Review of African Political Economy No.50:3-11 © ROAPE Publications Ltd., 1991 ISSN 0305-6244; RIX#5001 Africa in a New World Order Lionel Cliffe and David Seddon In this the 50th issue of the Review, and at the beginning of the last decade of the millenium, we take stock of the dramatic changes currently taking place in the global political economy and consider their significance for developments in Africa. We focus on the implications of the collapse of 'state socialism' in Eastern Europe and the Soviet Union and the character of the emerging 'new world order* following the end of the Cold War, so triumphantly proclaimed by the Bush administration. In particular we explore (as does Chomsky in our first article) the modified role in this new order of the United States, poised now after its bloody victory in the Gulf (100,000 dead), to intervene more arrogantly and energetically in Africa, Asia and Latin America. Objectives of the Review We also take this opportunity to reiterate the broad objectives of the Review as set out in the editorial to our first issue in 1974. These were to examine the roots of Africa's present condition and to contribute to debates among pro- gressive intellectuals in Africa (and elsewhere) regarding the constraints to, and the potential for, broad-based economic, social and political development on the continent as a whole and in individual countries. Our commitment to a politically engaged and theoretically informed debate remains strong. We re- cognise the need to confront contemporary issues with realism and flexibility. Times have changed. Marxism-Leninism is increasingly subject to the kind of detailed critique of both theory and practice (that Pearce in this issue offers). Today on the left even 'socialism' is contentious. The related issues of democ- racy and human/civil rights have become the central preoccupation of many. In the editorial to our 10th anniversary issue (no.32,1985) - which looked back on a decade in Africa characterised by the widespread success of the armed liberation struggle and by major problems of post-colonial economic and so- cial development in a period of global recession - we reminded ourselves of the commitment made in our first editorial: to comprehend African reality at a number of levels ... [rejecting] the orthodoxy of bourgeois social science which sees each national economy, state and society, and often each of their separate problems, in isolation. But we also admitted that we had published relatively little on the specifics of the 'strategies of imperialist powers and of monopoly capital' and 'Africa's 4 Review of African Political Economy changing position in the international division of labour ... [and the great powers'] spheres of influence' (p.l). Since that time the Review has devoted more space to these subjects and will continue to provide more commentary and analysis from a global perspective. From the start, however, the Review recognised that: we must not simply see Africa as the reflection of imperialism. There is a need to develop theoretical insights into the specificity of social formations that underdeveloped capital- ism gives rise to, in response both to the pre-capitalist history of Africa and to its integration into the international capitalist system (ROAPE no.32,1985:3). So, we also renew our commitment to make available to wider audiences the current debates and political struggles taking place within Africa, to underline the differences, as well as the similarities, in the circumstances facing African progressives and African peoples today. We see our task over the coming decade broadly, therefore, as that of relating changes in the global political economy to the complex process of African transformation, while at the same time helping to identify both the constraints to and potential for 'progressive' development for the African people and to further clarify the meaning of this broad term in the 1990s. It is a task which will, more than ever, require collaboration and constructive debate among all those - based inside as well as outside Africa - who share such a commitment. Crisis and Transformation In bur first e'ditorial in 1974, we wrote that 'the world as a whole seems to be entering a new phase'. In retrospect that 'new phase' turned out to be char- acterised by a deep crisis of capitalism on a global scale. Two major recessions in the advanced capitalist states during the 1970s and the associated world- wide 're-structuring' have had catastrophic implications for most parts of the rest of the world during the 1980s. In Latin America and in Africa in particu- lar, people suffered extensively from the failures of development strategies (themselves often prescribed from outside); from economic mismanagement, corruption, worsening terms of trade, lack of foreign exchange fuelled by a waste of resources (notably on arms), political repression, civil wars and mili- tary interventions. These problems were exacerbated by, and resulted in, a rise in foreign debt - placing governments and peoples at the mercy of 'struc- tural adjustment' and liberalisation' policies