Israel needs an Aggressive Development Policy in Africa, or at least for those countries closest to it
Israel is by no means a very rich state, yet in relation to most countries in the region, and to those countries in sub-Saharan Africa it is indeed a wealthy country. The average Israeli is not conscious of where Sudan, Eritrea or Ethiopia is. For the most part, Africa is a place that is far- and hot, poor and far. Yet, it is clear that the physical Africa is not far as the psychological one. The immigration crisis is an indication of how Israel is seen in Africa, and also how Israel has viewed Africa. The government’s view is that the African immigration through the Sinai Peninsula as an economic immigration and not as a refugee issue. The government envisaged solution is building a fence along the Sinai border. Yet, it is improbable that the fence will prove an effective protection against local smugglers who are thriving of the smuggling business. The better solution to the problem however, is to be more involved in solving the root causes that are fuelling the influx of refugees across the border. Israel needs to be aggressively involved in the political, diplomatic and development issues of the region of North and North Eastern Africa.
The people smuggling business is run by Bedouin smugglers who are quite familiar of the porous border between Egypt and Israel. Moreover, even if the border fence becomes operational and manages to stave off the infiltration, it is unlikely to succeed to renewed efforts of smugglers to find alternative ways under the fence or through it. With the large amount of money it is said that they make of this business, it is likely that smugglers can involve border police officers in Egypt to turn a blind eye to their operation. It is doubtful if building a fence 30 times longer than the fence between Egypt and the Gaza strip will effectively halt human or other form of smuggling. A long term solution will need to be more innovative than a 200 mile fence across a desert, which would need to be manned and maintained to ensure its efficiency.
The other issue is that Israel has been losing to its arch enemies in the field of International Diplomacy and Courtship. Iran has been aggressively building a relationship with African countries, in the West and in the Centre as well as down the red sea with Eritrea. Israel on the other hand has continued to implement a long running diplomatic interchange with African countries based on its national interest such as oil and the usual concerns of image on the global stage. Economically, Israel’s international development policy seems limited technology exchange, mostly in the field of agriculture. Compared with the robust international charm offensive of countries like Iran, and the economic investments of countries such as Saudi Arabia in the agricultural sector and other sectors, Israel seems still on the sluggish lane.
Israel’s strategic interests lie in the region far closer to it than Senegal, where Iran has been building a car assembly plant or Nigeria, both regional super powers in their respective corners of Africa. The Eastern Africa region, especially those parts including Ethiopia, Eritrea, Sudan, south Sudan (soon enough South Sudan), and Somalia are of immense strategic importance to Israel. Sudan, Eritrea and Somalia hug along most of the Red Sea coast, a vital sea route crucial to global trade, including Israel’s naval and merchant fleet security.
Sudan, Africa’s largest country, has always maintained its hostile stance towards the Jewish state. Its travel restrictions relating to travel to Israel, is one of the strictest. The recent discovery of oil in Sudan and what will be South Sudan, has increased the interest of the US and China in the country. Both of which vie for Sudan’s oil. Sudan however continues to be a major player in the region along with Egypt, especially in the issue of the fair share of the Nile waters, on which the two countries form a side against the rest of the countries in the region. Sudan stand on Israel is similar to the stands of the rest of Arab countries, and much doesn’t seem to change on that front. South Sudan, a new country in the making, has had a referendum a few weeks ago whose results will almost certainly divide Sudan into two and most of Sudanese oil wells. Israel had supported the independence movement of the Southern Sudanese people since the 1960s and thus has a good historical connection. If the referendum and the breakup of Sudan is peacefully realised in the coming few months, South Sudan will offer a chance to balance Sudan’s hostile stance on Israel
Eritrea, an increasingly isolated and highly repressive country, has been a source of thousands of refugees in Israel. It is said to have had reached agreement with the Iranians on the use of the oil refinery southern port of Assab, which lay abandoned ever since 1998, when the Eritrea and Ethiopia, the main user of the port went to war. Eritrea has been reportedly implicated in being one of the drop-off spots for arms destined to Hamas in the Gaza strip. The arms were said to arrive in a great semi-circle arc from Iran, through the Indian Ocean to Eritrea’s southern port, and then by land through Sudan and Egypt.
