This video is a full length, unedited interview conducted as part of an upcoming episode of World View on the militarization of space.
Author
Kosi Ogbuli
The world continues to change in ways that make turning inwards and shutting the door virtually impossible, as is often said, we are more connected than ever. After World War Two, a consensus was formed that a convergence on liberal democracy would lead to a stable international political order. As the Soviet Union withered and the Cold War ended, U.S. President George H. W. Bush called for a “new world order,” a “Pax Universalis” founded on liberal values, democratic governance, and free markets. Pax Universalis or more accurately, Pax Americana brought staggering development, wealth and prosperity…relatively. In a panel titled Governing Globalisation, the economist Dambisa Moyo, otherwise a well-known supporter of free trade, forthrightly asked the audience to accept that “there have been significant losses” from globalisation. The integration of several billion workers into the global economy has pushed down labor’s share of income and pushed up the share flowing to company profits. The latter has provided an important prop to global equity markets, but the former has sparked the emergence of far-right political movements. Brexit, and the emerging Trumpism reiteration of isolationist policies are rallying the resurgence of economic nationalism. Now we stand at a crossroads, shaped by a tug of war between economic fundamentals and policy threats, with individual livelihoods and growing inequity the continuous fallout. Globalization, which champions open markets and democratic governance has instead suppressed the global south and replaced democratic governance with corporatism. Corporatism in turn has normalized the outsourcing of jobs from countries such as the United States, destabilizing those entering and fighting to maintain a modest way of life.
How did globalization come to this?
It all begins with the concept of economic nationalism. Economic nationalism should be understood as a set of practices to create, bolster and protect national economies in the context of world markets. The rise and institutionalisation (globalization) of economic nationalism in the 20th century was a product of economic crisis, nationalist movements and enlarged states. Globalization in essence was to ensure that the integration, complexity and extent of the world’s economy meant that a reversal of global trade policies would entail an economic Armageddon. Globalization sought to rid the global socio-economic model of protectionism by introducing open market flow, foreign investment, and integrated development policies through organizations and multilateral agreements. The United States, the global hegemon at the helm, espoused the idea that all countries should unequivocally move towards democracy as it would be the only way to benefit from this “new world order” of globalization. Nations of the “developed world”, irrespective of their governance ideology all took part in this system. As China, the EU, Russia and other regional powers integrated these policies, embolden corporations outsourced their producing capacity to “lesser developed” parts of the world. This hybrid of corporatism and capitalism was packaged in a politique commonly referred to as neo-liberalism. Globalization, relatively, increased trade and the standard of living, and resulted in national capital markets becoming increasingly integrated. The establishment of factories, plants, and offices by corporations in emerging countries brought significant numbers of people out of poverty.In large part globalization during Pax Americana, seemed to be unblemished and positioned to define socio-economics for years to come, until 2008.
The global financial crisis was a turning point, as it struck at Pax-Americana’s twin foundations of liberal democracy and free-market capitalism. The 2008 global financial crisis exposed the danger of financialization or the creation of massive fictitious financial wealth, and of the hegemony of neoliberalism, based on self-regulated and efficient markets. Slow economic recovery, failing states, wealth inequality and rising unemployment provided a perfect platform for political leaders to appeal for nationalism as the solution to political and economic ills. With the onset of Covid-19, the fragility and flaws of global supply chains further placed focus upon the extractive trade policies of developed markets, leaving emerging markets in perpetual servitude. Frankly, globalization has made the rich richer while making the poor poorer. As of 2019, OXFAM reported that the world’s 2,153 billionaires have more wealth than the 4.6 billion people who make up 60 percent of the world’s population. The multinational corporations borne from globalization have a growing list of offenses from social injustice, unfair working conditions (including slave labour wages, living and working conditions). Yet globalization posits that we should lay our trust in corporatism as the solution to emerging global issues. Ironically, the current administration is amongst the main proponents of economic nationalism to salvage the crumbling globalist institutions it helped build.
So, what’s next?
Given its enormous potential for economic gains, it would be a waste to categorically repudiate the phenomena of globalization. However, it must be acknowledged that globalization under Pax Americana has been a projection of the corporatism that has perpetuated the socio-economic inequities present in the West. We are already too connected with the rest of the world to just shutter our doors. Looking back at how we got here can provide us lessons to globalize in a way where the world benefits, not just a handful of big companies.
Jakarta is an illuminative case for understanding urban resilience towards the tide of globalization. The Kampungs (urban villages) are slums within the megacity with disproportionate rates of poverty and hardships in comparison to the rest of the capital. The Indonesian capital began to undergo reconfiguration for the socio-ecological project of ‘urban resilience’ to flooding through large urban infrastructures, land reclamation projects, and notably, forcible eviction of kampungs. Thus, kampung residents endured associated transformations such as eviction, land reclamation, and uneven access to basic and flood mitigation infrastructure. With development being a central tenet of globalization, a program established by the Jakarta governor, Anes Baswedan married urban development with effective community investment. The Community Action Plan (CAP) was a program of the governor to organize the Kampungs in Jakarta and ensure community involvement in the development of these areas as part of the greater cosmopolitan development efforts. As Jarkata endeavors to develop its cosmopolitan center as it becomes greater integrated in regional and global trade, the dynamics of the slum transition correlated with the uncontrolled growth of urbanization. However, Through the program, the principles of accessibility, freedom, and participation are prioritized in managing the villages while empowering the community to stay in proximity to the benefits of urban development and the influx of global connectedness.The veil of globalization has been lifted and we have seen its ugly truth, but at least we are connected enough now to build a better world. The CAP program in Jakarta offers optimism as how to flip the paradigm that defines the flow of capital from the bottom to the top. Globalization has opened up our world in ways that ensure we can all benefit and thrive. Community based development of infrastructure and economic activity will provide millions of people with the capital to benefit in global markets. Governance that invests in people more important than investment in corporations will enjoy dividends sparsely enjoyed by a great majority of the world. We should see globalization as the exposure to a world of opportunity, not for the few already successful but for the many that have the means to push globalization to its full potential.
Globalization: its discontents and untapped potential was last modified: February 21st, 2024 by Kosi Ogbuli
The era of what we referred to as ‘Françafrique’ is coming to an end. There is France and there is Africa. There is the partnership between France and Africa, with relationships grounded in respect, clarity and solidarity – Current French President François Hollande
With the official announcement of the replacement of the CFA franc by a new currency called “the eco” Saturday, December 21 2019 in Abidjan, French neo-colonialism of west Africa has run its course. France’s relations with Africa have been profoundly transformed in recent decades. Today they show little resemblance to the admittedly unhealthy relationship of the post-colonial years. The first Ivorian President Félix Houphouët-Boigny introduced the expression ‘La Francafrique‘ in 1955 to define the wish of some members of the African elite to maintain special relations with France after their independence. Since then, this term has been used several times in a pejorative meaning to describe French neo-colonial dominance in Africa. Today, the meaning of Françafrique is largely used to refer to France’s ‘sphere of influence’ in Sub-Saharan Africa hallmarked by its economic partnerships and military operations reminiscent of its colonial control of the 19th and 20th centuries. The nations within this sphere of influence have begun to separate themselves from the vestiges of French colonial control, but how France has maintained La Francafrique provides a rude awakening to the practice of neo-colonialism in modern times.
According to Franc Diplomatie, over a third of French exporters export to Africa.This skewed trading relationship is a legacy of French colonial rule and the special relationship it maintains with many of its former colonies. The CFA Franc is a modern symbol of this reality at play. The CFA Franc (African Financial Community or Cooperation Franc), created in December 1945 under the government of De Gaulle, is the last colonial currency still in circulation today. It is the common currency of 14 African States in Central and Western Africa (+ The Comoros) bounded by a policy of monetary cooperation incentivizing countries using the CFA Franc to give unrivaled market share to French imports. It is the French Treasury that guarantees the unlimited convertibility of the CFA Franc to the euro. In return, countries in the CFA Franc zone are required to deposit 50% of their foreign exchange surpluses into a French operations account. However, due to the fixed parity, countries that use the CFA Franc suffer from the highly valued euro and have difficulties exorting their goods. Consequently, La Francafrique nations have been economically bound to France until the announcement of “the eco” in late 2019.
However, while its economic influence wanes, France remains a major military force in sub-Saharan Africa. Today, France has a military presence in francophone areas of eastern, central, and western Africa, with a commitment of 8,700 troops, half of which are permanently stationed. France maintains four permanent bases in Africa: Djibouti, Senegal, Gabon and the Ivory Coast, all being former colonies. Those forces have a strategic role, which is to protect France and its economic interests as well as intervene quickly when necessary. Emmanuel Macron, president of France, inherited two external operations in Africa and on several occasions has expressed the ambition, like Hollande, to continue them. The first, Mission Corymbe, was originally aimed at preserving French oil exploitation and other economic interests in the Gulf of Guinea, but nowadays is intended to reduce maritime insecurity and contribute to capacity-building in fighting piracy and illicit trafficking, for example by hosting naval exercises for navies in the region. The second is Operation Barkhane, a counter- terrorist operation in the Sahel region. It was launched by Hollande in 2014, with a contingent of 4,000 French troops positioned in cooperation with the five countries concerned, all former French colonies: Burkina Faso, Mali, Mauretania, Niger, and Chad, a partnership known as the Joint Force of the Group of Five for the Sahel (G5S). Exactly how France’s military presence and engagements may evolve is not dependent on its will alone. With their operations, France has married its national interests with the stability of La Francafrique, justifying a military presence that would be observed as foreign occupation in any other context. With the emergence of a new generation of leaders in many African countries, it remains to be seen how political support for French involvement might evolve over time.
The nature of ‘La Françafrique’ has changed with the shifting economic and geopolitical realities over time.Even if relations between France and Africa are weaker today than they were in the colonial times, ‘La Françafrique’ is not completely over as François Hollande affirmed. Indeed, insofar as the CFA Franc exists and there remains excessive French military presence in the region, France has the means to interfere in African affairs. We cannot speak of an eventual end of ‘La Françafrique’. Africa and its resources are still a topical issue in French politics but more worrisome is the model Francafrique gives for other nations to create monopolistic control within the continent. Today France is facing growing competition from emerging powers, such as China, which has become the largest trading partner of the continent in recent years.In fact, Chinese firms are challenging French firms in development contracts, investment, and trade agreements. The announcement of “the echo” has caused the last dominoes of colonialism to start falling. For African countries, both within Francafrique, and the continent at large, France’s ability to control the affairs and destiny of a multitude of countries must be warning enough as the world looks to Africa again for their “national interests”.
La Francafrique: Africa’s Last Colonies was last modified: February 21st, 2024 by Kosi Ogbuli