Zambian opposition leader Fred M’membe gave his views on Kamala Harris’ visit to the country yesterday:
“A country that has overthrown so many governments in Africa, that has waged so many coups in Africa and other parts of the world, the country that has killed so many of our leaders in Africa and other parts of the world, the assassins of Patrice Lumumba, the assassins of Kwame Nkrumah, the assassins of Nasser, the assassins of Muammar Gaddafi, will teach us democracy today. A country that was built on brute force, on the enslavement of other human beings, on the humiliation of Africans, on the exploitation of Africans, will come today to teach us democracy. If there is no respect for the dignity of others, if the sovereignty of other countries is not respected, one cannot claim to be the “champion of democracy”
We are witnessing a passage, a very dangerous epochal crucial phase. Most African states are showing great dissatisfaction with the status quo which is based on the dominance of the petrodollar, which allows the United States to impose unipolarity around the world. The problem is even greater because the US no longer brings democracy to the world but carries forward the ideologies and interests born of the WEF and the WHO. Only the transition to a multipolar world will give us hope of emerging from a degenerative vortex which, like a profoundly anti-Christian ideological infection, has also penetrated European and national institutions and unfortunately also people’s minds.
The examination of the Zambian Lusaka Time publication regarding the visit of US Vice President Kamala Harris to the country is very clear. Here are some of the interesting issues the publication pointed out:
Africa’s lack of a unified strategy for dealing with the great powers
– Despite official claims to the contrary, Harris is visiting Africa to counter what the United States sees as China and Russia’s growing illiberal influences on the continent and to secure American economic interests, especially in the extractive sector. The US – like China, the EU and Russia – knows exactly what it wants from Africa. Conversely, the continent lacks a unified strategy for managing its relations with these major powers or power blocs. There are three main reasons that help explain this.
The first is the lack of a continental agency. Despite the existence of the 55-member African Union, Africa continues to struggle to reach common positions on important issues. Normally, before Harris’ arrival, the leaders of Ghana, Tanzania and Zambia would have had to gather the views of their counterparts within their respective regions or across Africa to develop a unified voice on the key issues affecting them or even the continent. (…)
– The result is a situation where major powers find it easy to pit African countries against each other, even on issues where a common position might yield better results. In other words, AU member states would rather pursue individual foreign policy goals and prioritize bilateral relations with China, Russia, the EU and the US than present a collective position against any one of these powers. Even platforms such as the US-Africa and Sino-Africa summits do not often feature continental positions. On the contrary, they primarily serve the interests of the great powersespecially when it comes to extracting resources from the continent.
– The second reason for the lack of a unified strategy is the absence of a visionary and competent pan-African leadership. This isn’t the first time rival superpowers have tried to lure African countries into their camps. Similar maneuvers were observed during the Cold War. The key difference this time is the non-existence of bodies such as the Non-Aligned Movement (…), which could help create a similar organization or come together on common issues. (…)
– The third reason is that individual African countries are heavily dependent on the US, China, the EU and even Russia in relation to external aid, trade and investment. This explains why they find it easier compete rather than unite and present a shared position on these key issuesjust in the same way that these great powers engage the continent.
– African countries do more trade with China and the EU than with each other and have shown a greater willingness to offer huge incentives to Chinese and Western investors than local firms. Furthermore, several countries, endowed with precious minerals such as platinum, gold, copper, cobalt and diamonds, fail to effectively manage their natural wealth and end up begging before the same forces. It is impossible to cultivate unity under these conditions.
Would Harris’ visit benefit Zambia and its relations with the United States?
Zambians generally expect Harris’ visit to result in increased US support for anti-corruption reform, strengthening democratic institutions and promoting accountable government.
The United States has historically supported Zambia, but many in Lusaka are hoping there will be a commitment to fund new areas of support, such as infrastructure development. If you were to ask an average Zambian what the United States has done for the country, they would struggle to point to anything. But the same person will quickly note that in recent years, China has built a world-class international convention center, a major public hospital, and a national stadium, all built at no financial cost to Zambia.(…)
– America’s attempt to win back friends on the continent could fail in the absence of tangible benefits such as financing visible projects. African countries have realized that they can no longer be wooed through mere political rhetoric or symbolism. When African leaders attended the latest US-Africa summit, US President Joe Biden announced that there was $55 billion available for immediate investment in Africa. Many now ask, “Where is the money?” If Harris comes up empty handed, Zambia may not be affected by ties to the country.
