African international relations

(1) In brief in brief how has african international relations been effect since precolonialism untill today postcolonialism From the dawn of the independence in Africa more than forty years ago, relationships between African countries have been very important. Although, as you know, there is great diversity in Africa, the many societies and peoples of Africa have shared experiences that brought a sense of unity and solidarity among African nation-states. The most relevant of these shared experiences was colonialism. Colonial oppression and exploitation within colonies helped unite different ethnic and religious groups in a struggle against colonialism. Not surprisingly, the feeling of solidarity carried across the boundaries established by colonialism. Leaders and citizens of countries that gained their independence early showed great support for the nationalist struggle in countries not yet independent. Many Africans agreed with a statement that was very popular in the 1960s and 1970s-No African is Free until all Africans are Free! Official government support for those struggling for freedom, particularly in the southern African settler colonies of Angola, Mozambique, Rhodesia, and South Africa, was a central foreign policy focus of most African countries until these countries gained their independence. Support for freedom and independence for all African countries was not the only uniting theme in post-independence inter-African policy. Most of the nationalist leaders who helped lead their countries to independence were influenced by the ideas associated with Pan Africanism. Pan Africanism, like most ideas, has different versions. But at the heart of Pan Africanism is the idea that all Africans have shared experiences that help unite them. These shared experiences are connected to the exploitation of Africa and Africans in the modern era, beginning with the slave trade and culminating in colonialism. Pan Africanists (promoters of Pan Africanism), argue that these factors unite not just the people living on the continent of Africa, but Africans in the Diaspora-most of whom had been forced out of Africa by the slave trades. The Pan-African movement, which began in the early twentieth century with a series of Pan African Congresses in Europe, from its very beginnings, asserted that Africa and its grand diversity of peoples and societies could only prosper economically and become free and

powerfully politically if Africa was politically united in a Pan-African country-a United States of Africa. Pan Africanists were well aware of the fact that colonialism worked in Africa in part because European powers were able to separate societies and peoples through a policy of divide and rule. Pan Africanists argued that Africa could only be strong and take its place among the world's economic and political powers, if it were united. An Africa divided into more than 50 countries, some which were smaller than a mid-size American state, was destined to be political an economically weak. Early in the post-colonial era, the ideal of Pan Africanism came into direct conflict with the imperative of national sovereignty. Even among African presidents like Kwame Nkrumah, who were strong advocates of African unity, there was a realization that unity would take a long time to achieve. In the mean time, African governments had to institute policies that would defend their countries' sovereignty. Not surprisingly, policies and practices that are aimed at protecting national sovereignty have the effect of making unity between nations more difficult! African International Relations with the Rest of the World Once they had won their political independence, African countries were internationally recognized as sovereign countries. In addition to developing relationships with neighboring countries in Africa, the newly independent nations developed relations with other non-African nations. The new post-colonial governments had to develop foreign policies that would guide their relationships with other nation-states. One of the first foreign policy initiatives taken by each African government upon achieving independence was to apply for membership in the United Nations Organization. In the UN, each nation state, no matter how small in land area, or the size of its population, or insignificant its political power and influence was treated as sovereign state with an equal chance to express its voice in this most important international body. In developing its foreign policy, the new post-colonial African states were influenced by domestic factors and by the realities of the larger global context. Domestic Factors

Domestically, foreign policy was influenced by factors such as economic trade and political ideology.

An African country whose economy is dependent on the export of cocoa, for example, will develop foreign relations in a manner that promotes greater access to global markets. Not surprisingly, cocoa producing countries will focus their attention on countries that import cocoa.

As will be detailed below, at independence, some African governments had a philosophical or ideological orientation towards either socialism or capitalism. African governments that favored developing a capitalist orientation tended to develop closer relationships with the United States, Japan, and countries in Western Europe. However, African governments with a more socialist orientation tended to develop closer relationships with the Soviet Union, China and other socialist countries.

While these domestic factors did influence the development of foreign policy by the new African governments, of greater importance were factors in the international arena, factors that were often outside the control of the new African governments.

International Influence There are a number of global factors that influenced Africa's relationships with other countries in the post-colonial era.

