National Intelligence Council - Mapping Sub-Saharan Africa’s Future (A Vital Document for National Digest)

National Intelligence Council - 

Mapping Sub-Saharan Africa’s Future 

(A Vital Document for National Digest)

The State of the nation is become so alarming and the tension on the Land keeps growing with so much fear of a dis-united Nation in a united Nigeria. 

As a concerned elite whose single and prioritized objective for the research, analysis and posting of events that concerns the unity and sovereignty of the 435 ethnic

National Intelligence Council

Mapping Sub-Saharan Africa’s Future

Conference Summary

The National Intelligence Council recently convened a group of top US experts on Sub- Saharan Africa to discuss likely trends in the region over the next 15 years.  The group discussed several major issues or drivers that will affect Africa, including globalization and its impact on political development and economic growth, patterns of conflict, terrorism, democratization, AIDS, evolving foreign influences, and religion.

Perhaps the most important message delivered by the conferees was that even in this age of globalization, local factors will determine Africa’s fate.  Geography, decisions by governments past and present, the presence of trained professionals, the strength of civil society groups promoting democracy, and the capabilities of the local police and security forces all have the potential decisively to affect the performance of individual African countries in the next 15 years.

Conference participants agreed that most of Africa will become increasingly marginalized as many states struggle to overcome sub-par economic performance, weak state structures, and poor governance.  Globalization will accelerate increasing differentiation among and within African countries. Reform efforts will continue to be complicated by structural obstacles, “neighborhood effects,” such as the cross-border spillover of conflict, and African skepticism about globalization and a fate increasingly tied to international markets.

•    South Africa, Africa’s oil producing states, and a handful of other African countries committed to governance reforms have the best chance of attracting international investment needed to compete and survive.

•    Other African countries—including some failed states—plagued by poor leadership, divisive ethnic politics, decayed government institutions, geographic constraints, and a brain drain may be unable to engage the international economy sufficiently to reverse their downward trajectory.

Participants saw the level of violence in Africa as unlikely to change appreciably in the next 15 years.  Most conflicts will be internal.  Many African security forces will undergo further atrophy due to low economic growth, shrinking foreign military aid, and the impact of AIDS.

(Continued on next page)

This paper summarizes a one-day conference of US experts on Africa convened in January 2005and sponsored by the National Intelligence Council to discuss likely trends in Sub-Saharan Africa over the next 15 years. It was prepared under the auspices of the National Intelligence Officer for Africa.

CR 2005-02

March 2005

Discussion paper -- does not represent the views of the US Government

Discussion paper -- does not represent the views of the US Government

Among the other key conference conclusions:

Africa is unlikely to become a major supplier of international terrorists due to the profound differences between Islam practiced in Africa and in the Middle East.  Foreign terrorists, however, may seek sanctuary in Africa or attempt to hide weapons and assets there. The overwhelming majority of terrorist activity in Africa will involve or be caused by indigenous groups waging war against local governments and populations.

•    The group believed that the most important terrorist-related trend in Africa affecting the United States is the further development of pockets of radical Islam that actively provide support and sanctuary to international terrorists.

Most African countries will continue to proclaim a public adherence to democracy and no other form of government will significantly challenge the nominal allegiance to regular elections; however, commitment to democracy in Africa will remain a “mile wide and inch thick.”   Even so, relatively few of the old-style authoritarian states will not hold elections at all.

•    Those countries that are consolidating democracy will make significant gains: multiparty elections will become institutionalized and the operations of their parliaments, courts, and other institutions will improve. By 2020, for this set of African countries, any turnback from democracy will be almost inconceivable.

Regarding AIDS, even with relatively optimistic assumptions about a vaccine and the roll-out of anti- retrovirals (ARVs), it is clear that there will be very large increases in the number of people who will die in the next ten years given weak medical care distribution systems.  At the same time, the

experts judged that it is not clear if AIDS can be directly tied to state collapse in the way that was feared and anticipated a few years ago.

Some traditional foreign powers, including France and the United Kingdom, probably will continue to disengage gradually from Africa while newer actors, especially China, are likely to play larger roles.  China already has a significant impact on Africa—raising some commodity prices—as Beijing searches for secure sources of raw materials.  Tensions may be exacerbated, however, by cheap Chinese goods flooding African markets, with a consequent effect on weak domestic manufacturing bases, and by the presence of larger numbers of Chinese workers in Africa. Over the next 15 years, there is probably a greater possibility of India developing a distinct foreign policy with political interests toward Africa.

