In theory, Ghana and South Africa ought to be allies.
In reality, that brotherhood was put to the test this week when it emerged that Ghana had called off a state visit by the South African president.
The reasons cited: continued xenophobic attacks against Ghanaians and other Africans in South Africa.
A state visit cancellation isn’t a small gesture in diplomacy. It is a signal. And this sign could herald a shift in the direction of African states’ reactions when Pan-African solidarity comes into conflict with domestic violence against Africans.
A relationship built on liberation, not just trade
To appreciate the importance of this, we must go back.
In 1957, Ghana broke free of British colonial rule under Kwame Nkrumah and took on the mantle of the leader of African liberation.
Accra was a haven for exiles, training of guerrillas, and diplomatic support for movements combating colonialism and apartheid.
One of the early beneficiaries was the African National Congress. Ghana granted ANC members Ghanaian passports and supported their struggle at the UN on the international stage when apartheid South Africa was isolated.
Following 1994, the relationship developed, with Nelson Mandela and Jerry Rawlings strengthening economic and cultural relations between Ghana and South Africa.
South African firms made big investments in Ghana’s telecoms, retail and banking sectors. Many thousands of Ghanaians also moved to South Africa to learn and work.
The reported cancellation was all the more shocking given its shared history of struggle. It implies that if you want to do diplomacy as usual, history is no longer sufficient.
What the cancellation means for bilateral relations
The state visit is the highest form of state diplomacy. Cancelling it comes at a cost.
First, it is a symbolic downgrade.
It communicates to Pretoria that its domestic governance issues have become a foreign policy issue. Second, it runs the risk of a de facto freeze.
Joint commissions, AfCFTA trade agreements, and investment protection arrangements may be stalled. South African-based companies doing business in Ghana may come under greater pressure and public criticism.
Thirdly, it establishes a precedent. Ghana is stating that bilateral ties cannot be divorced from the way citizens are treated.
African countries have been more inclined towards “quiet diplomacy” when it comes to xenophobia for decades. Accra has just made it loud.
A signal to the rest of Africa
Ghanaians are not the only Africans targeted in South Africa.
Over the last 10 years, Nigerians, Zimbabweans, Mozambicans, Congolese and others have been subjected to similar attacks. Other African governments have tended to speak out and then do nothing.
By cancelling the visit, Ghana has altered the equation.
There is a clear message to other African states: they can be used to defend their citizens overseas.
The message to South Africa is more unambiguous:
African solidarity has strings attached. When one state does not take care of another state’s citizens in Africa, it will pay a diplomatic price.
More nations could follow Ghana’s lead, and South Africa may face concerted pressure instead of individual protests.
Pan-Africanism at a crossroads
There are two pillars of Pan-Africanism: political unity and solidarity of people.
The vision of an integrated, prosperous and peaceful Africa, driven by its own citizens, is captured in the words of Agenda 2063.
This crisis reveals the disconnect between words and deeds.
We are commemorating continental integration in Addis Ababa, and in some townships, we are witnessing fellow Africans being attacked for trading or renting property.
Ghana’s action raises a much-needed discussion.
Is Pan-Africanism simply a series of declarations and speeches? Or is it a binding norm that needs to be enforced?
I believe the African Union and ECOWAS could set a precedent if they support Ghana because there could be regional repercussions if there is xenophobic violence in Africa.
Else, Pan-Africanism is in danger of being perceived as a charade.
The International Relations lesson
Three fundamental IR theories are at play in this episode.
Norms influence state behaviour from a Constructivist point of view. Nkrumah and Mandela established a norm of African solidarity. Xenophobia violates it.
Ghana is upholding that norm and demonstrating that ideas, not just power, propel diplomacy.
States, from a Realist point of view, act to protect their citizens.
Ghana did not, and that is why it resorted to diplomatic costs. History was secondary to national interest.
Institutions such as the AU and AfCFTA are trust-based, from a Liberal Institutionalist prism.
The persistence of xenophobia is eroding that trust. Ghana’s switch is an alarm bell that economic integration without social integration is not possible.
The bigger lesson is the obvious one:
In 21st-century Africa, domestic policy is foreign policy. The way other states treat a state will depend on the way that state treats migrants.
Conclusion
This is more than one cancelled visit. It is Ghana saying to South Africa, and the continent, that liberation history does not get immunity; it gets goodwill.
The relationship could be restored and further strengthened if Pretoria takes steps to provide protection to foreign nationals and prosecute perpetrators. Otherwise, it could be the first significant break in the post-apartheid era of diplomacy.
Pan-Africanism is not going to be assassinated in a summit hall. Its death will be in a township. With the cancellation of this visit, Ghana has refused to allow this to happen in silence.
Disclosure statement
Narayana Osei-Nyarko is a postgraduate student at the University of Gold Coast, Accra, in the Graduate School of Law. His research interests are international law, security, and diplomacy in Africa.
