Bilateral partnerships

Trend/issue

Between countries, organisations, and actors in different sectors, partnerships have become the name of the game since the 1990s. NATO engages in partnerships with non-member countries allegedly to “contribute to improved security for the broader international community.” WTO works in partnership with other organisations “with the  aim of ensuring synergies, relevance and maximum value-added.” From mid-August to mid-November 2023 news about deepened partnerships between China and at least 9 countries or groups of countries came out. Terrorist actors, including al-Qaeda and the Islamic State, enter into partnerships to increase the effects of their activities. All kinds of heterogeneous multi-stakeholder partnerships including public and private actors have been set up to deal with everything from global standards and normative issues to within-country industry-specific change. The Danish Ministry of Foreign Affairs has established the Danida Green Business Partnerships bringing commercial and non-commercial partners together. And the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development adopted by heads of state even includes a separate goal on partnerships.

Thus, the term has come to mean a great many different things, and it may not always be entirely positive as some partnerships are likely to create significant challenges to non-partners. Despite this lack of clarity, partnerships are often characterised by (i) a longer-term cooperation between two or more actors, (ii) an agreement about the purpose and main activities of the partnership, (iii) a shared understanding among the partners that the benefits exceed the costs of the cooperation and sometimes that something can be achieved through the partnership which would not otherwise be possible, and (iv) a shared interest in reducing unpredictability by limiting the range of actions by other actors. Yet, organisations and countries engaging in a partnership never have completely identical interests meaning that compromises need to be negotiated. Hence, power enters the scene which will influence the nature and the goals of the partnerships. This means that personal relations, diplomatic skills, trust-building initiatives, and contingent matters may be important for the strength of partnerships.

The increasing interest in partnerships is probably parallel to the increasing attention to global performance indicators such as the Freedom House Index, the Corruption Perceptions Index etc. since the late 1990s. Both respond, among other things, to economic globalisation and the need for global public goods. Countries have become more interdependent economically and have, accordingly, an interest in locking down others in partnerships making the actions of partners more predictable. Similarly, indexes of country performance on this or that issue help setting common targets and increasing predictability. This is also important in relation to global public goods. Without common targets, peer pressure for action and partnerships to enable cooperation, it will be difficult to address global crises and establish necessary public goods. Despite current tendencies towards increased nationalism in many countries, the strength of economic globalisation and continuous and recurrent global crises are likely to push strongly for partnerships and other forms of cooperation in the medium to long term.

Africa

At the country level partnerships are as popular in Africa as anywhere else, but they take place within a particular context which strongly affects their nature and potential. Some African countries have the capacity and stability to engage in longer-term bilateral and other partnerships whereas others don’t. While partnerships where partners have different negotiating capacities and different levels of stability may be possible to organise, they are vulnerable and subject to rapid change given political transitions and socio-economic crises. Moreover, many African governments are deeply concerned about security issues and political opposition for which reason their interests in partnerships are heavily focussed on such matters.

The colonial and post-colonial legacies of most African countries also influence the scope for partnerships with countries outside the continent. Western countries – some more than others – are significantly discredited in comparison with other emerging powers outside Africa and need to take this as a starting point for cooperation. Development assistance pursuing Western liberal values in line with the last 30 years of development cooperation is unlikely to do the trick. A significant consideration of African interests is necessary including an attention to coming to terms with the past. For relatively stable and economically growing African countries commercial interests probably play a major role, and partnerships will have to cater for these. Here, Western countries may still have something to offer particularly if the partnerships include a clear ambition of strengthening African companies in terms of new technologies, business strategies, capacities, etc. – something which other non-African emerging powers are less concerned about. For unstable African countries with vulnerable governments Western countries will have to swallow many bitter pills to be able to offer attractive partnerships. In such cases the costs may well exceed the benefits as other global powers are ready to support the security interests of these governments with relatively few strings attached. Given the vulnerability of the governments, longer-term benefits of partnerships are also highly questionable. 