Relationship with former colonial power. Which foreign countries do you think newly independent countries of Africa had the closest relationship with in the years immediately after independence? In almost every case, the answer is their former European colonial power. So for example, after Senegal became independent in 1960, the government developed a close relationship with France. In the case of Nigeria, initially its closest international relationship was with Britain. Does this surprise you? After all, many African countries had to struggle against the European colonial powers to achieve political independence. However, there were many economic, social, and political connections between newly independent countries and their former rulers. These connections influenced the foreign policies and relations of the newly independent countries.

In the post-colonial era, most of the former colonial countries tried to foster close relationships with their former colonies. This is particularly true in the case of Britain and France, the two largest colonial powers. Britain went as far as to form what is called the Commonwealth of Nations. All former British colonies in Africa, Asia, and the Americas are eligible for membership. The primary goal of the Commonwealth is to promote closer ties between these nations. Currently, the Commonwealth of Nations has a membership of 54 sovereign nations and 26 dependencies, making it one of the largest trans-continental organizations of states, smaller than only the United Nations and the Non-Aligned Movement. France has been even more closely engaged with most of its formal colonies in Africa. The French government fosters the idea of a basic cultural unity between regions of the world influenced by French rule, language, and culture. La Francophonie is the term that French give to this concept of solidarity of French speaking people in Europe, Africa and Asia. Unlike, Britain and other former colonial powers, France has stationed troops in several African countries for the entire post-colonial period. These troops have on occasion been used to support a government against attempted coups. To further solidify relationships between France and its former colonies every year since 1973, the French government has sponsored a Franco-African Summit. These summit meetings are always attended by the presidents of France and all of its former colonies in Africa.

Geo-Political Global Politics. The end of World War II in 1945 led to very important changes in world history and in the structure of relationships between nation-states. The post-World War II era world witnessed the division of the world into two sets of geo-political groups of nation states.

1. East-West Division. Two countries emerged at the end of the war as new global superpowers-the United States (USA) and the Soviet Union (USSR). In such a situation, it is natural that competition developed between the two new global powers. However, the tension that developed between these two super-powers was accentuated by great differences in ideology. The US championed democratic capitalism. The USSR championed democratic socialism.

Since the United States is located in the western hemisphere and most of its allies were in Western Europe, this geo-political alliance became identified as the West or Western Bloc of Nations. Similarly, since the USSR and most of its allies were located in Eastern Europe, this alliance was identified as the East or Eastern Bloc of Nations. The strong tension between the US and the USSR is widely referred to as the Cold War-since the tensions never developed into a actual warfare between the West and East. However, even if the USA and USSR never went to war, competition between the two blocs resulted in a series of wars in Asia and Africa. 2. North-South Division: World War II pitted the Allied forces against the evils of Nazism and Fascism. During World War II, the allied powers asserted that they were fighting for liberty and freedom for all people. Indeed, in 1941 just after the US joined the War, President Roosevelt and Prime Minister Churchill of Britain signed the Atlantic Charter, a document that outlined the principles for which the allies were fighting. What do the second and third article assert?

(2) Who are the actors in african international relations (internal and external who have engaged in african politics

The most important development in Africas international relations since the end of the Cold War is the rise of China. This has the potential to tear down pre-existing concepts and longheld friendships. As Africans seek more voice at a global stage, struggle to develop mechanisms and build capacity to more effectively respond to their multidimensional development and security challenges; there is a growing awareness of the additional complexity introduced by new geopolitical issues. First is the rise of China and its growing involvement in Africa. The most important development in Africas international relations since the end of the Cold War is the rise of China. This has the potential to tear down pre-existing regional initiatives and longheld friendships. It is almost impossible to think about Africa and its future role in addressing its own development and security challenges without also thinking about China. Second is the increasing military engagement of the US and the potential impact of the war on terror exemplified by the establishment of a new unified command for Africa, known as AFRICOM. The growing involvement of China in Africa feeds into the new military profile of the US. The increasing interest in the continents energy resources, manifested for example in the growing importance of the Gulf of Guinea further threatens to compound an already fragmented diplomatic terrain. Third is the recent encroachment of NATO into the margins of Africas security terrain. A new and underreported phenomenon. Fourth and largely unchartered territory is the continued infiltrations by private security actors into the African security terrain. Fifth is the increasing role of some Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) countries in conflicts in the continent, particularly the Horn of African region which has its own unique features. Not totally unrelated to the above is the increasing primacy of security threats (both in deeds and discourse) that matter less to Africa, in the West which relegate the real African security imperatives into a side show. Evidently, the emergence of new powers threatens to alter the very ideas on which Africas security and development strategies are based. The rise of China is both an opportunity and a challenge. In terms of values, principles and norms the continent may face a risky relationship with China. Until Africa is united and gets its house in order relations with new powers will remain fundamentally insecure. Meanwhile, old powers are reorienting and retooling themselves in order to respond to the new complexity in Africas international relations.

