Jesuit Centre for Theological Reflection

Presentation at Conference on

“LAND AND GLOBALISATION IN AFRICA:
CHALLENGES FOR THE CONTINENT”

Arrupe College
Harare, Zimbabwe
31 March 2001

AFRICA IN THE AGE OF GLOBALISATION:
WHAT IS OUR FUTURE?

Peter J. Henriot

Let me begin my presentation with a very provocative quote from an Ugandan political economist:

Anybody with any degree of intellectual integrity would see that globalisation of Africa --- or the integration of Africa into the global economy from the days of slavery to the contemporary period of capital-led integration – has on balance of costs and benefits been a disaster for Africa, both in human terms and in terms of the damage to Afirca’s natural environment. There is scarcely anybody in Africa who would talk of the last 300 years, including the last 40 years since the first African country gained independence, in language flattering either to colonialism or to governments that have taken over power since political independence. World Bank and IMF officials who see wrong only in the policies of African governments choose to forget that their own fingers have written the various documents on which these policies – from important substitution to now export orientation – were based. It is also a measure of their intellectual dishonesty, or ideological brainwashing, that they cannot see the connection between globalisation and Africa’s poverty.

You will agree with me that this judgement is indeed harsh. But is it true? Yes, I believe it is, and I will attempt in my paper to demonstrate both the validity of the judgement and the urgency of the call to respond effectively with keen analysis, strong ethical evaluation and viable alternatives.

First let me say that I appreciate the invitation to be part of this important conference on “Land and Globalisation in Africa: Challenges for the Continent.” I highly commend the convenors here at Arrupe College. I expect to learn from your own observations about globalisation. And I also look forward especially to the discussion about land issues. Land is indeed an important topic also for Zambia, where I have lived for the past twelve years. And I must say in passing, that, coming from Zambia, I’m very happy to have the opportunity to engage in substantive conversation about some other topic than “third termism”!

In addressing the topic of “Africa in the Age of Globalisation: What Is Our Future?”, I want to look at four points:

1. What are the “signs of the times” of globalisation in Africa today (and my entry point will obviously be the southern part of Africa that you and I are more familiar with)?
2. What do we mean by globalisation and what are the historical roots and structural elements of this phenomenon as it affects Africa?
3. What is the impact of globalisation on Africa, in economic, political, cultural and environmental terms?
4. What are the alternatives to globalisation, the possible futures, especially according to the values of the church’s social teaching?

1. SIGNS OF THE TIMES

Cell phones, airport disinfectant, USA soap operas and anti-AIDS drugs. These are four signs of the times of globalisation that I observed when I spent several days in Harare last week.

First, I was almost run over by a driver talking on her cell phone who was ignoring my effort to cross the street. Now her cell phone may have been linking her to points between Mount Pleasant and Avondale, or between Harare and Bulyawo, or between Zimbabwe and Zambia. But it also might be linking her with personal or business connections in London, Moscow, New York, Tokyo or Delhi. For at least some Zimbabweans, the cell phone has indeed globalised their families, their businesses, their lives.

Second, departing from the Zambia Air flight from Lusaka, I was amused to note the dismay and distaste of passengers departing from the British Airways flight from London who were obliged to walk over a strong-smelling disinfectant mat. Then I read in the Herald that “globalisation could mean that hoof and mouth disease from England will arrive soon in Zimbabwe!” And you thought you had agricultural problems only because of land issues!

Third, I noticed that Zimbabwe has the same new set of television programmes that Zambia has just recently acquired, offered by something called the “African Broadcasting Network.” But I noticed, as I’m sure you have noticed, that there is nothing “African” in these offerings – only USA soap operas like “Passions”, USA sit-coms (situation comedies) like Cosby, and even USA advertising. Globalisation seems even to have meant a new definition for “African,” at least for the African Broadcasting Network! (A Zambian friend of mine told me he felt insulted by ABN and he wondered if he was alone in such a reaction?)

And fourth, much of the discussion about the scourge of HIV/AIDS here in Zimbabwe (as well as in Zambia, South Africa and many other places on the continent) has recently centred on the availability of the newly developed “triple therapy” drugs. These drugs are prohibitively expensive for most Africans if purchased from the major Northern pharmaceutical companies, but might be cheaper if imported from India or Brazil. But whether expensive or cheap – that is, whether life or death determinative for Africans -- depends in our globalised world of today on the policies and decisions of the Word Trade Organisation and its most powerful member states, which, of course, are the headquarters of the major pharmaceutical industries.

