ says, “The United States, with very little effort, could drastically increase the possibility of a permanent resolution of the conflict in northern Uganda. Why Washington hasn’t made an effort has been a matter of speculation in policy and development circles since the peace talks began in August 2006.” There is much speculation, especially since the US has been so involved in the continent with ‘anti-terrorism’ measures by giving support to key African countries. ‘Fighting terrorism’ has replaced communism as the US’s new objective in Africa. Ending divisive and destabilizing conflicts in the region is not on the top of the US agenda, if at all.

There are roughly eight conflicts in the African continent affecting nearly 16 million people. Why are these not on the US agenda? We can’t handle numbers, we are blinded by the fight against terrorism, or maybe we just don’t have the Administration with the resolve to act on others behalf when there is no obvious gain for the country or government?

why is the african dirt so red. . . blood spilled

Development


Last night I finally made it out the the theater to see the latest of Hollywood’s Africa-related movies, Blood Diamond. I have to say I was a bit skeptical with Leonardo DiCaprio in the leading role. I have been very skeptical of the recent upswing in movies covering topics and issues around the African continent. Hollywood is running out of remakes and new material for movie production, maybe now they are deciding to open the world’s eyes to the harsh realities that our governments and media didn’t care to cover before. Blood is spilled on the African continent for many reasons, but none chains the West to the blood spilled more than conflicts over greed – gold, rubber, oil, and diamonds.

I was very impressed with the way the movie was produced. Bringing maps and information to the general public about conflict diamonds in Sierra Leone. Blood Diamond did not stray from bringing the suffering and blood shed to the big screen, it did not stray from highlighting the truths of such a conflict, it did not allow us to any longer duck and hide from the brutality that we fuel through our lust for shiny stones. It covered many important issues, more than just conflict or blood diamonds; it covered poverty, refugees, small arms, child soldiers, the West’s attempts to help, UN involvement, and the corruption that lies beneath it all. Blood Diamond some might say is too violent or too full of bang-bang shoot ’em up, but I would say the movie balanced the bloodshed with the storyline of a greedy diamond runner and a Sierra Leonenian (?) man and his family caught up in the profit-driven conflict.

As the movie came to a close with a heart wrenching end that nearly brings tears to the eyes, I hoped immensly that more people would not keep their ideas of Africa as just a conflict ridden land. The credits rolled and many were in awed silence, some had tears running down their cheeks, and some left with no reaction. Behind me there was a group of teenaged girls. “It was so sad, so sad,” said one. “It was horrible, I mean it was good, but horrible. I tried to hold it together, Stacy completely lost it, but I mean whatever.” I bit my lip so hard I am sure it almost bled. ‘Whatever!’ The movie, besides showing intense, bloody conflict and tear-producing situations also showed that if you really care and want to make a difference, you can. With the story line of an American journalist seeking the truth behind the diamond conflict and who runs it all, Blood Diamond showed that with passion anything can be possible. Along with telling viewers that it is their, our, responsibility to be sure that any diamond bought is ‘conflict-free’ or ‘clean’.

Foreign Policy magazine created a nice photo-essay about diamond conflicts, those affected, and the path of a conflict diamond from mine to storefront window. Foreign Policy interviewed the director, Edward Zwick about the movie. They noted that the new movie has the diamond industry worried about sales. Why is that an issue? They just might not make as exhorbitant an amount of profit as they once did. So sorry, your third Mercedes-Benz could save lives instead and supply a village with clean water and basic healthcare.


In additon National Geographic has a great article on blood diamonds and how to not buy illicit diamonds. I would recommend reading both articles by Foreign Policy and National Geographic. Likewise check out this website run by the World Diamond Council, an online source with a wealth of information on diamonds, conflict diamonds and the Kimberley Process, where the global diamond industry adopted a zero tolerance policy on conflict diamonds with the backing of the UN and many NGOs. They created the Kimberley Process is used by 71 goverments to certify that diamonds from their respective countries are conflict-free. The site also gives examples of how diamonds are helping people in Africa through healthcare, economy, and education.

This is really a great example of an African (over there) conflict that hits home and really affects us here in the West. I encourage and recommend that you all go and see Blood Diamond, read up on the issues, and learn about the positive uses and impacts that diamonds have for the people who usually suffer the consequences of conflict.