One major focus of the currentanalyst.com is the role of external actors in Africa. The goal is to cultivate curiosity, encourage debate, canvass and recast contemporary voices so as to help identify strategies to ensure that Africa is able to clearly define its interests towards emerging powers in a way it is beneficial to the continent. Leading African experts are invited to share their views aimed at stimulating discussion and extracting policy recommendations.

(3) What is the involvement of U.S.A and chana

It is clear that Africa is an emerging strategic partner of China and Beijing is investing heavily in both commercial and political terms in the continent. This has some important implications for the United States, which has long seen a number of countries in Africa as important to its broader foreign policy, has extensive trade links with the continent and is increasingly viewing Africas minerals of strategic interest. As a result, some over-excited analysts talk of a major competition between China and the United States in Africa even the potential for future conflict between the two over (or in) the continent. However, when examining Sino-African ties in the context of the United States, that hyperbole about Chinas role needs to be tamed. This article seeks to analyse the contemporary nature of Sino-African relations and how the dynamics of Sino-American rivalryor at least competitionplays out within a framework of relations and networks. In doing so, it contextualises the issues facing both Beijing and Washington, particularly in West Africa and also analyses some of the problems Chinese actors have experienced in Africa. As will be shown, Washington DC does not seem overly concerned by Chinas rise in the continent; the United States economic and political ties with Africa are robust and not threatened by Chinese interests. The West African Context In todays globalized world economy, oil provides the foundation for commerce and industry, the means for transportation, and provides the ability to wage war. It is, the prize to capture. In this context, in recent times, there has been growing international interest in West Africa. So much so, that there is now talk of a scramble for Africas oil, redolent of the nineteenth centurys Scramble for Africa. West Africa has now emerged as a hugely important source of oil in the global economy and this is necessarily impacting upon the regions relations with both China and the United States. This situation is largely due to new discoveries in the continent and specifically in the Gulf of Guineain the years between 2005 and 2010, 20% of the worlds new production capacity is expected to come from Africa and the instability of oil markets in the Middle East, which compels the search for alternative supply locations. Whilst analyses indicate that the entire African continent holds only about ten percent of the worlds total oil reserves, by 2015 the United States is predicted to source twenty-five percent of its oil imports from Africa. In fact, according to the US Department of Energy, the combined oil output by all African producers is projected to rise by 91 per cent between 2002

and 2025 (from 8.6 to 16.4 million barrels per day). Thus within oil circles, there is growing excitement about the alluring global source of energy in Africa. Indeed, as the only region in which oil production is actually rising, Africa has been identified as the final frontier in the quest for global oil supplies. The burgeoning oil fields in sub-Saharan Africa, particularly in the Gulf of Guinea, have become of major geo-strategic importance to the oil-dependent industrialised economies. In fact, it might now be stated that the United States does not just buy oil from Africa, in many ways it is dependent on African oil (emphasis added). As Walter Kansteiner, the Assistant Secretary of State for Africa noted, African oil is critical to us, and it will increase and become more important as we go forward. Thus today, African oil has become a matter of US national strategic interest, granting the Gulf of Guinea major strategic relevance in global energy politics. To the American Ambassador to Chads surprise, for the first time, the two conceptsAfrica and US national securityhave been used in the same sentences in Pentagon documents. Concomitantly, Africa has now emerged as a major site for competition between various oil corporations from diverse nations. Within the next few years, perhaps the largest investment in the continents history will be seen as billions of dollars are poured into exploration and oil production in Africa. For instance, three of the worlds largest oil corporations (Shell, Total and Chevron) are targeting 15%, 30% and 35% respectively of their global exploration and production budgets on Africa. Meanwhile, it is estimated that Sub-Saharan economies will gather over $200 billion in oil revenue receipts over the next decade. Whilst it is not solely a race between Chinese and American corporations, the current dynamics in West Africa are heavily influenced by the roles and activities of actors from these two states. Policymakers in both nations have identified African oil as vital to their respective nations national interest, albeit for different motives. It is apparent that policy analysts in Beijing see the broader global political milieu as being intrinsically linked to Chinese energy security and feel that in the current environment China is vulnerable until and unless it can diversify its oil sourcing and secure greater access to the worlds oil supplies. Between 2002 and 2025 it is estimated that Chinese energy consumption will rise by 153 % and China is now the second largest consumer of oil globally, after the US, using 7 million barrels of oil a day, expected to rise to 9 million by 2011. In order to fuel such a growing demand, Chinese oil corporations have entered into the competition for African oil.