Business connections, agricultural issues, entertainment possibilities, and life-and-death medical choices – in an age of globalisation, what is the future for Africa?

2. GLOBALISATION: DEFINITION, HISTORY AND STRUCTURES

“Globalisation” is one of the most widely used and least clearly defined of the terms in political and economic discourse today. In hopes of at least narrowing our discussion today to manageable limits, let me suggest some words that describe various dimensions of the linking of nations and people in our globe:

· independent: a country stands alone, without need of others
· dependent: a country is subservient to another or others, in basic ways
· interdependent: countries are connected in various ways so that their existence is closely related
· integrated: countries are joined in such basics that they function almost as one

Another set of descriptions could be:

· National: one state by itself
· International: several states relating to each other
· Multinational: one entity located in various states, but principally in one
· Transnational: one entity without any localised national identification
· Global: many entities integrated into one emerging reality

I want to use the term “globalisation” to refer to the phenomenon of increasing integration of nation states through economic exchanges, political configurations, technological advances and cultural influences.

· Economic exchanges include cross-border trade in goods and services, capital flows and financial investments. Today almost two trillion US dollars moves around the world every day, seeking not the best production but the best return on speculation. Of the one hundred largest economic entities in the world, fifty of them are nation states and fifty are transnational corporations.

· Political configurations are the new or renewed structures of the United Nations, the World Bank, the International monetary Fund, the World Trade Organisation, the blocs of the European Community, the North American Free Trade Area, etc. These are not democratically elected governments but have considerably more power than any such governments. For example, the expanded “trade related” mandate of the WTO now touches areas like intellectual property, employment policies, environmental regulations, etc.

· Technological advances include the rapidly growing utilisation of electronic communications (e-mail and internet) and the increasing ease of transportation. We live in an information age, we live in a “borderless age,” we live in a very fast age.

· Cultural influences are obvious in the “westernisation” of so much of popular culture in music, clothes, life styles, etc. Today the single largest export industry for the United States is not aircrafts, automobiles, computers, but entertainment – Hollywood films and television programmes.

These are the integrating factors of globalisation today.

But before looking at how Africa is experiencing globalisation today, it is very important to note that this is but the fourth stage of outside penetration of the continent by forces that have had negative social consequences on African people’s integral development.

· The first stage was slavery, when the continent’s most precious resources, African woman and men, were stolen away by global traders for the benefit of Arab, European and American countries.

· The second stage was colonialism, when British, French, Belgium, Italian, German and Portuguese interests dictated the way that map boundaries were drawn, transportation and communications lines were established, agricultural and mineral resources were exploited, religious and cultural patterns were introduced, and political alliances were arranged.

· The third stage was neo-colonialism, the form taken by political pressures and economic forces that set trade patterns, investment policies, debt arrangements, technological introductions, political alliances, etc.

· The fourth stage is now globalisation as we know it today and about which we ask in this conference: what does it mean for the future of Africa.

The structures that are the foundations of globalisation as we experience it today, and that guide its future development, are important to identify. Some are obvious from what I already have spoken of briefly in outlining the elements of the definition. Here let me speak of only a few of the more important structures and then in the next section of my paper let me identify their impact on Africa.

The first structure is ideological. Globalisation as currently experienced is, in its major direction, an incarnation of neo-liberalism. In its extreme, this ideology is a kind of “economic fundamentalism” that puts an absolute value on the operation of the market and subordinates people’s lives, the function of society, the policies of government and the role of the state to this unrestricted free market. Neo-liberal policies support economic growth as an end in itself and use macro-economic indicators as the primary measurements of a healthy society. It assumes almost a religious character, as greed becomes a virtue, competition a commandment, and profit a sign of salvation. Dissenters are dismissed as non-believers at best, and heretics at worst. Problems with the operation of this ideology -- even such massive problems as the collapses experienced a few years ago in Asian economies -- are seen not as “mortal sins” but as mere “falls from grace” that deserve more penitential practice of the exercises that are demanded by the ideology.

