London's new African best friends

Angola, Cote d'Ivoire, Ghana, Mozambique and Tanzania are to form “High Level Prosperity Partnerships” with the UK. But this odd collection of new partners has one thing in common: all have oil or gas deposits.

“I want to get away from the narrative of coups and corruption,” Britain’s African Minister, Mark Simmonds told businessmen, as they tucked into a full English breakfast at Simpsons on the Strand.

It was the Minister’s chance to provide the first glimpse of what is being described as “High Level Prosperity Partnerships” in Africa. A full launch will take place (this evening) at Glazier’s Hall, on the bank of the Thames, appropriately looking North to the City of London. The initiative is being sold by the Foreign Office as a “cross government initiative”. Led by the Foreign Office it will include the ministry’s commercial arm, UK Trade and Investment and has the backing of the development ministry, DFID.

The government has singled out are Angola, Cote d'Ivoire, Ghana, Mozambique and Tanzania for this treatment. Each has agreed to put up a named minister with whom Britain can link up, to develop trade and investment.

So what about London’s traditional "best friends" on the continent – Nigeria, Kenya and South Africa? “We have a big footprint there already,” a spokesman told the New Statesman. “The idea is to work with business to develop new markets.”

This odd collection of new partners has one thing in common: all have oil or gas deposits. Angola has long been a major partner for BP. Ghana is important for London-based Tullow oil. Mozambique and Tanzania both have gas fields. So too does Cote d'Ivoire. As the North Sea runs down Africa is becoming an important source of hydrocarbons and an excellent place for Britain to sell its oil expertise.

The list also raises other questions. What role will DFID play in these relationships? Justine Greening, Britain’s development minister, will be at the launch. The suggestion that aid money would be used for military ends has already raised eyebrows. Should it now be channelled into winning new markets?

And what of the choice of partners? Mozambique is facing a fresh challenge from the Renamo rebels, who have begun attacking government targets. Mark Simmonds said this morning that he’d personally phoned President Armando Guebuza, calling on him to spread Mozambique’s wealth more evenly and allow room for dialogue.

Angola, which is reputed to be among the most corrupt and least equal country on the continent, also presents difficulties. There is little room for dissent and journalists have been routinely beaten up and jailed. Responding to the news that Angola was to be on the list, Leslie Lefkow of Human Rights Watch tweeted: “Angola?? Presumably the criteria for the partnership doesn't include transparency or respect for media and civil society.”

Tanzania and Ghana present fewer government issues, but Cote d'Ivoire is just emerging from an appallingly divisive civil war. Laurent Gbagbo, the country’s former president, is now in the Hague, facing charges before the International Criminal Court.

Africa has grown rapidly in the last decade and there are certainly greater opportunities for trade and investment. This has been seized on by China, which is moving rapidly to shoulder older partners from Europe and the United States out of the way. Developing a “High Level Prosperity Partnerships” backed by diplomatic muscle and with the wheels oiled with aid funding is David Cameron’s answer to this emerging challenge.

An oil platform off the Angolan coast. Photo: Getty

Martin Plaut is a fellow at the Institute of Commonwealth Studies, University of London. With Paul Holden, he is the author of Who Rules South Africa?

Getty
Show Hide image

On the "one-state" solution to Israel and Palestine, what did Donald Trump mean?

The US President seemed to dismantle two decades of foreign policy in his press conference with Benjamin Netanyahu. 

If the 45th President of the United States wasn’t causing enough chaos at home, he has waded into the world’s most intricate conflict – Israel/Palestine. 

Speaking alongside Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, Trump made an apparently off-the-cuff comment that has reverberated around the world. 

Asked what he thought about the future of the troubled region, he said: “I’m looking at two-state and one-state and I like the one that both parties like.”

To the uninformed observer, this comment might seem fairly tame by Trump standards. But it has the potential to dismantle the entire US policy on the Israeli-Palestinian peace process. Trump said he could "live with" either a two-state or one-state solution. 

The "two-state solution" has become the foundation of the Israel-Palestine peace process, and is a concept that has existed for decades. At its simplest, it's the idea that an independent state of Palestine can co-exist next to an independent Israel. The goal is supported by the United Nations, by the European Union, by the Arab League, and by, until now, the United States. 

Although the two-state solution is controversial in Israel, many feel the alternative is worse. The idea of a single state would fuel the imagination of those on the religious right, who wish to expand into Palestinian territory, while presenting liberal Zionists with a tricky demographic maths problem - Arabs are already set to outnumber Jews in Israel and the occupied territories by 2020. Palestinians are divided on the benefits of a two-state solution. 

I asked Yossi Mekelberg, Professor of International Relations at Regent's University and an associate fellow at Chatham House, to explain exactly what went down at the Trump-Netanyahu press conference:

Did Donald Trump actually mean to say what he said?

“Generally with President Trump we are into an era where you are not so sure whether it is something that happens off the hoof, that sounds reasonable to him while he’s speaking, or whether maybe he’s cleverer than all of us put together and he's just pretending to be flippant. It is so dramatically opposite from the very professorial Barack Obama, where the words were weighted and the language was rich, and he would always use the right word.” 

So has Trump just ditched a two-state solution?

“All of a sudden the American policy towards the Israel-Palestine conflict, a two-state solution, isn’t the only game in town.”

Netanyahu famously didn’t get on with Obama. Is Trump good news for him?

“He was quite smug during the press conference. But while Netanyahu wanted a Republican President, he didn’t want this Republican. Trump isn’t instinctively an Israel supporter – he does what is good for Trump. And he’s volatile. Netanyahu has enough volatility in his own cabinet.”

What about Trump’s request that Netanyahu “pull back on settlements a little bit”?

“Netanyahu doesn’t mind. He’s got mounting pressure in his government to keep building. He will welcome this because it shows even Trump won’t give them a blank cheque to build.”

Back to the one-state solution. Who’s celebrating?

“Interestingly, there was a survey just published, the Palestinian-Israel Pulse, which found a majority of Israelis and a large minority of Palestinians support a two-state solution. By contrast, if you look at a one-state solution, only 36 per cent of Palestinians and 19 per cent of Israel Jews support it.”

 

 

Julia Rampen is the editor of The Staggers, The New Statesman's online rolling politics blog. She was previously deputy editor at Mirror Money Online and has worked as a financial journalist for several trade magazines.