Included among the possible “upside surprises”the group identified were: the potential for improvements in hydrocarbon management; scientific advances in agriculture such as those that helped Asia in the 1960s and 70s; technological developments that fight AIDS, malaria, and other infectious diseases and push upward the political and economic trajectory of some countries; development of regional and internal peacekeeping doctrine and capabilities to allow for more timely interventions and more decisive resolutions to conflicts; and positive developments in the debt management that boosts private and public investment levels.

Downside scenarios included: Nigeria as a failed state, dragging down a large part of the West

African region; some type of ecological downturn; and conflict over water.

2

Discussion paper -- does not represent the views of the US Government

Discussion

This paper summarizes a one-day conference of US experts on Africa convened in January 2005 and sponsored by the National Intelligence Council to discuss likely trends in Sub-Saharan Africa over the next 15 years.  Participants were asked to consider the recently-released National Intelligence Council report Mapping the Global Future, although the conference was

not designed to be a point-by-point response to the NIC project which projects global trends and possible scenarios out to 2020.  As with the 2020 study, our focus was not to describe every trend that will affect Africa but to highlight those issues that will drive important developments and

that therefore must be considered by policymakers.

Marginalization, Differentiation

Over the next 15 years, Sub-Saharan Africa will become less important to the international economy.  The high growth rate projected for the global economy in the NIC 2020 study will not be matched by African countries, which will fall far below the rates projected for the fast- growing East Asian nations.  Hydrocarbon exports will certainly boom but they are limited and distinctly focused within enclave economies in a few states.  Indeed there is evidence to suggest that hydrocarbons have retarded African development, promoting patronage and misrule by African leaders rather than national development.  Africa’s overall marginality affects individual country performance because “neighborhood effects” matter.  Investment is flooding into Vietnam today—not only because of Hanoi’s economic policies but because investors are bullish about Asia in general.  More generally, the type of problems that African leaders will confront— marginal economic performance, weak state structures, poor governance—will be increasingly different from the issues that even other developing world leaders will confront.

Increasing Differentiation

In the context of increasing overall marginality, the most profoundtrendin Africa will be the increasing differentiation among African countries across any measurable line of performance. For instance, a few African countries (such as Botswana andMauritius) have already achieved high growth while a number of other countries (Nigeria) are in significant ways poorer than they were at independence.  Some countries have established relatively well-functioning democracies (such as Ghana, Benin, South Africa), while increasedlawlessness andanarchy can be foundin large parts of West andCentral Africa.  Finally, a few states have consolidateda sense of national identity while others have been fractured by civil war.  Of course, a large number of states remain in the middle of each indicator with performances that tend to be ambiguous.

Generally, in Africa, “all badthings go together,” as those countries that have sufferedinstability also have seen their growth rates plummet andtheir populations subject to horrific abuses.  The ties that bind all the good things together are less clear:  Ghana has been both a good economic performer and has developed a laudable democratic system; Uganda has been an above-average economic performer but has retained an authoritarian political system; while South Africa solved one of the most divisive domestic conflicts of the twentieth century and developedan extraordinarily liberal political system, but has yet to see economic growth above the continental mean.

Globalization will in all likelihoodaccelerate the differentiation among African countries.  Those countries doing well will be able to access an international economy that is extremely buoyant and will be readily accepting of their goods.  Technology flows from the international economy

to those well-performing African countries with relatively high governance standards will allow some countries to leapfrog over some development challenges.  At the same time, those countries doing poorly will be increasingly subject to the other side of globalization:  illegal drug trades, arms traffickers, anda large global gray market that allows governments that seek to stripmine their own countries to sell all kinds of goods (e.g., timber, diamonds) to willing buyers outside of international supervision.  It will be ever easier for capital to flee areas of poor performance. Globalization therefore can promote both virtuous cycles of growth andwhirlpools of decline. Indeed, the number of countries in the middle on growth and governance performance may decline as the forces of globalization continually reward success or aggravate failure.

