My Pages

Showing posts with label national interest. Show all posts
Showing posts with label national interest. Show all posts

Monday, 10 January 2011

Comments: Why China is bad for Africa

Comments and views

In response to the blog I wrote about why I think China is once again bad for Africa, I have received two lengthy comments that address matters of rate of investment and how African governance should be more protective of its interests and those of Africa in general.

I have decided those comments should not languish in the almost invisible sections of my blog and herewith publish them verbatim thanking the contributors for taking the discussion forward by making time to air their views on my blog.

The alarming rise in investment is unsettling

From JustRecently, I got this comment

Hi Akin,

I don't think that the West needs to return to Africa - it's never left. For some proportions, India's investment in Africa is about half as big as China's, and early last year, India planned to invest 1.5 trillion USD by 2019.

Then there's the African Growth and Opportunity Act, a trade program between the US and 34 sub-Saharan countries. Not to mention France and its trade and investment in north-western Africa, and beyond.

In 2008, of all Chinese foreign direct investment, 78 per cent went to other Asian countries, 10 per cent to Africa, and 7 per cent to Latin America, according to these statistics. That was quite a dramatic rise, given that the total amount of investment had more than doubled with 2007, when the share of that investment in Africa was only 6 per cent.

But I think what strikes China's competitors most is the dramatically rising trend of its investment, rather than the actual amounts.

Nevertheless, I'd certainly agree that China has a very negative influence on African governance.

That just worse in that good governance is essential to make - or rather keep - Africa attractive for investment from OECD countries.

Africans need to serve their own interests

From CodLiverOil, I got this.

Everyone is entitled to an opinion and no doubt this is yours.

But Africans have to grow up and make up their own minds.

Before the advent of China onto the continent when the West was attempting to guide/ influence how African countries should be run. The African elite were always quick to turn round and say they don't need to be patronised by the former colonialists.

China has now entered the scene, some African rulers want to use the fig-leaf of Chinese development will come to their shores provided that they remain in power until death forcibly removes them from the scene.

China is charting its own destiny; they have not aped the Western or Eastern models of governance but have formulated something of their own. So far so good, but that is something unique to China given its particular social and cultural history.

Africans have to wake up and grow up and realise they are neither the West or China or even Arabia, or anything in between. They have to formulate their own policy and chart that path to growth and stability.

The way African leadership and their associated elites are behaving it's no wonder why we are not taken seriously on the world stage in any quarter.

As for signing deals with foreign companies, it goes without saying that they should not sign deals that are detrimental to the national interest, merely because they personally benefit from it.

If we can't respect ourselves and our land, don't expect foreigners to. Do you think China will tolerate this behaviour by foreign nationals on their soil? I think not.

We should not be fooled that the West is entirely benevolent. We should remember history and act wisely. Our leaders should not be such cheap and worthless "sell outs".

Wednesday, 30 June 2010

Nigeria: Questioning the FIFA hegemony

Questioning the FIFA hegemony
One begins to wonder about the clout and the power the world’s football governing body, FIFA [1], and its dogged determination not to brook any interference of national governments in football administration.
A number of events have shown that this FIFA stance has to be at least negotiable and ideally questionable. Indeed, there are instances where football associations need to be protected from political interference and the nations sanctioned for undue process but where player safety, the national interest or honour is at stake, FIFA’s desires have to be secondary.
Safety above rules
When at the African Nations’ Cup the Togolese team was attacked [2] by insurgents in the Cabinda region of the Angola, the basic fact that lives were lost was of overwhelming concern to the Togolese government that players and the national football association were overruled with the team being withdrawn from the competition.
FIFA took a rather draconian stance of suspending Togo from all international competitions which to the fair-minded was unjust the rules notwithstanding. The Togolese government and FIFA have come to some arrangement but more interestingly were the comments Emmanual Adebayor of Togo made [3] about the Togolese Football Association that had received tickets for air travel but decided to travel by road leading to the unfortunate incident.
FIFA is no good cop
Whilst FIFA has been unforgiving of government interference there is no evidence of FIFA coming down heavily on the corruption within football associations nor does it seem they have the wherewithal to ensure that football associations do not create situations that call for immediate and drastic interference from their home governments.
With the World Cup underway, the French team displayed conduct [4] so unbecoming and shocking beyond words, nothing has been heard from FIFA as regards how the game had been brought into disrepute by these players on a global stage at their premier event.
Rather FIFA has been threatening [5] the French government about perceived interference but really where the honour of a country had been impacted by shameful representation it is only right for the representatives of the people who constitute the government to get to the bottom of why this disgraceful behaviour came about if FIFA cannot effectively manage the conduct of players.
The case for political interference is just too compelling as it brings to question how democratic football associations really are, who they are accountable to and to what extent is FIFA accountable to any higher constituted body representative of global interests.
In the national interest
Today in the news, the Nigerian President suspended the national team [6] from international competitions for two years and in the process is planning a complete overhaul of the football organisational structure in Nigeria.
Surely, every country and their elected or governing representation should have pre-eminence over how their country is represented, by whom and for what purposes. If the country decides that their sporting representatives are not of the quality that can do the nation proud, surely, it should be the prerogative of that country to choose not to be represented and present at global tournaments.
FIFA is no role model
I have not seen any sense of moral, ethical or commendable standard that allows FIFA to seek overarching protection of non-performing football associations if FIFA itself cannot impose rules of operation that compel the associations to be transparent, incorruptible, properly run and genuinely serving of the national interests they are supposed to represent.
FIFA appears to be a law unto itself, supported by patronage and tribal allegiances, sustained by global conglomerate sponsorships predicated in FIFA’s world-wide reach almost to the exclusion of local business and local partnerships in countries that host their events.
It is untenable that FIFA can by its clout not drawn from any virtuous conduct dictate carte blanche and exude such authority as to cow national political representatives when they are desirous of having better organisations and representations of football in their countries.
Now is the time to limit the remit and ambit of FIFA when the national honour and interest is demonstrably at stake, no FIFA rule or stance should have pre-eminence over that situation – ever.
Sources