The second structure is capital flow. Even before trade in basic goods and services, by far the largest component of globalisation is the movement of money across borders. This is disconnected capital, institutionally managed money, that moves with the speed of a mouse click on a computer, putting money into a situation for quick return, pulling it out equally speedily for a safe return. The severe problems experienced by the “Asian Tigers” were largely due to the rapid and uncontrolled movement of capital.

The third structure is trade, usually under the guidance of the creed of “free trade.” Because of the technological advances in communications and transportation, goods produced in one country move rapidly into other countries, frequently disrupting traditional productive patterns in the second country. One can think simply of the decline in the automobile industry in the United States because of competition from Japan. Trade relationships may be “free” but whether or not they are “fair” depends on factors of power, size, experience, skills, etc. And in our world of today, these factors are very a-symmetrical in distribution and utilisation.

The fourth structure is cultural. We all have heard of, indeed, experienced, “cultural imperialism,” the imposition of values and style of life by dominant forces. One commentator has referred to the contemporary process of globalisation as the birth of the “McWorld” – a cultural integration of fast music (MTV), fast computers (MacIntosh) and fast food (McDonald’s). Cultural imperialism is not a new phenomenon, but it assumes alarming proportions when driven by the new technologies and profit propensities of the dynamics of globalisation. A Jesuit economist friend of mine, Xabier Gorostiaga, working in Nicaragua, refers to the “predominance of geoculture over the geopolitical and the geoeconomic.” Traditional cultural values such as family, community, respect for life, hospitality, etc., come into strong confrontation and do losing battle with the values communicated through Western music, movies, videos, cable and satellite television, advertisements, and the idolised figures of entertainment and sports.

The fifth structure is political. It may surprise some of you that I mention this last, since I am by training a political scientist. But this is deliberate, in order to emphasise the point that the ideological structure, the economic structures of capital flow and trade, and the cultural structure, are today more influential than the political structure. With the end of the Cold War, there has been a significant change in the geo-political structures shaped by the East-West conflict. A bi-polar world has given way to a design for a “New World Order” (proposed ten years ago following the Gulf War). But the political dimensions of this new order are themselves subject to the economic influences of available markets, accessible resources, and technological arrangements. The point made several years ago by Pope John XXXIII, that development of global economic relationships has outstripped the development of political governance structures to pomote the global common good, is more than ever true today.

3. IMPACT OF GLOBALISATION ON AFRICA

So what does all this mean for Africa? To return to the title of this presentation, “What is our future in this age of globalisation?” Is the extremely harsh judgment of Yash Tandon that I cited in opening my paper accurate, that there really is a very close connection between globalisation and poverty in Africa?

Let me begin by acknowledging that there are “many Africas.” To speak only of sub-Saharan Africa, what might happen with the African “super powers” like Nigeria and South Africa may in some ways be significantly different than what would happen in Zambia or Zimbabwe, Tanzania or Gabon. So let me be careful with generalisations – qualifying them as trends that know exceptions but nevertheless portray general directions. And I do believe that these general directions, if left unaltered, are not at all favourable to the seven hundred million people of sub-Saharan Africa.

I want to speak of only three of what I judge to be the most important consequences: enlarging gap between rich and poor, increasing marginalisation, and growing environmental threat.

The first thing to note is the enlarging gap between the rich countries of the north and the poor countries of the south, with particular focus on Africa. Economic prosperity brought about through industrialisation, technological innovations, trade and investment, etc., has not in fact been widely experienced in Africa. Let me offer a few empirical observations to demonstrate that fact.

Of the 64 countries ranked as “low income” by the World Bank 2000 report, 38 are in Africa. This ranking is on the basis of strict economic calculations of GNP per capita. Of the 35 countries ranked “low human development” by the UNDP 2000 report, 27 are in Africa. This ranking takes account of social calculations such as life expectancy and literacy, revealing the human side of development.

That this situation of the gap has indeed worsened in the age of globalisation is shown in the fact that the average annual rate of growth in GNP per capita between 1990 and 1998 has in the 43 sub-Saharan African states grown

· by more than 4% in only one country,
· from 3-4% in 3 countries,
· from 0-3% in 20 countries, and
· less than 0% in 19 countries.