A Stable Hierarchy

In addition, the hierarchy of nations in Africa in terms of their economic, political, and state

performance will be unlikely to change markedly in the next 15 years.  Certainly, some countries will have significant reversals of fortune (for better or worse) due to leadership changes, exogenous economic shocks, or developments in their regions that cannot be predicted in advance.  However, it would be surprising if, in general, the set of countries that are the current leading performers in categories were substantially different from those in 15 years.  Similarly, those countries that are lagging substantially below the continental average will, more than

likely, continue to be at the bottom of the league in 15 years.

Part of the reason for this inertia is that while the world can change rapidly in a decade and a half, countries take much longer to substantially change directions.  African countries also are substantially affectedby structural factors that profoundly influence their economic andpolitical performance.  Coastal countries tend to have tremendous advantages, especially compared to the landlocked countries of the Sahel and Central Africa.  Indeed, there is a class of African countries—which includes Burkina Faso, Central African Republic, Chad, Mali, Mauritania, and Niger)—that are so burdenedby their extreme climate, relatedproblems of health and disease, andpoor geographic position that it is not clear that any economic model offers them a path toward development.  Civil society groups that pressure for democracy are also not found uniformly across the continent, but tendto be disproportionately locatedin coastal states where there were better universities andwhere they have contacts with international society.  The civil society groups that are relatively powerful have already succeeded in their own countries, while any new pro-democracy civil society adherents will emerge only slowly.

Paradoxically, other countries may be burdened by their seemingly munificent resource endowment.  It is unlikely that the major oil producers (Angola, Equatorial Guinea, Nigeria, Sao Tome, Sudan) wouldhave a future significantly different than the ruinous recordof petroleum producers to date.

The nature of reform past andfuture also affects the possibility for changes in the African hierarchy.  The most dramatic political developments in the last 15 years in Africa have been the collapse of the neo-patrimonial state andthe advent of multiparty elections (albeit of enormously varying quality) almost everywhere on the continent.  On the economic front, most African

countries also eliminated the most egregious economic imbalances, notably the black market in foreign currency.  What is left are the much harder, less dramatic, but perhaps more substantive reforms that will inevitably take a great deal of time andwill only yieldprogress slowly.  For instance, African countries must follow-up the dramatic roll-out of multiparty elections with difficult reforms to strengthen legislatures, the judiciary, and the developing national cultures of rights.  Indeed, strengthening democratic institutions is particularly important in Africa because there will inevitably be ethnic andother groups that have mobilized, but have lost in elections andmust be reassuredthat their interests andrights will be protectedeven if they are not in power.  On the economic front, countries face a complex governance agenda where progress is necessary but inevitably slow and difficult to manage.  Similarly, apartheid neednot be overcome again; rather, South Africa now faces the more mundane, but exceptionally difficult, task of increasing its rate of economic growth while redistributing wealth.  The focus of South

Africa’s approach—growth or redistribution—may well decide its economic fate.  It will be hard for countries to significantly change their place in the African performance hierarchy while they are implementing these difficult but necessary reforms.

There are also important “neighborhoodeffects” that some African countries may not be able to overcome.  As is clear from West Africa, conflict in one country can spill over andinfect an entire region.  Similarly, if one of the large countries that tendto dominate Africa’s regions (e.g., Democratic Republic of the Congo, Ethiopia, Nigeria) go badly wrong—or continue to do so, as in Congo’s case—the small states surrounding them may have limited degrees of freedom in which to operate.  Thus, the efforts of even extremely well-intentioned governments towards governance and democratic government may not transfer into dramatic relative changes in performance because they are stuck in a “bad neighborhood.” On the other hand, Zimbabwe proves definitively that governments determined to decline can ignore the positive developments aroundthem.

Finally, emerging from economic decline—the condition of many African countries since the mid-1980s—is extremely difficult.  Ghana began dramatic reforms in the early 1980s but it took almost 15 years for it to return to the level it was in the early 1960s.  Roads, universities, agricultural extension systems, judiciaries, and many other institutions are extremely hard to reconstitute once they have decayed to the parlous state found in many African countries.  Most importantly, the brain drain from which Africa continues to suffer means that even good leaders with considerable political skills will have difficulty turning their countries around because they essentially have to wait to create entire new cohorts of trainedprofessionals to tackle problem areas.

