74. Africa is a Country

00:24 Lars Peter Nissen:

Welcome to Trumanitarian. I'm your host Lars Peter Nissen. This week we take a look at what the humanitarian world looks like from the southern tip of Africa. William Shoki is the chief editor of Africa is a Country, a site of opinion analysis and new writing on and from the African left. And he is joining us from Cape Town. In this conversation, he turns his sharp progressive gaze on the West, humanitarianism, the conflict in Gaza, and the case that South Africa has brought against Israel at the International Criminal Court. It's a really interesting and sharp conversation. Really. William doesn't need much more of an introduction than that, so all that's left for me to say is please share, review, and like the show as always, most importantly, enjoy the conversation.

William Shoki, welcome to Trumanitarian.

01:35 William Shoki:

Thank you, Lars. It's a pleasure to be on.

01:37 Lars Peter Nissen:

William, we met in relation to the upcoming conference, Humanitarian Exchange. You are the chief editor of Africa is a Country. And maybe let's begin with that. What is Africa is a Country?

01:52 William Shoki:

Africa is a Country is an online media project that began in 2009 by a fellow called Sean Jacobs. He's originally South African from Cape Town where I'm based as well but found himself in the United States of America pursuing a career in academia and it started as a blog that he ran. That included his thoughts and opinions and reflections, mostly and often tongue-in-cheek about how the West perceived Africa. And its name comes from an essay written by the late Kenyan writer Binyavanga Wainaina called "How to Write About Africa." I think it came out in 2004 or 2005. It could be mistaken about the exact dates. But he wrote this essay for Granta, which is a popular UK-based literary magazine, and in that essay, he basically castigates the way the West talks about Africa. But he does it in a very satirical style, and one of the cardinal rules that style there's this collection of cardinal rules of if you are a curious journalist about Africa, how do you write about it? And one of the things he says in that is if you write about Africa, treat it as if it was a country. And so when Sean started this blog, it was inspired by that essay, and it aimed to correct how the West perceived Africa sort of the typical portrayal would be a one-dimensional reductionist, simplistic, and uncomplicated presentation of the continent and its problems. I think in that period was when The Economist infamously ran its spread about Africa being the dark continent and that kind of coverage was common in mainstream western media. And so Sean began this blog to critique that and eventually, it mushroomed, and he hosted guest entries and after a while, you know, it grew beyond his own writing, and so he decided to officially institutionalize it as a media platform. And so it's been going on since then. It's grown and in fits and starts. Since then I've been part of the publications since 2019. Actually, I began as a staff writer, and we're kind of in a gradual expansion phase, sort of bringing more people on board, expanding the things that we cover, and both continuing to push back against some of the way the West covers Africa but also I think at this point primarily giving a platform to Africans themselves to write critically about our own politics, our own culture, our own histories, and our own futures.

05:10 Lars Peter Nissen:

Yeah. And of course, this podcast is guilty of always focusing on the problems the world faces. And of course, there are a fair number of humanitarian crises in Africa. So maybe what we should do is begin by doing something we haven't done before. And let's talk about football.

Because you just came back from the African Cup of Nations which is playing out right now and how was that?

05:33 William Shoki:

It was fascinating. I was in Abidjan, which is the capital city of Côte d'Ivoire; Côte d'Ivoire is hosting the 34th edition of the African Cup of Nations where a bunch of teams from the continent are competing to be crowned the best footballing team on the continent and I think the tournament itself was interesting. Great spectacle of football, lots of competition. It was I think particularly this edition has bucked the trend insofar as a lot of the footballing powerhouses on the continent, countries like Senegal who are the defending champions, or Morocco who made it to the semi-finals of the 2022 World Cup and became the first team in African history to do so, Algeria who are the 2019 champions. So all of these footballing powerhouses are teams that are now out of the tournament because they were thwarted by much smaller teams and countries - places like Cabo Verde there for example. South Africa where I'm from beat Morocco in the round of 16 and that was very tough about that. South Africa is an underachieving footballing country so that was nice to see. So I think seeing…

06:35 Lars Peter Nissen

The Bafana Bafana have disappointed every now and then haven't they?