You may be familiar with the expression, the “champagne glass economy,” a picture of the globe emerging from the recent UNDP Human Development Reports that document that the richest 20% of the world’s population receives 86% of global income, while the poorest 20% receives just 1%. This is a picture of the globe in which the huge majority occupies only the narrowest stem of the glass while the tiny rich majority enjoys the broad bowel of affluence. In this champagne glass, we all know where the majority of Africans fit!

You probably have heard these figures before, but let us hear them once again:

· the assets of the 3 richest people are more than the combined GNP of all the least developed countries;
· the assets of the 200 richest people are more than the combined income of 41% of the world’s people;
· a yearly contribution of 1% of the wealth of the 200 richest people could provide universal access to primary education for all.

Is globalisation good for Africa’s future? Not, I would argue, in its present form that has been exaggerating the gap between Africa and the so-called developed world.

Second, the current structuring of globalisation creates an increasing marginalisation of Africa in the very process of Integrating it into the global economy. For there is a stark disparity between rich and poor in the global opportunities offered in trade, investment and technologies. The figures I cite here are for the world at large, but remember that when the “poorest” are spoken of, the majority of poor countries are in Africa.

· Trade: the shares of the world export markets of goods and services go 82% to the richest 20% of the people living in the highest income countries, the bottom 20% just 1%
· Investments: the shares in foreign direct investment go 68% to the richest 20%, just 1% to the poorest 20%
· Technology: taking shares of internet users as one example, 93.3% go to the richest 20%, 0.2% to the poorest.

Speaking of internet, to purchase a computer in Zambia could take up to four years of the complete salary of a school teacher, but less than a month’s salary of a US school teacher.

This marginalisation has increased dramatically in recent years, and shows no signs of decreasing. As the UNDP 1999 Report commented:

Some have predicted convergence. Yet the past decade [the decade of the most intense globalisation!] has shown increasing concentration of income, resources and wealth among people, corporations and countries…. All these trends are not the inevitable consequences of global economic integration – but they have run ahead of global governance to share the benefits.

A third observation deals with the growing environmental threat to Africa that comes from a particularly disturbing aspect of globalisation, the phenomenon of global warming. As you know this phenomenon is caused mostly by carbon dioxide emissions from automobiles, power plants and industries that are, of course, most heavily concentrated in the so-called developed countries. I just recently read a report circulated last month by the United Nations Environmental Programme, based in Nairobi. It spoke in frightening terms of the impacts on Africa of global warming, with rising levels of disease, famine and poverty. For instance:

heavy, monsoon-like, rains and higher temperatures will favour the breeding of disease-carrying mosquitoes, allowing them to thrive at higher altitudes. Higher temperatures, heavier rainfall and changes in climate variability would encourage insect carriers of some infectious diseases to multiply and move further afield The report cites how malaria cases in the highland area of Rwanda have increased by 337 per cent in recent years with 80 per cent of the climb linked with changes in temperature and rainfall which improved breeding conditions for malaria-carrying mosquitoes. A similar link has been reported in Zimbabwe…. Cholera, which is transmitted by water or food, could aggravate health problems in many parts of the world including Africa. The scientists say that during the 1997-1998 El-Nino excessive flooding caused cholera epidemics in Djibouti, Somalia, Kenya, Tanzania and Mozambique. [And, I might add, Zambia!]
There is evidence that El Nino, a vast natural climatic phenomenon that can bring intense floods and droughts in many parts of the globe, is becoming more frequent as a result of global warming.
The report goes on with more disturbing data and analysis, but we here in southern Africa know well the story of struggling with alternating droughts and floods. You might tell me that these are effects should be blamed on nature and not on humans. But we have to remember that the global warming is indeed linked to a globalisation of economic forces that develop without ecological concern and of political forces that support these forces. We have had clear proof of that in the past few days with USA President George Bush’s blunt rejection of the Kyoto agreements to limit harmful emissions.

There are other dimensions of the impact of globalisation on Africa that I could mention here, such as the arms trade (called by the African Synod “obscene”), sex trade, drug trade, the suffocating burden of external debt that is only partially lifted through flawed programmes like the Heavily Indebted Poor Countries initiative (HIPC), the dangerous dimensions of the WTO’s patenting of “intellectual property,” the continued imposition of harsh adjustment programmes that do not promote long-term human development. (You know that the Structural Adjustment Programme in Zambia is called SAP – “starve African people,” or “stop all production,” or, in ciNyanja, “satana ali pano” – the devil is in our midst!).