African countries therefore will react to andbenefit from different global andregional trends in many different ways; but they will face substantial structural obstacles to changing substantially their individual political and economic glide paths in what is, by historical standards, a very short period of time.  This is not to argue that African countries are destined for a particular fate (although the Sahelian countries face monumental obstacles when trying to overcome their geography); rather it is to note that in Africa, more so than in perhaps any other region, the choices leaders make are mediated by a series of structural obstacles that can be enormously frustrating.  It is therefore important not to set the bar too high, or to conflate the long-term

nature of the crisis with cynicism about prospects for change.

Globalization

Perhaps the biggest difference between the NIC’s 2020 report and its predecessor that examined prospects out to 2015 is that globalization is now viewedas a “megatrend:” “a force so ubiquitous that it will substantially shape all the other major trends in the world of 2020.” This conclusion appears to have been driven in large part by the estimate that the international economy will be roughly 80 percent larger in 15 years, most notably driven by exceptionally high growth rates in the populous countries of Asia.  Africa has been the continent least positively affectedby globalization to date andthe challenge to take advantage of the positive trends in the global economy will be substantial.

This is not to say that the positive effects of globalization will have no effect on Africa.  Cell phones have already causeda communications revolution in Africa andthe Internet is spreading at an extraordinary rate, albeit beginning from a very low base.  The now significant diaspora communities that many African countries have in western nations will continue to increase the amount of money sent back to Africa.  Remittances in many cases will be among the most important “export” earners for African countries, reflecting both the magnitude of these flows but also the failure to develop non-traditional exports.  Whether remittances from abroad in the future will go to investment, as opposedto the current pattern of enhancing consumption and housing, is unclear andwill dependon the governance trajectories of the countries, the extent of

the ties that bindthese diaspora communities over generations, as well as local perceptions of the long-term investment climate.

African countries will, of course, also be exposed to the downside of globalization.  The ferocious competition that the international economy will foster in the next 15 years will be a profound challenge to any attempt at African industrialization.  Indeed, the bar continues to be raisedon what is necessary for a government to do in order to foster a competitive international economy.  Governance practices that might have been acceptable in the 1960s when there was relatively little competition will not be acceptable in the next 15 years.  Even Ghana, an improvedeconomic performer, has not been able to increase its growth rate above four percent because of long-standing governance problems, including unclear land tenure that has led to unending disputes about property rights in the rural areas and a judiciary whose ability to enforce contracts is questionable.

Corruption will pose a particular challenge to African countries.  Some countries will notably benefit from the increasing official international allergy to corruption.  However, those countries that do not have particular good governance practices will face ever-more temptations from the international economy that will increasingly include buyers not influenced by national or international codes of conduct.  China, in particular, has not shown much concern with promoting governance as it expands its economic reach.

Finally, it is also not clear whether the traditional cycle of industrial migration that caused textile andelectronic firms to move from Japan, to East Asia, to Southeast Asia in search of cheap workers—as their own work forces became richer—will holdgiven that China and India seem to have essentially an infinite number of low-skill workers.  The international economy had

considerable space for countries to begin export drives in the past, but China and India may now clog markets for many years to come.

Typology of Globalization: Winners and Losers

Different types of countries will benefit from globalization in different ways.  The benefits of

globalization can fall selectively across geographic areas.  Cities may benefit because they are agglomerations of highly-trainedprofessionals but rural areas may be hurt.  Similarly, one country in an area may benefit from being able to access the international economy but this does not mean the region will benefit.  The development of high-speed Internet lines to Accra will not necessarily have any effect on surfers in Lomé.

South Africa is perhaps unique:  It has a substantial technical base, an indigenous business class, and, probably uniquely amongst African countries, an ability to attract large amounts of talented individuals from the surrounding region.  South African companies are sitting on massive amounts of capital that, if investedlocally, would significantly boost growth.  South Africa still has to adopt a myriad of policies to take advantage of the international economy but it has far more potential than almost any other country on the continent to take advantage of the positive trends in the international economy.  In particular, the social basis for growth largely exists in South Africa.  It is the government that, to date, has yet to commit itself to achieving a high growth rate andto implementing the necessary redistribution measures within a context of heightenedparticipation in the international economy.

A second group of countries that will react to globalization in roughly similar ways includes the oil producers.  Global demand for hydrocarbons will be extremely robust in the next 15 years andthese countries will face the nominally happy chore of disposing of large amounts of export revenue.  However, to date, oil-producers have had very poor development records and much of the oil revenue that African producers receive has been wasted.  In most petroleum producing countries, the path to wealth for elites is foundin greater access to state-controlledoil revenue rather than through private sector investment.  It is unlikely that the ability of oil producers to leverage their revenue streams will improve markedly in the next 15 years.  Indeed, the increasing presence of China (which already acquires 25 percent of its oil from Africa) may actually put a brake on international efforts to promote governance amongst oil producers because Beijing is so skeptical of any action that interferes with what it views as sovereign domestic prerogatives.

A thirdgroup of countries are those that will make enough deliberate reforms in governance to attract international investment, retain trainedmanpower, andtake advantage of new technological developments.  These “better governance” countries are likely to be coastal, speak English, andalready have a relatively high growth record, although Kenya may be exceptional in this regard.  The current roundof globalization is basedon constantly improving information technology andtherefore requires relatively large cadres of trainedprofessionals and, of course, disproportionately benefits this class of people.  Ghana demonstrates that Africa can be a destination for outsourcing and such service jobs will become even more important in

the next few years.  How many countries actually join the “high-governance-achieving club” will dependin goodpart on the social basis for growth in each country.  Leaders will have to define

or create a constituency that demands and values high growth and is able to make the necessary

adjustments in government policy in order to participate in the international economy.  It will be much easier for leaders in coastal countries who have already begun reforms to nurture and increase this constituency through economic progress tiedto globalization.

Finally, poor governance countries or failed states (those where basic government institutions have decayed to the point where they cannot make governance decisions) may not be able to engage the international economy positively because of their poor decisions or because their geography is so constraining that leadership decisions cannot deflect a downward trajectory.  As a result, negative trends in these countries are likely to be aggravated by globalization.  In particular, highly trained professionals from these countries will find it ever easier to migrate.

Differentiation Within Countries

A final aspect of globalization will be to increase differentiation within many African countries.

Globalization will benefit especially urban areas that can be connectedin real time to the vast information flows that the international economy will generate andwhere the educatedelite in each African country will inevitably locate to the urban areas.  The rural-urban divide is therefore likely to be further aggravatedin many countries.  In some ways, Africa may return to an almost colonial model of development where the state and significant economic activity was foundin the capital but only sporadically elsewhere (“afrique utile” versus “afrique inutile”). Countries that perform well will be able to push against these trends, but the average African country may see its rural areas become every more marginalized.

An African Vocabulary for Development?

An important variable over the next 15 years will be if African countries can finally formulate

their own “globalization vocabulary,” which will allow them to successfully tap the opportunities posedby globalization. Many African leaders have been slow to embrace globalization, even as they adopt may of the reforms demanded by the international financial institutions, because they do not know where their economies are heading.  Indeed, many African elites, even in the relatively well-performing countries, have yet to embrace the upside of globalization in ways commonly foundin East Asia.  Few, if any, African leaders tell their fellow citizens that they must “export or die.” Many African leaders believe that the international economy is still rigged so that Africans will never prosper.  Some accurately perceive a loss of domestic political control if sources of wealth are hitchedto external forces beyondtheir control.

If African leaders can develop their own vocabularies to explain economic development to their citizens, the likelihoodof a political consensus developing in favor of growth will be much higher.  If such indigenous perspectives are not adopted, the chances for high growth in most African countries will be extremely limited.  There is a profoundneedto groundglobalization in local realities.

It is clear that part of the emerging, still inchoate, African perspective on globalization differs considerably from conventional orthodoxies.  The West, and the United States in particular, places considerable stress on the market forces inherent in globalization, believing (or fearing) that powerful international markets have compelling political implications.  Africans hope that globalization emerges as a set of international institutions that will promote governance, especially in the form of the New Partnership for Africa’s Development (NEPAD), that will to

some extent insulate them from the coldwindof the market.  Although it is largely ignoredin the UnitedStates, NEPAD consumes a significant portion of current African discussions on development and, critically, is a substantial part of South Africa’s and Nigeria’s foreign policies. It is hardly exceptional for the weak to put their faith in international institutions that they will influence by fiat, or—as in the case of NEPAD—create outright, rather than in markets that will be dominated by the strong.  There are obviously many obstacles before the peer review mechanism in NEPAD (the critical part) succeeds; however, Africans are likely to continue to focus on developing this continental architecture long after the West has given up on it as

another failedprogram. Click  NEXT to digest Part II of this document.