From the American perspective, the war on terrorism and preparations for war against Iraqenormously increased the strategic value of West African oil reserves. The high level of interest from such major importers has certainly raised the level of competition over Africas oil. Whilst corporations headquartered in other statesBritain, Brazil, France, India and Malaysia, for exampleare playing important roles in the ongoing Scramble and equally striving to build up their oil portfolios in Africa, it is the ostensible Sino-American competition for oil on the continent that has grabbed the most headlines: There is also little doubt that the interest in Africasoil and gas resources has spurned a rivalry between internationalactors in Africa, notably the American and Chinese governments. However, unlike the colonial scramble for Africa, African agency is far more present in the contemporary rush for oil and this has important implications for the nature of the relationships unfolding. Many African governments are quite proactive in their roles within todays context. Whilst the nineteenth century scramble was driven and dictated by European colonial interests, currently, African leaders act in the role of decision-makers. Whilst it is true that many African states are rich in oil, but lack sufficient capital to exploit these resources and thus create formative conditions whereby African elites might be seen as dependent upon external actors to facilitate exploitation, the ability of the government to negotiate favourable contracts should not be discounted. In fact, many oil-rich African governments are quite skilful in playing the oil gamealbeit for the benefit of the incumbent elites, rather than the broad masses. Sino-American Competition? It would be tempting to cast Chinese entry into Africa as stimulating a major competition with established Western powers in the continent. However, that does not seem to be the case although many African actors would probably like this to exist. Certainly, some African officials believe that competition between China and the United States would have positive consequences for them. For instance, in a meeting with American officials in Beijing, the Kenyan Ambassador to China asserted that he was worried that Africa would lose the benefit of having some leverage to negotiate with their donors if their development partners joined forces. In fact, Chinese actors have often succeeded because Western companies either have not been interested in bidding for a particular project, or have not played ball with African government

demands, whilst the Chinese have been prepared to do so. For example, in discussions with the American embassy in Abuja, Nigeria National Petroleum Company (NNPC) officials discussed Chinese oil companies attempts to obtain deep water oil mining leases and opined that Shell Nigeria had opened the door for the Chinese by resisting [Abujas] efforts to pass the proposed Petroleum Industry Bill (PIB) and telling the National Assembly that the Nigerian oil industry would be dead if the PIB passed. So they brought in the Chinese. The Chinese oil companies were not the favoured partnersfar from it. In fact, the Nigerian official stated that We know what had happened in the Sudan and Chad and we know enough about them to know where we want them and where we dont. Yet the Chinese were brought in nonetheless. The American Assistant Secretary for African Affairs, Johnnie Carson, appeared relaxed about Chinas entry into Nigeria specifically when briefing American diplomats in Lagos. According to Carson, The United States does not consider China a military, security or intelligence threat, although China is a very aggressive and pernicious economic competitor with no morals. In fact, Carson asserted that Washington would only start worrying if Beijing crosses some trip wires, listed as China developing a blue water navy, signing military base agreements, training armies, or developing intelligence operations. Carsons tone indicated that the administration did not believe Beijing had done any of theseor sufficiently proficient enough to cause concern. Rather than being panicked by Chinas rise, Carson in fact asserted that The influence of the United States has increased in AfricaThe United States reputation is stable and its popularity is the highest in Africa compared to anywhere else in the world. Obama has helped to increase that influence. Having said that, domestic American politics has meant that the Obama Administration has engaged in a certain pushback vis--vis Beijing, primarily as a means to satisfy his Democrat supporters, who are suspicious of Chinas impact on American jobs, and to assuage Congress. Whilst it is certainly true that a proportion of the Republicancontrolled House of Representatives Congress are broadly pro-trade with China, many are suspicious of the China threat and see the rise of China as a globally aggressive expansion by a rival power. Pushing back against China, particularly on the issues that excite many Republicans, such as the military balance, is one way Obama can demonstrate his credentials. An example of this was the January 2011 visit by Defense Secretary Robert Gates, who publicly spoke against the Chinese military budget.