But I limit my remarks to the impacts that can be described as the enlarging gap between rich and poor, the increasing marginalisation through structures of trade, investment and technology, and the growing environmental threat. I admit that I have painted a rather grim picture of these impacts, and someone might say to me: “But surely there are positive aspects of globalisation.” I suppose there are – but please invite someone else to present that side of the picture! Perhaps someone during our discussions here today will provide another side to the story. I’m sorry, but for me I see too many of the negative sides in my life as a pastor in a poor parish outstation and in my studies at the JCTR to offer what might appear to be a more “balanced” picture.

4. ALTERNATIVES TO GLOBALISATION FROM THE PERSPECTIVE OF THE CHURCH’S SOCIAL TEACHING

While I may be negative in my analysis of the impact of globalisation on Africa, on the people of Africa, I can be positive in my offering of alternatives to the orientation, organisation, operation and outcome of globalisation. That is because I – both as a political analyst and as a policy activist – am heavily influenced by the church’s social teaching. And I’m not shy when it comes to speaking about that teaching!

I believe that the church’s social teaching – found in scripture, in the writings of theologians both ancient and contemporary, in the statements of popes, councils, synods, regional and national pastoral letters, and in the lives of good people everywhere – offer a vision and suggest structures that can create alternatives to what we are experiencing today.

Let me say a word about alternatives. To Margaret Thatcher is attributed the “TINA” phrase: “There are no alternatives!” (She was speaking about free market approaches.) But I – and millions, probably billions – prefer the “TAMA” phrase: “There are many alternatives!” For are we to accept the fact that globalisation is “inevitable”? To answer that it is necessary to make an important distinction between:

· Objective forces driving globalisation, such as the facts of technological production and electronic communications, that, left to themselves, would concentrate in the hands of the already powerful any benefits of globalisation.

· Subjective choices shaping globalisation, such as the policies that contribute to its direction, for example, regulation, taxes, governance structures of accountability and participation, etc., that can be changed to spread the benefits of globalisation.

To influence the subjective choices, I believe it is necessary to follow a three-fold path (suggested in another context by a specialist in the church’s social teaching in the States, J. Bryan Hehir) that includes:

· Working with globalisation
· Working against globalisation
· Working towards globalisation

Working with globalisation means utilising the objective forces that can indeed benefit humanity. For example, in my social justice work in Zambia, I personally benefit from the internet, though I am aware that I am part of a very small and very privileged minority in Africa, indeed, in Zambia. And I hope I use it for the benefit of others.

Working against globalisation is to do the critical analysis necessary to expose its counter-development consequences and to struggle to confront the actors – personal, political and corporate – who promote those consequences. Much publicity has been given in recent months to the demonstrations occurring in Seattle, Washington DC, Prague, Davos and elsewhere by the forces of “anti-globalisation.” I know many of those involved in such demonstrations and the most important part, the strongest part, of their confrontation has not been sporadic violence but consistent analysis.

Working towards globalisation is to offer the alternatives, the strategies and tactics, that will shape our future, not only here in Africa but around the world.

For me, the church’s social teaching offers the vision and suggests the structures that can assist in all three endeavours. Let me offer a framework of three varieties of globalisation that embody both vision and structures that have meaning for us here in Africa today.

Globalisation of solidarity: This is a counter-emphasis, indeed a counter-cultural emphasis, to the structures that drive globalisation today. This emphasis is summed up by John Paul II in his World Day of Peace Message in 1998, when he called for “a globalisation in solidarity, a globalisation without marginalisation.” Solidarity can also be expressed in the beautiful African proverb, “I am because we are; we are because I am.” My personal existence, identity and worth is only within community; and the order, function and beauty of community is only possible with my personal contribution.

Solidarity means, especially in the writings of John Paul II, awareness and caring, actions and programmes. It is a contemporary expression for commitment to the common good. It is a response to the recognition that true development is not only of the whole person but also of the whole person within the whole community. This is a vision that contains the social values grounded on the fundamental dignity of the human person.

