Economic Diplomacy, Global Waste Trade: the African Perspective Since the 20 Century

African Journal of History and Archaeology Vol. 2 No. 1 2017 ISSN 2579-048X www.iiardpub.org Economic Diplomacy, Global Waste Trade: The African Perspective since the 20th Century Dominic A. Akpan, Ph.D Department of History and International Studies University of Uyo, Uyo E-mail: [email protected] Inyang, Bassey Centre for General Studies Cross River University of Technology, Calabar E-mail: [email protected] Abstract The paper examines economic diplomacy in relation to global waste trade. It discovers that economic diplomacy is a pillar for the development of nations, but global waste trade is anti-development in all forms. But the question is why has developed countries be exporting hazardous toxic waste to Africa: and in some instances pay those countries of dump. What kind of economic exchange is that? The paper discovers that, the acceptance of this hazardous waste by these African countries was as a result of poverty. Or is the dumping of waste the only way these developed countries can assist poor African states? It has also been discovered that toxic waste dumped about 28 years ago in some countries such as Cote d’Ivoire, Equatorial Guinea and Nigeria have started showing its negative effect. For instance in Cote d’Ivoire some people who lived near the dump site, one of them was reported to have suffered and died of acute glycaemia. The disease – acute glycaemia in Cote d’Ivoire is a flash point of occurrence of diseases in those countries. It concludes that international treaty on the control of Trans-boundary movements of hazardous waste should be involved in dealing with toxic exporting nations. Materials for this work are from secondary sources, it adopted historical analysis as its methodology. Introduction Towards the close of the 20th century and the dawn of the 21st century the issue of economic diplomacy among nations was intensified in many fora as a result of „ushering‟ in of the new wave of economic integration called globalization. Nations began to see international relations from the economic axis rather than political. But this is not to say that political relations/alliances or friendship was not anchored on economy. In fact international relations would not have gotten any flesh without economic relations. Hence, nations have been coming together through various economic arrangements coined bilateral, multilateral and other trade agreements for the benefit they would seek to derive. However, since the economic might of states are not the same; some states are favorably disposed to production that commands respect than others – they become economic super houses than some – while the weak are recipients from the strong. It is against this background that economically all weak nations receive all manners of merchandise from the strong economies ranging from new machines, ships, arms, computer, food, old or used cars and toxic waste. Toxic waste though a merchandise become goods tradable because nations which receive them are IIARD – International Institute of Academic Research and Development Page 1 African Journal of History and Archaeology Vol. 2 No. 1 2017 ISSN 2579-048X www.iiardpub.org incapacitated economically and therefore want to develop and belong not willfully but pushed by necessity – they are poor and need help by all cost. If not why would a country receive merchandise of death and this is common in the developing countries of Africa, Latin America and Asia. Africa as a perspective is used because she appears to be the highest recipient since the last quarter of the 20th century. Understanding Economic Diplomacy Ogwu and Olukoshi (2002) see economic diplomacy in three perspectives. First, it may be understood as the management of international relations in such a manner as to place accent on the economic dimension of a country‟s external relations. It is the conduct of foreign policy in such a manner as to give top must priority to the economic objectives of a nation. It has to do with the various diplomatic strategies, which a country employs in its bid to maximize the mobilization of external material and financial resources for economic development. This, they say, obviously, is a limited view of the notion of economic diplomacy. But, it is in this sense that the term, „new economic diplomacy‟ is used in Nigeria by Nigerian political leaders and officials. In short for them, economic diplomacy means simply the diplomacy of economic development. A second and equally limited notion of the concept is that which sees economic diplomacy as the application of economic instruments in negotiation and bargaining with other countries. The foreign policy goals in view may be economic, social or political. The diplomacy is economic when the means employed to achieve them, in terms of either “carrot” or “stick” or both, involve the mobilization and application of the economic resources of the nation. This may entail the extension or denial of financial benefits, petroleum products, food supplies, the granting, denial or withdrawal of