By~ Geletaw Zeleke
The 3rd Korea-Africa
forum was held this year from October 16th to 18th in Seoul, South
Korea. The forum discussed three themes in
particular development cooperation, trade and investment and peace and
security. These issues will be the major guiding principles of Africa-Korea
bilateral relationships for the coming 3 years. Though the themes are important
for the bilateral relationships of both parties another relevant issue which is
human rights and democracy did not receive adequate emphasis at the forum.
The quest for human rights and
democracy cannot be bundled up with other issues; it is a separate issue,
especially when it comes to the nature of Africa
and its current contexts. It is apparent that for many African countries the low
status of human rights and lack of political freedom is playing a negative role
in overall development. No matter how well these countries equip themselves
with outstanding development plans and policies they still have problems
implementing them due to such poor politic climates.
Africans expect Koreans to play out
their roles in human rights, good governance and democracy issues in relation
to bilateral cooperation. Notably, although Korea’s ODA is growing when we look
at it year by year, its effectiveness through time is also important to
reconsider.
In African countries, such as Ethiopia, we
see that the quest for democracy and justice is hot in people’s hearts and
minds. One indicator to this is that many civic movements and political parties
are found upon democratic ideals or human rights and justice issues. This
implies that people are interested in safeguarding freedoms. Human rights and
democracy issues are quicker in people’s hearts because they believe for all
socio political and socio economic problems the low status of human rights and
lack of good governance are the main sources of their complicated problems.
They associate their overall problems with these political and human rights
problems. Their beliefs emulate a fundamental human truth.
Below let us examine why; and especially,
why so in Africa, should human rights and
democracy be a focus for bilateral and multilateral cooperation with other
parties.
1. The Nature of Africa
Almost all African countries are
characterized as multi ethnic countries. Some of the African countries like Nigeria for
instance have hundreds of ethnic groups. Ethiopia has more than 82 linguistic
groups. Cameroon, Ghana and even the smaller country of Gabon and more,
are made up of multi cultural groups. In fact, this diverse nature is a
potential quality for development and one of the most valuable strengths of
African countries. It can also, however, be a source for potential civil conflict
when not harmonized with democracy, justice and valuing human rights. Africa’s nature incurs democracy more so than any other
thing; in order to accommodate itself and to survive as both a continent and independent
countries.
When differing cultural groups come
together in an environment shaped by democracy which, grows common values and
strengthens unity their security relies very much so on democracy. Whenever
Africans lose the conditional support of democracy it usually forces them to
politicize their cultural groups and then to rebel over their existing
government. As a result, development in addition to peace and security issues
will always be in a state of insecurity. This is one of the rationales for the
question of why Africans desperately need protection of human rights and
freedom.
Any bilateral development and peace
cooperation agreement, without prioritizing the quest for human rights, will
not bear fruit nor will it be sustainable.
Africans can learn from Korea’s
democratic growth. Although some seem to believe that democracy did not play a significant
role in Korea’s economic
growth, Korea
is a country which has benefited markedly by democracy.
When we take a look at Koreas economic
growth between the years of popular democracy we can see how well a truly
democratic environment accelerates economic growth.
Rapid Economic Development:
1960-2010
|
1960
|
1970
|
1980
|
1990
|
2000
|
2010
|
GNP
per capita (dollars)
|
79
|
254
|
1,645
|
6,147
|
10,841
|
20,265
|
GNP
(billions dollars)
|
2.0
|
8.1
|
63.8
|
263.7
|
511.8
|
986.3
|
Source: The World
Bank database
When we compare the 1960
economic state when Korea was one of the poorest countries on earth and where
the GNP per capita income was only 79 dollars, we see the growth between 1960 and
1980 multiply 21 times. This may have been a time while was Korea was still
under dictatorial style rule, however, the aggressive development strategy worked
not because dictatorship helped them but because Saemaul Undong (New village
movement) was leading the economic development movement while Koreans struggled
hand over fist for democracy. Once the people won concord and were able to oust
the dictatorial regime Korea
was rapidly transformed to an exemplarily functioning democratic country.
When we compare the
growth of Korea from 1960 to that of 2010 we see the miracle. Korean GNP per
capita income has grown about 257 times compared to that of the 1960s. Korea
was lifted to the rank of one of the world’s most developed countries by the
help of democracy. Beginning in 1989 Korea would fully transform to a
democratic country.
Those who believe that democracy did
not play a great role in Korea’s
development history mention the notorious Korean development plan, the Saemaul
Undong movement. For them, since the Saemaul Undong (the New Village Movement
of the 1970s) was established during a dictatorial regime and their economy was
boosted during that time, they believe we cannot say that democracy played a
catalytic role in Korea’s economic growth. It seems that Saemaul Undong can
then be characterized as a dictatorial type institution. This argument can
easily be turned upside down to say that since Saemaul Undong was established
under a dictatorial regime then having a dictator will boost your economy.