06:54 William Shoki:

They have disappointed consistently. It's not just every now and then but I think in a surprising twist of fates they usurped Morocco in the round of 16 so the country is buzzing with pride at the speed and is hoping that they can go all the way. The best fun I have done in the tournament is winning it in 1996 when it was held in South Africa and I think a lot of people are hoping we can repeat our fortunes but it's unlikely but we'll see you. We're up against cup of and the and the quarterfinals. And they've also been a great team in this in this edition of the African Cup of Nations. I've I've watched some of their games. When I was in Côte d'Ivoire and they've they've been superb so it's going to be a tough match. But I think what was especially interesting about being in in Côte d'Ivoire and in general and Abidjan in particular is that this is a country that experienced civil war twice over the last 25 years once in the early 2000s and then again in 2012. And so it was just interesting to see a city and a nation that had put that behind it and that I think was using this tournament as a celebration of the country and its overcoming of adversity and Abidjan in particular is interesting because it's a very metropolitan city but it's also a kind of Mecca in the region and in Francophone and West Africa and even in West Africa in general where you have people from all over its neighbors Senegal Guinea Mali Burkina Faso or even Ghana even though Ghana is anglophone and in Abidjan it's French speaking. So I think it was just kind of fascinating to see that and.

I think maybe something that's relevant for this podcast is that ahead of this tournament there was a lot of talk about. Well maybe this is a strategic miscalculation on the part of Côte d'Ivoire because it had to take out a loan from the IMF to finance the ornaments people were wondering if all of these stadiums and the shiny new infrastructure that is being built to host visitors is maybe something that doesn't really serve the economy in any kind of ascertainable utilitarian way.

But I think kind of being there you appreciate the cultural power and the symbolic power of this tournament happening and it's really one of the rare occasions when the continent comes together you know real genuine spirit of Pan Africanism and even though fans from all around the continent are there rooting for their national team. They're simultaneously just rooting for African football and it's this wonderful celebration of African identity team and you appreciate how something like that might be difficult to justify economically if you adopt maybe a narrow framework but is has enormous staying power as far as showing what the continent is capable of in terms of both celebrating our differences, but also celebrating our the ways in which we are all the same. The ways in which we are unique and meeting all sorts of Africans. And being able to talk about problems back home but also talk about the ways in which we are trying to stay resilient in the face of those problems and learning from each other. And I think that's that was really beautiful to see.

10:38 Lars Peter Nissen:

So from where you sit, you see all these different aspects of Africa. You see the culture, the football, you see of course the crises, the division, and the economic development which is rampant in many parts of the continent. When we opened, you talked a lot about how the West portrays Africa as the dark continent and so on. Is it just the West, or what happens if you go to Argentina? How is Africa described in the Argentinian public? Or in Thailand or China? What's the public perception in those countries?

11:18 William Shoki:

I couldn't say because I haven't been everywhere, but I think you're spot on in the sense that the negative attitudes aren't just consigned to the West, and in fact, they're not just consigned to other parts of the world and other parts of the global South but they're in Africa as well. There's a strong division between sub-Saharan Africa and North Africa, for example. Using football perhaps as a jumping-off point to illustrate that – when Morocco advanced to the semifinals of the 2022 World Cup, which was happening in Qatar, there was a big conversation on the continent about whether this was really a victory for Africa because not all Moroccans identify first as Africans necessarily. They might first think of themselves as Arab, and in fact, in that case, they might not even first think of themselves as Arab. They might think of themselves as Maghrebis. So there are widespread attitudes.

I suppose the reason why it matters when it originates from the West is that the West remains the locus of political, economic, and military power. There are consequences to that attitude when it emanates from the West in terms of geopolitics and foreign policy and global economic policy, and those consequences filter down to ordinary people whereas a prejudice in Argentina or a prejudice in Thailand might not affect the everyday African in Lagos or in Nairobi or Ouagadougou or wherever it might be, unless you are, of course, in Argentina or in Thailand and you are encountering that prejudice first-hand.

