“Putting Africa back at the center of our global strategy”

2023-11-20 19:00:00

While a parliamentary debate on “France’s strategy in Africa and the Sahel” is being held this Tuesday, November 21, Bruno Fuchs, MoDem deputy for Haut-Rhin, member of the Foreign Affairs Committee, presented Wednesday, November 8 with his fellow LR MP, Michèle Tabarot, an uncompromising report, the result of several months of interviews on the state of relations between France and Africa. More than a new departure in Franco-African relations, the two co-rapporteurs invite, in 175 pages, France to learn the lessons of past actions and to project itself with a new paradigm. Bruno Fuchs offers Point Africa its decryption.

Africa Point : Why does it seem urgent to you today for France to rebuild its relationship with Africa?

Bruno Fuchs: Because of a present which unfairly reflects an image of France directly and indirectly reaching its international influence.

Because of the past, we must rebuild this relationship on equal bases that respect the interests of the parties so as not to be systematically assimilated to our colonial past, thus ignoring all the developments that have followed one another, and to honor our cultural ties. , historical and human with Africans who have been woven together for so many generations.

Because of the future, because it is simply a matter of our shared interests. Indeed, the African continent, through its demographic, biodiversity, mining and energy, and therefore economic, potential, represents a challenge for the future of humanity. And in this matter, France’s approach is more universalist than that of most other actors.

This November 21, a debate opens in Parliament on France’s strategy in Africa. How do you judge the relevance of this momentum and the themes in question?

We must look forward to this parliamentary debate. It will enrich our mutual reflection and bring legitimacy to the directions of the executive’s strategic offer.

It comes at a time when all awareness can be made and, in my opinion, where nothing is lost.

In our report, as part of our proposals, we also made the recommendation for such a debate, with the aim of involving citizens more in the debate on Africa, of involving Parliament more closely.

But the main question remains knowing how to define and clearly express the role that France wants to play in Africa to become coherent and legible again and to be able to open a new virtuous and fruitful partnership cycle.

What is new in your report when much has already been said and written on the subject, notably by Achille Mbembe?

The Mbembe report on the House of African Worlds focuses mainly on cultural aspects, on the useful mobilization of diasporas and on the levers of democratic spring. Our report shares many of the findings already expressed although it is not limited to them.

But to succeed in reversing the course of things, I, for my part, wanted to propose a global action plan which integrates all the dimensions of the relationship and which, if we want to succeed, must be taken as a whole : we will first have to propose a new strategic offer, then remove a certain number of irritants or red rags, as Achille Mbembe says, and finally redeploy all our public policies towards Africa.

Is France capable of not intervening in the internal affairs of African countries? How to maintain a “fair democratic and political distance”, as Achille Mbembe suggests?

The policy of double standards has, in fact, generated a lack of readability, aggravated by the absence of explanation as to the contradictions of the French positions adopted, to gradually become the only markers of the relationship of our country with the majority of States of the African continent. The coherence and sincerity of France’s actions and statements have therefore been called into question.

I therefore share Achille Mbembe’s analysis when he pleads for France to keep a “fair distance”.

This would consist of France not intervening in the internal affairs of the countries of the African continent while proposing a certain number of common challenges to be resolved, projects to be carried out together (institutions, biodiversity, education, resilience to climate change) bilaterally or even on a continental scale.

At the same time, France should ensure that it clearly communicates its objectives, values ​​and interests that it intends to defend in Africa.

The “fair distance” is compatible with the fact that France can, at the request of Africans, protect and participate in security on regional scales.

France, within the framework of this new doctrine, must commit to delivering results in an operational vision of partnerships.

Finally, note that, from my point of view, the complete resolution of this question of double standards in its entirety will also require coming out of it in France itself. Indeed, French people from diasporas must be able to find, in France, the same chances of success as the rest of the population.

What is your assessment of anti-French sentiment in Africa? And how do you explain that France did not anticipate it, particularly in French-speaking African countries?

Is this really an anti-French feeling? At the risk of surprising I don’t think so, Africans rather like France, our nationals, even in Mali, Burkina or more recently in Niger have not been put in danger. There is a rejection yes but not structural, Africans want a “different France”! This is what emerged from our hearings.

We must not dramatize and generalize what, more than an anti-French feeling, is indeed a rejection of France, but we must not, conversely, underestimate this rejection, because a phenomenon of viralization exists, it smolders. , and it is opportunely fueled by some of our competitors. We must therefore find a remedy to avoid a continentalization of the phenomenon, a contagion to the entire continent.

If France gives the feeling of not having taken the right measure of the changes that have taken place in Africa, of not having consequently renewed its relationship with Africans, can we say that we have not seen this disaffection rise?

The state of relations between France and Africa follows thirty years of uncontrolled policy having gradually led us to a role suffered and not chosen.

We have been trying to change software for twenty years without success.

Paradoxically in appearance, or, on the contrary, quite rightly in depth, it is indeed with French-speaking Africa, the Africa of our proximities, of our affinities, of our tumultuous and distant passions that this gap is most acute. clearly hollowed out. In Mali, the military presence and the mission of Operation Barkhane were not explained and therefore not well understood; its withdrawal came too late and it was ultimately perceived as an occupying force that had lost its legitimacy.

But there are deeper reasons which relate to the persistence of a certain number of irritants which it is time to expunge from our relationship with Africa: humiliating policy of issuing visas, CFA franc, paternalistic or arrogant. Finally, it is our colonial past that we must know how to resolve.

That being said, nothing is written, there is no inevitable fate, the future of a renovated, purified relationship is possible, it is up to us to create it.

You warn of a loss of “knowledge”, what is this due to?

This phenomenon of loss of knowledge is a long process which coincided with the cooperation reform at the end of the 1990s. At the time, there was a full-fledged Ministry of Cooperation with specialized senior civil servants. Already at the time, to get out of Françafrique, he was attached to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs.

What followed was a loss of expertise and presence on the ground. Thirty years ago there were 10,000 civilian volunteers. Today, there are fewer than 900, including 600 in Africa.

At the same time, budget cuts have directly affected our diplomatic capabilities. It is only since 2018, under the leadership of the President of the Republic and Jean-Yves Le Drian, that we have reversed the trend by gradually rearming our diplomacy.

We can add the blatant decline in our cognitive and research effort.

Paradoxically, African history does not appear in our teaching programs.

I remember an interview with King Hassan II in 1989 during which he had his definitive words: “we know you better than you know us. It’s up to you to turn things around and take the first step.” Not only did we not listen to him but we followed the opposite path.

As for the means of rectifying the situation, we propose a certain number of avenues in our report promoting well-identified areas: such as establishing an “Africa” ​​sector at the Quai d’Orsay and better preparing our diplomats for their missions by including a better understanding of intercultural issues, organize a seminar with ambassadors in Africa to nourish the Africa strategy and share their experiences or even appoint diplomats of Afro-descendants, or even learn about today’s Africa at school etc. READ ALSO Cheikh Guèye: “France is criticized for not wanting to change times”

Your report emphasizes narrative. Why has this become an essential element in this relationship? And what tools can help as the information war rages?

To regain control, we need a clear strategy and put resources into our comparative advantages, and there are many of them.

Today we are at best in reaction. But we also sometimes fail to communicate or defend ourselves. For example, in ten years, Barkhane has not produced a single report for local media to explain our action. Likewise, we reacted very late to the Russian phenomenon of disinformation which is causing us a lot of harm.

Regarding our narrative, France should, first of all, recognize that it has interests in Africa, as our competitors do without false modesty. It is necessary to no longer seek to minimize them but to take responsibility for them, in order to defuse, in advance, the conspiracy theories which fuel the fantasy of hidden agendas.

Finally, I fully support France’s strategic and ethical choice which consists of not appropriating the disinformation tools of certain competing countries such as Russia.

What approaches do you recommend in the face of France’s economic competitors in Africa?

We talked about the lack of knowledge and interest. For French entrepreneurs, Africa is still that of the 1980s. It is therefore risky. We must put Africa back at the center of our global strategy for tomorrow.

We need more incentive public policies, particularly towards SMEs. We need an investment policy that gives priority to processing industries. We should encourage the creation of mixed capital companies. Our country has real competitive advantages in this area and will thus be able to stand out positively from its Chinese, Russian and even American competitors.

But for now, French groups and companies, mainly those listed on the stock exchange, are suffering the full brunt of unfair competition linked to ethical and governance rules. They are subject to Law No. 2016-1691 of December 9, 2016 relating to transparency, the fight against corruption and the modernization of economic life.

To our credit, this law, known as Sapin 2, plays a major role in the fight against corruption and in guaranteeing minimum ethical rules, but we pay a very high price for this moral requirement.