This solidarity of globalisation would mean a globalisation with:

· Ethics – less violation of human rights, not more
· Equity – less disparity within and between nations, not more
· Inclusion – less marginalisation, not more
· Human security – less instability of societies and less vulnerability of people, not more
· Sustainability – less environmental destruction, not more
· Development – less poverty and deprivation, not more

Where is this very eloquent list of values found in the body of the church’s social teaching? In many places to be sure, but this precise list is found on the second page of the UNDP Human Development Report 1999. And that it something that excites me! A secular institution like the UNDP is quite at home in speaking the value language we ordinarily associate with the church’s social teaching. Surely we should be equally at home! For that is something essential to promoting alternatives: to have an alternative vision and to unabashedly push it.

Globalisation of concern: this is simply the value that emphasises the priority of people over profit, labour over capital and cooperation over competition. It is an expression of a central emphasis in contemporary church’s social teaching, the preferential option for the poor. A Jesuit moral ethicist who has lectured here at Arrupe College, David Hollenbach, has argued that global public goods such as environmental sustainability, protection from global transmission of infectious diseases and promotion of peace and stability both nationally and internationally are goods that cannot be expected to be produced in free market exchanges. According to Hollenbach, these goods

are also both global and public in the sense that any particular nation can enjoy them only when other nations also enjoy them in some directly proportional way. An individual shares in a global public good precisely because that nation is part of the global whole in which that good is present.

Recognition of this strengthens our critique of the free market ideology, since free markets do not produce global goods. As one ethicist commented, “The free market is potentially a useful servant, although it is certainly a bad master.” (J. Philip Wogaman)

This means that the globalisation of concern is a prerequisite for the well-being of all. In our globalising Africa, it is indeed a prerequisite for survival.

Globalisation from below: This happy turn of phrase focuses our attention on the fact that integral human development, sustainable human development, depends more on harmonious human relationships at the local level that on the organisation and operation of unaccountable national or international political structures or an unfettered free market. A fundamental fault with globalisation, especially as experienced in Africa, is that it is not rooted in community but structured from above according to abstract economic laws. To counter this situation in a creative fashion calls for implementation of what the church’s social teaching calls subsidiarity. This is the building at local levels with people’s participation of the structures necessary for development.

One such structure obviously is a strong national government. The church’s social teaching certainly does not support neo-liberalism’s call for the retreat of the state from its duties to promote the common good. It is true that nations with strong political structures, rooted in real democracy, are more likely to defend themselves against the pressures and crises of globalisation than weak and inefficient states or even strong states that lack public support. I believe that this truth has lessons for both Zambia and Zimbabwe today!

Moreover, much—but admittedly, not all – of the recent world-wide explosion in the so-called civil society, activities by non-governmental organisation (NGOs), is one expression of this effort to build globalisation from below. The women’s movement, human rights advocacy, environmental concerns – all have strong international networks of local groups. Two recent campaigns have special relevance to Africa as examples of globalisation from below: the campaign against land mines and the Jubilee 2000 debt cancellation campaign. The fact that both these extremely complex and difficult issues have been moved to the forefront of global concern is a tribute to widespread efforts at the local level.

5. CONCLUSION: THE FUTURE FOR AFRICA OF GLOBALISATION

The problem with globalisation is that it simply too global, too big a topic! I still have at least ten or twenty more pages of analysis to offer you this morning. But I’ll save that for another time….

In dealing with globalisation in Africa, I have tried in my presentation to outline some of the signs of the times, to sketch a few points about the definition, history and structures of globalisation, to analyse what it is meaning for Africa today, and to suggest some alternatives to pursue in both our analysis and our actions, based on perspectives from the church’s social teaching.

I want to end with an eloquent statement from Mahatma Gandhi, expressed earlier in the last century. He said:

I do not want my house to be walled in on all sides and my windows to be stuffed. I want the cultures of all the lands to be blown about my house as freely as possible. But I refuse to be blown off my feet by any.

Personally, I have lived in Africa for only twelve years and for almost all of that time in only one country, Zambia. But I have a sense deep down that Africa, that you Africans, will also refuse to be blown off your feet by the winds of globalisation. And so I say to you: let your house be open, be hospitable. But let is be your house, your future. That is my hope and my prayer, and that is your task and your challenge!

Thank you!

Peter J. Henriot

JESUIT CENTRE FOR THEOLOGICAL REFLECTION
P.O. Box 37774, 10101 Lusaka, Zambia
Tel: 260-1-290410 fax: 260-1-290759
e-mail: [email][email protected] web: