Newsletter No. 968
News-Analysis
April 7, 2008

 

JAPAN IN AFRICA -- KEEPING UP WITH THE WANGSES

Deeply concerned after reading Shingetsu Newsletter No. 964 about the “Setting Sun in Africa,” it seems, the Japanese government is now said to be quickly revising its policy on ODA funding. According to Kyodo News, Tokyo is now considering the doubling of its foreign aid budget targeted on Africa. The overall total of Japanese aid would still decline at about 2% annually under this new framework, but a much larger percentage of Japanese aid would go to Africa than is the case now. Presumably, this would also mean a rather sharp drop in ODA for Asia and other regions.

If this sounds familiar, it should. This is a strategy straight out of China’s foreign policy playbook. Several interconnected Japanese goals seem to be in play here:

1) The desire to have a successful event at TICAD IV in May
2) The desire to cut short speculation about Japan’s declining global influence
3) The desire to secure a permanent seat on the UN Security Council
4) The desire to not lose out to China

If other Shingetsu Members out there have some thoughts or revisions about this list, we would welcome a discussion.

COMMENTARY

1) From John Edward Philips of Hirosaki University on April 7, 2008:

These are all prestige variables. While I don't disagree that prestige (mentsu?) is important to Japan I would look for material interests as well. Japanese foreign aid allegedly goes to infrastructure projects where Japanese have economic interests. Can any expert on Japanese ODA tell us the extent to which that allegation is correct? What are Japan's material interests in African states and how are they likely to interact with China's and others? (Let's not forget India in this.) To what extent would the increase in aid for Africa be financed by cessation of aid to China? Specifically which African countries will get Japanese ODA?

I would also look for bureaucratic interests here. What are the interests and positions of the MOFA and the METI? How does the Finance Ministry fit into this?

2) From Elena Shadrina of Niigata University on April 8, 2008:

My opinion might not be counted as that of an expert on ODA, but I think that 'going Africa' with regard to Japanese ODA's geographical re-composition may not necessarily be a very wise move. It is a better option to consider how to maintain national strength in light of the many challenges that Japan faces. It seems to me that ODA would be better off allocated to those countries from which Japan might materially benefit. Prioritizing Africa might seem very laudable, but for a state that is nearly 100% dependent on imported natural resources (which are not getting any cheaper), applying ODA as a resource diplomacy tool would be a more sound decision. Strengthening the African direction of ODA may serve to enhance Japan's reputation as a nation guided by humantarian considerations. However, the domestic economy and the Japanese population's welfare should not be sacrificed by the policymakers.

3) From Samuel Noumoff of McGill University on April 8, 2008:

The central issue of Japanese ODA remains the extent to which it is directly or indirectly tied aid. Some years ago when investigating this in the Philippines and Nepal it was clear to me that Japanese assistance was virtually always tied to Japan providing the goods, which included training manuals (with the need to learn the language) as well as service and consulting contracts. Japan, like the US, seeks a domestic support constituency. However, it left little room for maximizing the value of the ODA from the recipients' perspective. More untied aid may do more for producing goodwill.

4) From Elena Shadrina of Niigata University on April 9, 2008:

An article posted by the Japan Times yesterday ('Japan Must Put TICAD Ball in Play') may help fill in the blanks on Japanese ODA to African countries. Professor Philips and Professor Noumoff have raised a number of questions with regard to Japan's strategic interests while allocating ODA to the nations of the African continent. Having read the Japan Times article, one might conclude that there are no ready answers in Japan.

Perhaps such a state of affairs might spur some thinking among the African nations' diplomats serving in Japan? With TICAD IV and the G-8 slated for this year, this seems to be an excellent opportunity for African nations to speak out about their own priorities and what they wish from Japan. It could be a beneficial exchange of opinions.

After all, if one partner demonstrates the desire to do something (but cannot quite figure out what that is), why not help them out with some ideas?

5) From Samuel Noumoff of McGill University on April 9, 2008:

Power relations are so unequal that it is very difficult for the recipient country to turn away aid. The late PM of Jamaica, Manley, commented on the fact that donor nations were providing him with projects which he couldn't turn down and yet was burdened by acceptance. The initiative must come from the Japan side to open up the process.

6) From Elena Shadrina of Niigata University on April 10, 2008:

In principle, I agree with Professor Noumoff's view, but perhaps the case of modern Japan represents a somewhat different pattern of donor-recipient relations. I would view the stream of publications on Africa, China in Africa, ODA to China, ODA to Africa, etc., as being Japan's attempt to work out how to use the declining economic resources for the nation's rather colorless politico-diplomatic profile in order to maximize both its economic and political margins. Japan is obviously looking for the means to regain what it seems to be losing.

As is understood well, the country is increasingly challenged internationally; the nation is losing out in almost every enterprise, so to speak. Look at the world rankings: Competitiveness is sliding; overall GDP and GDP per capita shrinking; the gap between rich and poor is worsening; and there are many more problems besides. Indeed, the realm of Japan's politico-diplomatic affairs cannot be described as being particularly healthy either.

Of course, Japan has proposed certain attractive international initiatives (to combat global poverty and protect the environment), and it took on heavy responsibilities in line with those proposals in the days when it was stronger. Now, however, Japan more often finds itself playing 'catch-up.'

Under these circumstances, I wonder if the power relationship as a donor is really as tilted in Japan's favor as it used to be? Perhaps this is the ideal time for some new thinking and a little more 'give and take.'