trade concessions, the establishment or disinvestments of foreign investment, etc. It is in this sense that the word may be better used. Third, economic diplomacy may be seen as a set of strategies and tactics formulated and applied for the achievement of a fundamental restructuring of the existing international economic order. It consists of policies aimed at establishing a new international division of labour, at bringing about a radical redistribution of the pattern of ownership and control of economic resources in the international system. Such policies would entail the application of both implicit and explicit bargaining process. This is a broad view of economic diplomacy. The first two concepts may be described as depicting the diplomacy of economic development; the third concept refers to the diplomacy of economic liberation (Ogwu, 2002). Conceptualizing Waste Wastes are disposing products that are harmful to environment and or capable of causing death or injury to life. Hazardous waste are flammable, corrosive, explosive, toxic (also called toxic waste), or that are dangerous and usually damage the environment when poorly disposed (Freedman, 2007). Switzer (1994) defined hazardous waste as substances consisting of (liquid, solid, or sludges) considered flammable, corrosive, reactive, explosive, or toxic (defined as containing one or more of thirty-nine specific compounds at levels that exceed established limits). Hazardous waste may be a by- product of manufacturing process or commercial and consumer products – like cleaning fluid or battery acid – that have been discarded, and may include heavy metals from electroplating operations, solvents, and degreasing agents. According to Udoidem (1992) waste traditionally is defined as something which has no current or perceived value, of which the owner no longer wants at a given place and time. Toxic or hazardous waste is a type of waste that has physical, chemical or biological characteristics that are harmful IIARD – International Institute of Academic Research and Development Page 2 African Journal of History and Archaeology Vol. 2 No. 1 2017 ISSN 2579-048X www.iiardpub.org to man his environment. Such waste includes radioactive waste, medical waste, all forms of industrial, chemical waste, expired drugs and contaminated food items. History of Waste Trade between Developed and Developing Nations Indeed, toxic waste trade is not a recent phenomenon. History of dumping of toxic waste in a form of exchange relations through trade had been in practice since the closing days of the 20th century and now between developing countries of Africa and the industrialized West. By 1989, according to the reports of the United Nations Environmental Protection Programme (UNEP) and the Green Peace Movement about ten African states had been identified as dumping sites for various toxic chemical and other waste products (Udoidem, 1992). In January 2013, Premium Times, a United Kingdom, based newspaper, alleged that Messrs Moronuk David and Bonik Investment were shipping electronic waste (e- waste) from UK to Nigeria through Tin Can Island Port in Lagos. E-waste is a term for electronic products that have become useless or unwanted, non-working or obsolete, and have essentially reached the end of it useful life. Such waste includes discarded office electronic equipment, computers, entertainment devices such as electronics, mobile phones, television sets and refrigerators, some of which may be destined for reuse, resale, salvage, recycling or disposal (Adeyemo, 2013). However, Nigeria reacted promptly and ordered for the return of that ship to the UK in line with the Harmful Waste (Special Criminal Provisions) Act of 1988. That was not the first time such consignment would seek to unload its waste in Nigeria. In 1988, Italy was able to unload its 3,500 tonnes of toxic waste at Koko Seaport in the present Delta State (Adeyomo, 2013). The point of argument is that anything that is negative or counter-productive from the perspective of the Western nations is usually channeled towards Africa. For instance when the United States and West Indies was discovered, African slaves were recruited to work in the mines and plantations of these lands (Stride and Ifeka, 1973). History has shown that the recruitment of able Africans to the Americas stunted the development of African states. This was so because apart from the inhuman treatment, it also denied Africa “physical and mental energies of young and strong people who could have contributed to the overall development of the continent” (Udoidem, 1992). With the advent of industrial Revolution in the 19th century, African manpower was disregarded and what they needed was raw materials and market for the disposal of their products. Here again to avoid ugly competition, Africa was divided among the contending powers in 1884 – 1885 Berlin conference. In this connection, Africa was Balkanized and African unity eroded through the introduction of „dubious‟ culture into the continent. Since then violence and hatred have dominated the African life (Fajana & Anjorin, 1979).

Load more