I think it's something that is changing, and we find ourselves in a very interesting moment in global history where it's changing once again. There are contestations over what the new world order looks like. Some are fighting for it to be multipolar and more multilateral, and others are trying to defend strongholds of power whether it's in the West, whether it's in the East or wherever it might be and I think Africa is kind of having an inward-looking conversation about what role it wants to play as a balance of forces globally shift. Does it want to pitch its tent on one camp? Or does it want to maybe occupy a more non-aligned position and kind of be in the middle and facilitating more of the multilateral kind of relationship rather than the confrontational competitive relationship that has characterized periods of history and that might be the case in the future. Remains to be seen.

14:42 Lars Peter Nissen:

Yeah, it's as you're speaking there are two things coming to my mind. Right, I totally get that it is probably less consequential how Argentinians think about Africa than the West, if we use that as a block. But what about China? How does China's role which has grown significantly across the continent over the past couple of decades, and how do you as an African perceive the Chinese story of Africa? What is that?

15:15 William Shoki:

That's a great question. I'm not a historian of China-Africa relations but I could just say that in my work covering the China-Africa relationship, I think I'm someone who is skeptical about any country anywhere in the world that sees an opportunity for consolidating its global influence by facilitating and building relationships on the continent. Is that what China is doing? To be honest, I can't say with absolute certainty that it what it's doing. I think from what I can tell, China's foreign policy is motivated by a number of different considerations. It's motivated by its own domestic needs from an economic perspective; it faces an overcapacity crisis and often needs to extend its economic capacity upwards in order to shore up production at home, which is why it has strong economic interests on the continent.

Do Africans benefit from those economic relations? In some cases, they do. In many cases, they don't. I think that it's hell of a complicated and complex in a lot of situations where African countries on the one hand are keen to foster relationships that can better facilitate and grow national developmental projects. Often some of those relationships have conditions attached to them or expectations attached to them and that's the kind of thing that I don't like. And so this is a roundabout way of answering your question in saying that, I think what China thinks of Africa is absolutely consequential. I can't say exactly what it thinks of Africa. I think it's been you know unlike the West which I think at the end of the Cold War envisioned itself as being the guardian of the quote on quote liberal international order I think China has at least up until now stayed silent on what exactly it thinks its role in global politics is meant to be.

And has also been largely silent on how it conceives of its relationship with the continent. It doesn't seem in many cases to be exporting a Chinese conception of governance and social organization. But I think I would say to maybe kind of try and tidy my answer a little bit I'd say that my attitude towards countries that want to expand their footprints in Africa whether it's China, whether it's the United States, whether it's Russia is one of skepticism. I would prefer it if African countries were not reliant on certain great powers and if they perhaps could develop their economic and foreign policy so that it's more grounded in multilateral relations on the continent and collaboration on the continent.

19:04 Lars Peter Nissen:

That's a beautiful segue into the second thing that was on my mind when you were talking, which is the case that South Africa has brought to the ICC against Israel on what we're seeing happening in Gaza right now. From your perspective, what does that mean? That South Africa suddenly takes the world stage there and becomes either loved or questioned by almost every single country in the world?

19:34 William Shoki:

Yeah, that's a great question. I'm proud of South Africa because… as the famous jazz musician Hugh Masekela once said in the '90s, that once we've put apartheid behind us, he thinks that the roles South Africa will play in the international stage is to defend the marginalized elsewhere because we know what that's like. We've been through an experience of state-sanctioned subjugation, and so we've then in our national consciousness had that moral compass sort of inculcated.

And I think this is an example of that. South Africa has demonstrated that it's committed to wanting to build a genuinely accountable international order where states can't get away with murder. And so I think this is welcomed of course. Of course, it would be remiss for me to say that there are other cases where I think South Africa has maybe not intervened as much as it should have. I think Russia's war in Ukraine is the glaring example here.

But I think that doesn't delegitimize its efforts in the International Court of Justice. All it does is it says well you have the potential to play this unique role in international affairs but your ability to do so credibly is compromised by a lack of consistency in other departments and all that demands in that case then is that consistency. And I think South Africans themselves have demanded that consistency of our government as well.

And so I think it's something that has a lot of potential. I think not only for South Africa, but I think for other countries to aspire towards a much more justice-minded and equality-minded and fairness-minded international order. And I think it's important and symbolically important particularly that this is a country of the Global South right that for the longest time the international order has been perceived as this playing field primarily of countries of economic superpowers, basically. Whether it's the United States and its allies or Russia or China or whoever else it might be.