Then there is Somalia, which has fragmented in 1991 to two de facto states and various territories run by warlords and militia groups. Its Transitional government elected by a compromise of warlords and tribal chiefs, is confined to the capital city Mogadishu, similar to the central government in Kabul, Afghanistan. Somalia is similar to Afghanistan not only in its turbulent recent history, but also because it is new nest of Islamic extremists. In areas where the extremist don’t control, such as in coastal villages, piracy has replaced fishing as the choice career path. In those areas, pirates are very much in control. Using small fishing boats and small arms, and shoulder held rocket launchers, Somali fishermen turned pirates routinely hijack ships crossing the Gulf of Aden and sometimes even sail up to the middle of the Indian Ocean to make their catch.
Landlocked Ethiopia’s relationship with Israel is by far the warmest in the region. Owing to the large Ethiopian origin population in Israel and the history of cooperation between Israel and previous governments, this seems to be the most amicable connection of Israel to the region. There are Israeli investors investing in the horticulture industry in the country, and in other agricultural and construction sectors. Yet, it is still not comparable to the level of economic interests other Arab countries have with Ethiopia. Ethiopia’s relationship with Saudi Arabia is strong, with Agricultural exports from Ethiopia and Saudi investment in different sectors increasing consistently. Saudi Arabia has for years increased its influence in the country, by increasing its investments and financing the building of mosques and schools for the country’s Muslim population. On the economic level, the trade ties between Saudi Arabia and Ethiopia is one of the highest for the East African country.
Israel’s foreign and economic policies for the most part, has shunned away from playing a major role in much of East Africa. This has so far seemed the right thing to do, as whatever happens in those countries didn’t offer any kind of threat to the economy and security of Israel. In today’s world, however, it is obvious that has changed. For many years, Israel has continued to exist behind its own line of defence wary of military and public security concerns. It has considered itself as besieged by enemies, as it is, and has constantly set up lines of defence and barriers, between itself and its enemies. Surprisingly, the population group from which most of the migrants originate were never appeared a cause for concern for Israel in the past. Darfurians from Sudan and Eritreans were never deemed as a security concern. Yet their increasingly visible and growing presence has made the government view them as a demographic threat to the Jewish and democratic nature of the country. The recent solution to build a fence on the southern border with Egypt seems more in line with the way Israel has addressed recent security threats than the complexity of issues driving hordes of immigrants into its border. Perhaps, the building of a fence is typical of a siege mentality that has characterised Israel. This has worked in the past, reducing suicide bombings in Jerusalem and jewish settlements near the West Bank and Gaza, but seems likely to be a costly overreaction to immigration and human smuggling business
Israel needs to step out of its siege mentality, and view those countries which are a source of the new wave of refugees and/or economic migrants, in a more broad minded approach. The recent interview that the Eritrean ambassador to Israel gave to Y-net is an indication of how Israel’s regional policy needs to be reviewed. The Eritrean Ambassador said that the country will not accept any deportees from Israel, and blamed Israel for creating the situation in Israel. In his words, “Israel has created the situation by accepting the first migrant and giving him a refugee status...they should have sent the first one back.” The utter lack of cooperation that the Eritrean government’s envoy showed to Israel’s conceived plan of deporting Eritrean unsuccessful asylum seekers back to Eritrea shows how far apart Israel and Eritrea see on the issue. Eritrea, sees return of refugees in Israel as a nuisance to its repressive politics and an end to valuable remittance that the regime relies on. While the Israeli government’s view of almost all Eritrean refugees as economic migrants and thus liable to deportation doesn’t seem even to ring a hint of responsibility to the Eritrean government, whose envoy shrugged off as being too late and politely explained that they will not accept deported Eritreans. Surprising, isn’t it?!
For the most part of the last century, Israel’s image in Africa has suffered due to the influence of Arab states and oil exporting countries stand against Israel, over the wars that were fought with neighbouring Arab states. Israel’s decision to support the Apartheid government of South Africa, didn’t add to Israel’s image in that part of the world. The world has changed since then, and is set to ever change and shape itself as well. Israel’s international development policy for the region would result in completing the repair of Israel’s image in Africa. Engaging in a dynamic and aggressive regional policy will mean exerting influence in the regional issues with a view of Israel’s long term national and strategic interest at heart and with the aim of forging lasting and mutually benefitting alliances. Building a fence is but a preliminary action; the solution is far off and would need an adjustment on how Israel sees Africa and what it can do in Africa. After all, the horn of Africa is one of the most populous parts of Africa. It certainly has strategic values, which Israel has an interest on.