Denmark

Within its development cooperation Denmark has talked about and emphasised partnerships for more than 30 years. In recent years partnerships with non-state actors have been included into the portfolio whereas bilateral partnerships with developing countries have a long history. Comparatively speaking, Denmark has been relatively pragmatic and responsive to partner country concerns, and there is, accordingly, a wealth of experience to build on. Nevertheless, it may be necessary to consider new issues in bilateral partnerships:

(i)              The political concerns of partner governments could constitute a focal point of partnerships. While Denmark should, of course, have its own motives for entering bilateral partnerships, these could – in an attempt to overcome past injustices – be deliberately downplayed compared to the interests of partner governments. The challenge is, however, that these interests may be difficult to accept for Denmark.

(ii)            If longer-term geopolitical interests are at stake, it is worthwhile to limit the pursuit of shorter-term domestic interests. A combination of short- and long-term interests risks undermining each other, and partnerships are likely to be more successful, the more focused, simple and clear they are. A framework for partnerships legitimizing these to a Danish audience could be the Sustainable Development Goals which reflect many Danish values, but also address African concerns.

(iii)           The public sector in Denmark could take up a more active role in establishing commercial cooperation. Emerging economies often benefit from a close relationship between the state and the private sector, and likewise it could be relevant for Denmark to offer public-private partnerships or something similar to the strategic sector cooperation, but together with the private sector, as part of bilateral partnerships satisfying the commercial ambitions of African governments. However, such an approach is probably challenged by both limited capacity in the public sector and a Danish tradition for keeping the private and public sectors apart.

Given Denmark’s particular history emphasising democracy, human rights and poverty reduction, three strategic dilemmas could be considered:

a)            Should Denmark enter into partnerships with governments whose popular mandate is questionable? While full-blown electoral democracy with peaceful transitions of government may be a too comprehensive requirement, some minimum level of popular support will be important to avoid discrediting the partnership and Denmark.

b)            Should Denmark enter into partnerships with governments in one particular field while ignoring questionable human rights conditions in others? Acknowledging that Denmark is unable to dictate partners’ human rights policies and practices, it is necessary to allow for some disagreement and only to disengage if this increases the benefits, including with respect to human rights.

c)            Should Denmark enter into partnerships with governments who do not prioritise poverty reduction? If focused, simple and clear, specific partnerships may address issues which do not directly entail poverty reduction, but a certain focus on poverty reduction in the whole portfolio of partnerships is likely to support both Danish geopolitical interests and Denmark’s international standing. In line with how the strong Danish support of the anti-apartheid movement 40 years ago created longer-term cooperation and understanding with countries in Southern Africa, a strong unselfish support for poor people and countries may help creating African support for Danish positions in international bodies. Moreover, a clear reference to the Sustainable Development Goals in each partnership will help justifying cooperation with a limited focus on poverty reduction.

Denmark will undoubtedly often be able to promote longer-term interests through the EU and its collaboration with African governments, but bilateral partnerships may also help pushing this collaboration towards Danish concerns. Thus, a combination of within-EU efforts and bilateral partnerships may be useful to consider.

Literature

Danida Business Partnerships. (2022). What is DGBP?. https://danida-business-partnerships.dk/dgbp/

Engberg-Pedersen, L. (2019). Partnerskaber. I S. Hildebrandt, & L. Josephsen (eds.) Globale mål. Visionen om bæredygtig udvikling. Copenhagen: DJØF Forlag.

Engberg-Pedersen, L., Larsen, S., T., Rasmussen, C., V. (2014). NEW PARTNERSHIPS AND NEW ACTORS IN DEVELOPMENT COOPERATION. DIIS REPORT 2014: 23.

Kelley, J., G., & Simmons, B., A., (2020). The power of global performance indicators. Cambridge University Press.

Moghadam, A. (2017). Nexus of global jihad: Understanding cooperation among terrorist actors. Columbia University Press.

NATO. (2024). NATO’s partnerships. https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/topics_84336.htm.

WTO. Partnerships. https://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/devel_e/teccop_e/partnerships_e.htm.