South Africa is not an economic superpower. It might be regionally in southern Africa but it's a country that can aspire to be a kind of normative superpower. And it has the experience of that like I began referencing that Hugh Masekela quotes that It's a country that doesn't come out of nowhere and says we have to object to injustice where we see it because it is a country that has experienced that injustice and that crucially saw that injustice being undone partly by the efforts of international pressure of the boycott campaign in the 1970s and '80s of millions of people around the world mobilizing calling for the end of apartheid. Calling for their governments to divest from relationships with the apartheid government. So I think it owes the world something and I think this is how it's demonstrating that it wants to pay that back by playing this role itself.

23:40 Lars Peter Nissen:

Yeah, from what I can see, it's hard to see it as anything but hugely positive that this is happening, that a very well-argued case is brought before the court, so that we can have an opinion on what exactly are we dealing with here. Because obviously, it's a terrible situation. And I think you know we have to measure South Africa by the same standard as other countries. They have economic interests and sometimes the cost of doing the right thing is too big. So you're quiet… I mean I think that is generally how countries operate and why would that be different for South Africa?

24:15 William Shoki:

What South Africa has done in this case, and this is where I'm hoping this is something of a turning point is that I think the cost of acting in this circumstance is economically perhaps possibly economically disadvantageous. And I think if we can sort of set the precedent that one acts regardless of the economic consequences but because it's the right thing to do. Then more countries will be prepared to do that and the direction we go in is one where maybe those economic costs don't exist anymore, because we've inculcated a habit of speaking out because it's the right thing to do.

Certainly, I think it's the case as far as the citizenry of countries all around the world can see when injustice is happening and has spoken out against it. And I think now it's just for states to listen really to their people and follow accordingly with what they're demanding.

25:16 Lars Peter Nissen:

Why do you think South Africa chooses Israel as the case they bring? Is it because of popular pressure? Is it because some people draw parallels between apartheid and what we see with the Palestinians? What is it?

25:30 William Shoki:

It I think it's a combination of the two. I think it's because not just the South African state but because South Africans themselves see parallels between the treatment of Palestinians and the Palestinian question as it's existed since 1948. They see those parallels and they make the connection instantly between apartheid at home and apartheid in Palestine and in fact often concluded that it's a whole lot worse because of the sporadic and severe bombardment campaigns that Palestinians are subjected to that has claimed unfathomable numbers of lives. And it's South Africans who mobilize, you know, we've put pressure on our government and said you can't sit by and watch this happen.

Because the South African government could have opted to do nothing. It has, you know, and for a while it opted to do nothing. It spoke often compassionately about what was going on but would not follow that with concrete action. And I think this is one of the few instances where it's followed up what it's said with concrete action. So I think there's that natural affinity and seeing the struggle for Palestinian self-determination as being not too distinct from the struggle for majoritarian government and self-determination for black South Africans as it was fought for during the apartheid struggle.

And it's something that I think, you know, this is not the thing to emphasize. It's South Africans of a diverse variety of backgrounds who see this. It's black South Africans, it's white South Africans, it's Indian South Africans, it's Christian South Africans, it's Muslim South Africans, it's Jewish South Africans and so I think that's why they decided to intervene in this case. And I think the other thing is that the situation called for it. I think all of us are horrified at the loss of life that has been accumulated in Palestine, in Gaza particularly.

And so it was one of those instances where I think it felt compelled both by the history and the political resonances but also by the facts on the ground as we're seeing it unfolding and feeling like there's been no attempt internationally, no serious attempt to try and constrain Israel and I think South Africa decided, well, no one else is, so we'll try to do so.

28:23 Lars Peter Nissen:

I get all of that and as I said I think it is very positive that the case was brought and it is being tried so we can get more attention on it and get hopefully put a stop to what's happening. At the same time, part of me is also thinking what are all those South Africans you were talking about? The Blacks, the whites, the different religions? What are they thinking about Sudan? What do they want their government to do about Sudan? What do they want their government to do about… I mean you’re neighbor to north Zimbabwe. Do they want them to do anything or nothing? Where does all of that fit to you? You are a regional power. Don't you have a special responsibility and ability to do something in Africa right?