In fact, Chinese economic and political influence in Africa has been overstated by many. Regarding Nigeria, for example, Chinas ties with Abuja early on in the 2000s generated a great deal of excitement within Nigeria, encouraged by Beijings willingness to work closely with the Obasanjo regime. This situation has now changed. In fact, trade figures show China to be a relatively small player in Nigerias economy and is certainly not displacing either the United States or Abujas traditional trading partners:

(4) How can aim be imroved

The main challenge for both China and the United States is negotiating and confronting the reality of Africas political economy. This is something that no amount of high-sounding rhetoric from Beijing about fraternal ties and mutual benefits can hide or escape. Politics in many African countries has long been an open scramble for power in which elites compete for control of the state in order to capture the mega benefits associated with the countrys enormous oil revenues. This is the environment in which new actors like China must navigate their relations, but as other actors have found, this environment is inherently unstable and dangerous, where long-term guarantees mean little. Massive profits may be accrued quickly, but violence and perpetual crisis within many of Africas polities mean that the engagements China is pursuing in Africa will always be vulnerable. As a result, China may re-evaluate and reformulate its involvement. A more hands-on approach where both Chinese corporations and the state engage with domestic African situations is perhaps likely. Any benefits Africa might generate from Chinese investment in the country depends on what Africans do for themselves far more than what Beijing might do for Africa. Acceptable governance is a precondition for the sorts of investment that are essential for Africa to move beyond being enclave oil-based economies or exporters of primary commodities. Interestingly, it is usually accepted that a chief guarantee that an investment will advance the host countrys interests is the length of the engagement and the type of the investment. Enterprises that have fixed assets such as factories, mines, or other infrastructures associated with them, such as backward and forward linkages, have a much greater stake in stability and responsible government than do short-term opportunists or offshore investors. Chinas heavy involvement in fixed infrastructure assets and investments mean that Chinese companies cannot stand aloof from the very real problems that characterise much of Africa. Ultimately,

rather than competing with the West, China must converge with American policy aims in Africa, even if this is so far unacknowledged by Beijing. As Peter Lewis notes: economic revitalization depends less upon specific policy remedies or a fortuitous external windfall than on a new political approach capable of shifting the central institutions and social coalitions toward good governance and economic growth. Unless Beijing engages positively with Africas polities, confrontation with the dynamics of African politics might lead Chinese investors to retreat to the primary commodity sectors. China would then become just another actor in Africas enclave economies and non-industrialised sectorsa possibility, but wholly against Beijings rhetoric on mutual benefits and win-win situations. It is wildly unrealistic to pin Africas hopes on Beijing. But Chinese engagement with Africa often differs from Americas, because its interests are moving beyond offshore oilfields and primary commodities into the domestic economies, where Chinese actors are laying down permanent assets. I am not being overly optimistic in asserting that China can be a potential agent of change in Africa to be utilized in tandem with governance reform efforts. While Washington generally promotes governance rather than infrastructure enhancement and while governance, peace and security are crucial to Africa, reducing poverty and building infrastructure are critical to Africas development, which is where China may play its role. In such circumstances, the United States must engage Beijing in identified areas where mutual interests converge

References: Adesola, F. (2004). International Relations: An Introductory Text, Ibadan: College Press and Publishers Ltd., Pp. 12-25.

Stern, G. (1995). The Structure of International Society: An Introduction to the Study of International Relations, London and New York, Printer Publisher, pp. 10-40.

Course work Public adminstration and managment (1) Discuss the role and function undertaken by the state /goverment in fulfilling public interest under public adminstration and managment (2) Discuss tha challenges experience by the state / goverment in performing it,is role and function under PAM ? 10+REFRENCE