In this inept interpretation of
Saemaul Undong it seems some truth has been lost. First of all, Saemaul Undong was
not a politically motivated institution. It was an aggressive developmental
institution. As an organization it was
not a political institution rather it was the manifestation of a Korean need
for social change. Whosoever established it, Saemaul Undong remains the result
of a social transformation era of the Korean people and not the reverse. Above
all the institution was not dictatorial in and of itself since when we look at
its grass roots we see that village leaders themselves were not politicians.
The village leaders were those who held high social status and were respected
or had influence in the society. Some of the village leaders were not even paid
for their leadership role. Saemaul Undong was neither a political nor a
dictatorial institution in its nature.
This does not mean that
the movement did not face any political or government interference. There was
interference. However, since its motive
was a movement of growth it could win all its temptations and it is still
working and it still exists. If it was the institution of a dictatorial regime
it would have been dismantled in the process of Korean social and political
changes like other dictatorial institutions. So the logic can not be that since
Saemaul Undong was established in an era of dictatorship and Korea registered better economic
growth under Saemaul Undong that being under rule of a dictatorial government
helped boost Korean economic growth. Africans can not take this kind of
unfounded example from Korea
and also dictators cannot use this headstand argument as escapisms for the
quest of human rights and respect.
2. To Build Trust
African nations need
democracy to maintain trust for building social networks. As mentioned earlier,
since their nature is characterized by the multi ethnic country, Africans need
to build trust from within their social and economic systems. One of the tools
to building trust for African countries is that of building democratic
institutions. Within these institutions is where their trust lies. In many African
countries we see low levels of trust when relying upon institutions. This shows
that the level of confidence between the government and the people is low.
There is no question that this problem hurts the overall developmental processes
of Africa; without trust planning for
sustainable development and peace cannot be fruitful.
African nations want Korea and other
parties to focus on the causes of their problems, in order to boost their security.
To bring about sustainable development in African countries and the African
continent any bilateral relationships and development aids have to be prerequisite
to the status of human rights. This trend can push Africa
forward in the process of developing trust and democracy within, throughout and
outside of the continent.
3. The Quest for Human Rights
Is Not a Solely Internal Issue
The human rights issues of
the 21st century have to be seen as the crown jewel of all cultures
and polities. There is no need to justify this truth with philosophical prejudices.
Human rights in and of itself is a practical call to action for human beings.
It is self justified. What is more, it is an independent issue that stands on
its own. Requesting to justify the quest for human rights with other developmental
issues seems wrong.
Africans need their human
rights to be addressed and respected so that they can solve their problems
righteously. Africans want and deserve a society where researchers research
without any frustration, writers express their opinions without any anxiety, and
teachers teach without any fear. In this regard, I think that Africans expect Korea to play a greater role in the development
of human rights in Africa.
Generally speaking,
development peace and, security and trade are the results of conducive
political conditions. These issues need a fertile place to grow in order to bear
fruit, as it ought to be. Any bilateral aid without prerequisite human rights
stipulations has two potential problems. One reason for problems to arise is that
democratic institutions functioning under weaker conditions, or without trust, will
not give aid effectively to the program it is meant for. Some oligarchic type
leaders even use aid to strengthen their security when it was meant specifically
to be spent on non-military developmental issues.
A second reason for
problems to arise is that, any aid given can become the victim of illicit
outflows. According to the Global Financial Integrity Report 2011 Africa has
lost 854 billion dollars over 39 years to illicit financial outflows. Recently
over the 9 years from 2000-2008 Africa has
lost a shocking 437 billion of dollars in cumulative illicit outflow. A more
alarming problem is that capital flight is increasing when we compare it to 30
years ago.
These realities make the
issue of democracy and human rights of primary importance in Africa.
This huge portion of money grew wings and learned to fly at the hands of weak
of democratic institutions in Africa; money that otherwise could have been
being used at this very minute in universities, at hospitals and in schools on
and around the African continent. If aid were spent on democracy and
development the Africa we would be viewing could
have a totally different image. Generally, the facts show that aid with tort
pockets does not bring about the desired change.
The Africa-Korea bilateral cooperation
seems need to focus on human rights development in its package to boost the
benefit of both parties. Since Korea’s
trade dependency rate hit about 90 percent Korea
will be the beneficiary of growth supported by developing democracy and human
rights movements in Africa. The market of the 21st
century creates interdependence wherein demand and supply have to be harmonized
while parallel growth is sharpened and maintained, in order to fully sustain
both parties’ benefit. The forum slogan “share today, shine tomorrow” will be
real when Korea and Africa work together to lift up the status of human rights.
geletawzeleke@gmail.com
Reference
http://www.gfintegrity.org/
