Transcript
CLAIRE MALCOLM
In this conversation, we’re going to return to the issue of resource competition in Africa to get a feel for how using theoretical lenses might help to see different things in this case study. To do this, we’ll introduce two theoretical approaches: liberalism and postcolonialism. Without pre-empting the conversation too much, this is a key takeaway: looking at resource competition in Africa through the lens of liberalism and looking at it through the lens of postcolonialism means that we see resource competition in Africa very differently. That we have different perspectives on it and that we focus on different aspects and consequences of it. So let’s take liberalism first. Will, what are the key features or ideas that liberal theories bring to IR?
WILLIAM BROWN
Well, if we think of this in terms of actors and issues, liberal approaches, like many approaches in IR see states as very important actors. But rather than assuming states will always be in conflict with each other, liberal analyses highlight that relations between states can vary enormously. They can cooperate as well as pursue shared goals. But liberal approaches also highlight the role of non-state actors – businesses, international organisations, NGOs and others – in shaping international relations. They might directly influence what states do, by campaigning or lobbying for a particular policy, but they also shape the context in which states act by raising particular issues that shape agendas. In terms of issues, liberal approaches recognise the importance of security issues and military questions, but also highlight the importance of economic concerns – growth and trade – as well as political issues around democracy and human rights. An important claim liberals make is that where states have shared interests, such as in increasing trade, for instance, or where states are similar in terms of their political character, being democratic, say, then there is greater potential for cooperation between them. Where those things are missing, then relations may be more conflictual. But this gives us a particular perspective on the competition over Africa’s resources, Claire.
CLAIRE MALCOLM
So, if we look through a liberal theoretical lens at the case of resource competition in Africa, we’re looking at what states are doing and why, and what role non-state actors are playing. So, it might highlight some of the shared interests that exist – for example, between some African states and external powers – where access to resources is exchanged for, say, investment in infrastructure. Both parties here have a basis for cooperation in mutual benefits, and so they both get something from these arrangements.
But what would it show about the evident competition between, say, China and the US in Africa?
WILLIAM BROWN
Well, I think in that instance a liberal perspective here would look for reasons why that competition exists. It might highlight, for instance, the very different political character of those states – the authoritarian nature of states like China, and some African states, and the liberal democratic character of states like the United States or European Union. If you accept those characterisations, and you can challenge those, then you might argue from a liberal perspective that they have competing agendas on the world stage and they will each seek to gain allies in Africa and elsewhere. It would also have something to say I think about the promotion of democracy and human rights by the US, EU and others. There’s a strong liberal claim that if states are more democratic, then it increases the chance that relations between them will be peaceful and cooperative. And that’s a very different view to that taken by China and Russia in their dealings with African states.
That’s a view from a liberal perspective. If we use a different theoretical lens entirely, we’ll see a very different picture in this case study. The postcolonial perspective would give us a different and alternative interpretation of the issues.
CLAIRE MALCOLM
Absolutely, yeah, so if we turn to postcolonialism then, we’re talking about a different starting point from which to analyse international relations. Postcolonialism takes as its starting point the importance of colonialism and the profound legacies that it’s left in the international system. So, while states are still seen as key actors, as they would be with other theoretical approaches, the difference is that postcolonialism is focusing on the inequalities between states. And those inequalities have their roots in the colonial era. And that’s a fundamental basis of postcolonialism.
In terms of these issues then, postcolonialism also brings to the fore the importance of economic and racial inequalities.
And it draws our attention to the ways in which a range of actors – yes, states, but also marginalised and exploited groups, communities and individuals – seek to push back and resist inequality. And that prompts a different way of seeing resource competition in Africa. Will?
WILLIAM BROWN
Yes, instead of relations of cooperation, a postcolonial view would be looking at whether relations of inequality and exploitation are being perpetuated or resisted. And I think in this case you could go down a couple of routes from this starting point.
One would be to see the deals and cooperation between China and some African states as an attempt to overcome the dominance of the Global North that’s historically been there. On many issues Western states like the US, UK and France have exerted a lot of influence in Africa even after colonialism ended. Many African leaders therefore portray their cooperation with China – a fellow state from the Global South – as overcoming these postcolonial legacies.
But a different angle, also from a postcolonial starting point, might be to see the contemporary struggle over resources as replicating the colonial scramble for resources that happened at the end of the nineteenth century; again, we have external powers vying for their bit of Africa. And here China might be viewed much more negatively, but a postcolonial perspective would also want to show how non-state actors – community groups, trade unions, environmental activists and others – might be resisting this new form of external influence and control.
CLAIRE MALCOLM
Different theoretical approaches reveal different things, even when looking at the same case study. But both also leave out or obscure certain aspects as well.
By focusing on the potential benefits from trade cooperation, liberalism perhaps ignores the history of inequality that’s shaped what each side has to trade in the first place.
By emphasising historical legacies, perhaps postcolonialism underestimates the extent to which change could be a force for good for the African continent.
But this in itself can demonstrate some of the benefits that different theoretical approaches can bring to our understanding of IR. Will?
WILLIAM BROWN
Yes, viewing an issue through different lenses helps us to see more aspects of a particular case or issue, and that enriches our understanding.
But in doing so it also might invite us to start to evaluate those perspectives themselves – that is, to come to judgements about the strengths and weaknesses of different views.