29:06 William Shoki:

That's a great question. And I think something that the war in Gaza puts into sharp relief is the extent to which we are inattentive to other cases of great injustice and tragedy and I think to be frank South Africans are mostly perhaps unaware of what is happening in Sudan. Perhaps they're more aware of what's happening in Zimbabwe because there are a lot of Zimbabweans in South Africa who've primarily left the country out of economic or political pressure.

And so I think what progressives like myself, I identify as one, and progressives and civil society in South Africa, I think what we're saying is, we're saying, well part of what makes this moment a watershed is that it gives us the ability to demand consistency and to say that Great South Africa has taken an important step to try and hold Israel accountable in the highest court of the United Nations system. It should now try and do something in Sudan. It should now try and do something in Zimbabwe in the Central African Republic in other places where we see gross human rights abuses.

And I think that is an argument increasingly that is being made in the public discourse in mainstream political and media platforms and it's an argument that I think the government itself is sympathetic to. We will have to see whether it results in action. I think attention is so focused on the Middle East at the moment but it's also an opportune moment to start to mobilize on the ground citizens towards putting pressure on the government to intervene in Sudan and in other places. There are people including myself who want to put pressure on the government to maybe perhaps be a little less sympathetic to Russia on Ukraine. So I think it's something that has exposed our selective perhaps outrageous sympathies.

And that's good. I think that's productive. That's positive because it then gives us, and forces us, rather to reflect and to then demand consistent action and consistent accountability where it's required.

31:59 Lars Peter Nissen:

Now we're running a bit short of time. I know you have another engagement. So I wanted to ask you at the end of the conversation, most of the listeners to the show are working in the humanitarian sector or are somehow deeply interested in humanitarian action. And my guess would be that they are above average in terms of knowledge about Africa and understand that it is not just a country; it's also more than that. But what would you like to say to them? What would you wish they did differently?

32:32 William Shoki:

It's a good question, and in answering it, I don't want to be unfair or uncharitable because the humanitarian sector itself is so diverse. It involves a different range of actors and stakeholders, and so I can't speak to the humanitarian sectors as if it were a monolith, and I don't want to do that.

What this moment has shown and put into view is the extent to which humanitarianism as an industry, as a project, as a set of beliefs and values, is fundamentally political. It's not just shaped by kind of value-neutral positions; it's something that is a vehicle for certain interests and an instrument for influencing behaviors towards a certain kind of picture.

33:35 Lars Peter Nissen:

Of course, we hate to hear that because we like to run around and say that we're principled and we're neutral and we're driven by humanity and impartial, and all of that. Should we just stop pretending that we are principled?

33:46 William Shoki:

No. So this is where I think I'll say I do believe that there are a lot of actors involved who are principled, but I think what I'd say then is that there's nothing wrong with it being political and with it being politicized. I think what I would follow that with is it's important to be conscious, in fact, of the ways in which it's being politicized and politicized towards what ends and if it's, in fact, possible to politicize it in different directions.

I think to say something like, "We need a humanitarian sector that is driven by concerns of popular sovereignty, justice, and egalitarianism," that's a political statement. That's a political demand. That's a political hope, and there's nothing wrong with that. I think it's just the same, and this is perhaps maybe the real ASK is to say that I think there's a lot of contestation happening in the sector, and what I'd like to see is more contestation and more efforts to make the case for a certain kind of humanitarianism against a different kind of humanitarianism.

And for people involved to not shy away from making the political arguments just to maybe be prepared to motivate for those arguments and make the case and to do so in lockstep with what people in the countries involved want—what kind of political futures do they want? What are they envisioning? And how do we have a conversation about the ways in which we can align local interests with international interests if there is room for alignment?

So I think that would be in a very kind of vague way because, like I said, I prefer by saying I don't want to speak to humanitarian sectors as the monolith, and I probably need to give a bit more detail to some of what I'm saying, but I'd leave it at that for now.

35:42 Lars Peter Nissen:

William, thank you so much for your time. Thank you for coming on to Trumanitarian. It's truly fascinating to get to know your work, and I wish all the best for the future.

35:52 William Shoki:

Thank you so much, Lars. It was fantastic to come on and really supportive and I genuinely appreciate the work that Trumanitarian does and look forward to listening to more.