Ineffective Russian MOUs in Africa

A Memorandum of Understanding in general terms is an agreement between two or more parties who have the desire of cooperating to reach common goals which will be beneficial to either of the parties involved. In international relations, MOUs are not binding on any of the parties and cannot be enforced before any UN organ. Therefore, it takes only commitment and purpose to fulfill them and surely, they are mostly fulfilled because of the benefits each party stands to benefit.

MOUs entail policies, projects and other components that parties who share the same intent agree to pursue. International MOUs could be an agreement between states to pursue a common goal in areas like education, agriculture, infrastructure or industry that both sides have interest of pursuing. An example is the MOU signed between The ROSATOM overseas, a subsidiary of the state-owned ROSATOM nuclear group of Russia and the South Africa’s North West University .This agreement entails cooperative scientific research, joint seminars, the exchange of specialists and the joint development of text books. Another recent example is the MOU signed between Ghana’s Ministry of Energy and ROSATOM to establish a bilateral cooperation in the field of nuclear energy for peaceful purposes. Whiles Russia stand the chance of promoting their nuclear technology in the world market in such cases, South Africa and Ghana also stand the chance of developing their capacity in technology building as well. And this for me has been the force that holds MOUs, the mutual benefits.

Signing an MOU, whether on personal basis or in the international environment simply indicates that either of the parties is committed to pursuing whatever policies that have been agreed upon. And since all parties stand a chance of benefiting, they are therefore obliged to commit every necessary resource that will enhance its fulfillment. As already stated, signing an MOU between nations implies the nations commitment to a vision shared by another nation and is ready to commit resources to achieve them .However, it must never be forgotten that nations are not legally binded to commit to an MOU since it has no legal backing and will not stand a test before any international organ. It is therefore a mere agreement to work together.

Russia’s relations with Africa generally, has dwindled after the cold war and has been massively overtaken by China and the West due to the huge amount of benefits Africa is getting from these sources in recent years. However, it can never be overlooked that Russia has in recent years made efforts to contribute to the region in many areas especially in the energy sector and military related supports. However, I could suggest that MOUs between Russia and Africa that are not fully implemented to achieve the necessary results for both Africa and Russia are because of the following reasons.

1. ERRATIC FLOW OF FUNDS: Most MOUs between nations are mostly concerned with projects and targets that will require adequate flow of funds from either signatories of the agreement. .In most MOUs between African and non-African countries, the European /non-African partners seem to have the largest share of financial contributions. Its either a 60 40, 70 30 or even a 90 10. Most often non-African partners are able to fulfill such demands but the inability to fully implement the agreements has usually been a challenge from the side of the African partners. Due to the low financial strength and the high demand on their little financial base, they are sometimes put under pressure to commit such funds to other pressing issues which needs to be tackled with immediate effect. The tiny purse of African countries and the delay in the flow of cash even when they are available, I can say could be a major factor.

2. LOW LEVEL OF COMMITMENT. The importance with which Africans attach to some agreements has always been questionable. This I can allude to a general bad attitude to work especially when it is state-related when individuals do not stand a chance of reaping profits into their own pockets immediately. Commitments to such agreements are difficult, not on the part of the state but the individuals representing the state. I can also allude this problem to the fact that MOUs are not legally binding so the commitment of states can dwindle when they realize it is taking them nowhere or is too demanding and above their capacity.

3. WEST/EAST COMPETITION: We can never overlook the seeming competition between the east and western powers for a share of influence in Africa. America and China, as powerful and influential as they have become on the continent will go all lengths to suppress Russian influence in Africa in order to cement their authority and reap all the benefits alone. They could interfere by toasting the African partners to back off the Russian agreement and in return offer a more lucrative project or agreement.

4. POLITICAL ORIENTATION OF GOVERNMENTS IN POWER: African countries and their governments have a bad culture of bitter ideological differences. Some claim to be social democrats, capitalists and western, socialists and many other sometimes obscure political orientations. We also have a bad culture that once a government is out of power, the next political party is never ready to continue with their policies, agreements and projects due to ideological differences. A few African governments would want to continue with their predecessors policies and agreements and usually, it is only when they stand a chance of gaining benefits, that is immediate and tangible development that will score them political points for the next election.

5. CORRUPTION can never be overlooked as well. It is now a disease among African Authorities. Even when funds are available for implementation, bureaucratic processes which breeds corruption cause a shrink in the funds allocated even before it finally gets to the implementation stage

I must admit that due to Russia’s desire to have an influence in the African region, I believe it is a serious partner who is ready to work with African leaders in order to revive their authority in the international scene. I believe that if there is a problem of non-implementation after agreement of an MOU, the above issues to me are the major inhibitions in Africa now. However aside all these inhibitions I have stated, I believe that a more lucrative offer from Russia in terms of industry, business, infrastructure and agriculture which are the dire needs of Africans now will place Russia in a high pedestal in terms of Africa /Non Africa relations. If Russia is able to offer and commit itself to supervision and cash flow in subsequent Russia/Africa MOUs, I believe Russian and African MOUs can be fully implemented for the benefit of all parties. Joel Ayim Darkwah