imposed by the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank, which have worsened rather than im- proved the situation of the urban and rural poor. Nor has this 'restructuring' provided much prospect of a stronger position in the international division of labour for Africa as a whole. Now at the beginning of the 1990s it seems very likely that world capitalism is once again about to experience a major reces- sion, with all the re-structuring and turmoil that this inevitably entails, par- ticularly for regions already disadvantaged like Africa. But the 1980s also witnessed dramatic political and economic transformation Africa in a New World Order 5 in Eastern Europe. Starting in Poland, the edifice of 'state socialism', constructed with so much effort and pain during the early part of the century in the Soviet Union, and extended to Eastern Europe in the 1940s, was challenged and found wanting by its own citizens, including the workers in whose name the state existed but whose exploitation and oppression remained the foundation of 'state socialism'. Central planning and 'the command economy' have been deeply criticised and new measures initiated to liberalise and even privatise substantial elements of the economy. The position and role of the Communist party and both the theory and reality of the one-party state have been fundamentally challenged. But neither the political nor the economic restructuring has been achieved in the USSR, and all the East European countries have experienced major political and economic turmoil. How far these dramatic changes are to be explained by the 'economic crisis' of the centrally planned economies during the late 1970s and early 1980s, how far by the authoritarian character of 'state socialism' and how far by the increasing integration of Eastern Europe into the international capitalist system dominated by the West, is debatable. The fact remains that all aspects of 'actually existing socialism' have come into question both theoretically and practically. Not only have the national Communist Parties fallen from power, but political organisations offering 'socialist alternatives' in many Eastern European countries have also had to contend with widespread popular rejection of 'socialism'. Governments formed by the new non-communist and even anti-communist groupings are introducing 'economic reforms'; in some cases the old regime is struggling to implement both economic and political reforms in order to 'ride the storm' and maintain effective control over the new forces for change. Many of these new political forces opposed to communist rule derive their strength from their appeal to ethnic and national identity and/or religious affiliation, always regarded as 'reactionary' and problematic in socialist ideology and strictly controlled under 'state socialism', but now developing again as a focus for mobilisation. The 'emerging civil society' in Eastern Europe is thus riven by deep cleavages and tensions which threaten both economic restructuring (perestroika) and political liberalisation (glasnost). These divisions are likely to involve not only the sectarian forces referred to above but also newly emerging social classes in the developing 'capitalist' economy and society. Given these tensions, there is always a possibility of heavy-handed efforts at the reassertion of 'control' by 'conservative' elements appalled at the threat to stability and the centralised state. Such reactions are of course parallelled by those in Africa like Moi and Kaunda who justify continued one-party rule as a protection against 'tribalism'. Surely, the lesson from the East is that ethnic affiliations have to be reckoned with and cannot just be assumed away? The New Imperialism With the supposed ending of the Cold War and, significantly, at a time of deepening recession and further restructuring, has come the dramatic reasser- 6 Review of African Political Economy tion of the US' role as the dominant actor in constructing 'a new world order'. The Bush administration, after some hesitation, moved to provide limited and conditional aid to Eastern Europe (thereby reinforcing the conception of the new relationship with both 'East' and 'South' as one involving assistance to 'developing countries'). It also sought to encourage the development of na- tionalist and separatist movements. The United States had already begun to reassert its military-political hegemony in unmistakable fashion during the Reagan years, with major military interventions in Central America (invasions of Grenada, Panama) and the Middle East (bombing of Libya), and more dis- creet 'counter-insurgency' and low-intensity warfare' elsewhere as in south- ern Africa, where it has increasingly taken over the destabilising role from South Africa (see Minter's piece) - all in the name of 'the new world order'. The massively destructive police operation in the Gulf, whatever its implica- tions for the Middle East, was meant as a lesson', not just to Saddam Hussein but to any third world regime that might be designated a threat in terms of whatever new post-war criteria the US cares to apply.