– It is also hoped that Harris will encourage President Hichilema to expedite the passage of a law on access to information. (…) Zambians hope Harris will encourage Hichilema, who seems to pay more attention to Western voices than to those who elected him (…).
– Debt remains Zambia’s main immediate challenge. It is negatively affecting Hichilema’s ability to deliver on his campaign promises. In addition to providing debt relief support through the Zambia Creditors’ Committee under the Common Debt Treatment Framework, the US can’t do more because the leverage rests largely with China, although Eurobond holders also have a huge say.
However, Harris can do something constructive by encouraging Hichilema to speak directly with the Chinese (…) instead of publicly portraying them as unreasonable with their demands. It can also commit to talking to holders of Eurobonds, which have been a major obstacle to the success of debt restructuring negotiations, though the US opportunistically portrayed China as the only drawback.
How does Zambia view its relationship with the United States, particularly in light of its historical ties with China and Russia’s growing attempts to expand its influence on the continent?
Zambia sees the US the same way it sees China and Russia, as friends. I don’t think Zambia’s relationship with one country or power bloc should be judged by the strength or weakness of its relationship with another. The country needs everyone’s support to develop: the United States, China, Russia, the United Kingdom and other countries. None of these alone can satisfy Zambia’s aspirations or needs. So when the country looks to China, Russia or the United States for support, this should not be seen as side-stepping one major power bloc and the other, but as part of a larger effort to elevate the living standards of their people.
It is important for global powers to recognize that it is both counterproductive and unsustainable to lock the country into a dependent path with a large power bloc. Zambia should never be placed in a position where abandoning, or even renouncing, ties with one country becomes a prerequisite for securing friendship with another. The United States has a role to play in Zambia, as do other countries, including China and Russia. (…)
The lurking question of LGBTQ rights
Zambia’s political opposition warned Harris not to raise the issue of sexual minority rights during her visit. This is a sensitive issue dividing opinion in Zambia, whose cause has not been helped by the condescending attitude of the West when discussing the issue with African leaders.
In recent years, Western governments have sought to change anti-LGBTQ laws in Africa, pairing aid and budget support with a country’s willingness to decriminalize those laws. In my opinion, this approach not only will not give the desired results, but it is even counterproductive. This is because it has imperial design undertones. What is needed is to encourage each country to have tough conversations about sexuality so that whatever consensus emerges from internal discussions and contradictions is seen as a product of local rather than external dynamics. After all, it’s not just Africans who are homophobic. There are many people, even in so-called advanced Western societies, who today still retain a proud bigotry and prejudice against sexual minorities.
Attitudes take time to change, but they do change. And I’m glad that, in the case of Zambia, people occasionally find time to talk about the issue of homosexuality. This conversation, despite the homophonic language in which it is often conducted, is necessary for the evolution of social attitudes. It would cause people to ask difficult questions, such as: “What harm do I, as a third party, suffer as a result of private, consensual sex or a relationship between two adults of the same sex?” Or, “How does another person’s sexual orientation negatively affect me as an individual?I believe it is only through many conversations that we can reconsider our positions, challenge our assumptions, question our beliefs, and come to appreciate our own ignorance. (…)
The paradox of all this is that the law against homosexuality in many former British colonies, which many people today justify in the name of law or religion, is partly a chronological accident. In Zambia, for example, the law criminalizing homosexuality was enacted in November 1931 as part of the general trend of the colonial state to adopt legislation from the United Kingdom. In Britain itself, homosexuality was decriminalized in 1967. Had decolonization occurred a little later, I suspect that similar laws might have been passed in the British Empire as well, and the new governments would have simply adopted them without too much consideration, as were other colonial-era laws. adopted. (…)
Source: