Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
IN his New Year speech, President Thabo Mbeki of South Africa announced: "We must, as Africans, say enough is enough - we have seen too many military coups, too many wars. We have had to live with corruption. We have seen our continent being marginalised." Mbeki followed this up with a ringing attack on Western countries, demanding that they reduce the continent's debt burden and get more involved in settling African disputes.
Such appeals no longer work. Given that much of Africa's debt derives from its leaders' widespread habit of siphoning off public funds and funnelling them into their foreign bank accounts (Nigeria's late president, Sani Abacha, had more than £1.5 billion in such accounts and Zaire's Mobutu a multiple of that) it is not obvious why the West should forgive such theft by writing off the debt.
And doesn't Africa marginalise itself? At present no fewer than 20 of the Organisation for African Unity's 53 members are involved in wars of one kind or another, and no African leader has been willing to criticise Robert Mugabe's campaign of state terrorism against his opponents in Zimbabwe - indeed, President Mbeki himself recurrently appears hand in hand with Mugabe, whose thugs are committing torture, murder and gang rape.
More fundamental still, the first thing most African states did at independence was to lurch from self-sufficiency in food to desperate dependence on Western handouts. The Food and Agriculture Organisation lists 15 African states now experiencing serious food supply difficulties, often as a result of the ravages of war. About 10 million people are said to be short of food in the Congo, 900,000 refugees in Rwanda are "in need of urgent food assistance", while violence in neighbouring Burundi has forced the suspension of international aid, despite a growing famine. In Eritrea 500,000 are affected - and more in Ethiopia, two other states at war with one another; the civil war in the Sudan means that two million people there rely on emergency food supplies. An estimated 1.6 million are starving in southern Somalia, but are inaccessible to relief because of civil conflict.
War-torn Angola is, the UN says, "the worst country in the world in which to be a child". Food shortages are looming in Sierra Leone and Zimbabwe. Per capita income for the continent as a whole has fallen from £420 in 1975 to £325 last year; everywhere else it has soared.
It is no answer to blame Western colonialism. Many former colonies from Malaysia to Mauritius are doing just fine, after all - and in much of Africa local people regard it as uncontroversially true that things were better under colonialism. But in any case, blaming colonialism doesn't answer the question of what needs to be done about Africa - the problem child continent - now.
The choices aren't easy. One African UN official, aghast at the Rwanda atrocities, spoke bitterly but off the record. When you look at what they've done, he said, there's no way you can want to hand power back to the local elites. So the world has three choices: to put in place a long-term UN mandate system - in effect recolonising the place; to allow private companies to do the same; or to walk away. The trouble is, much the same could be said of many other parts of Africa.
Other remedies are possible. One would be to break up some of the bigger countries. The never-ending war in the biggest state of all, the Sudan, pits northern lighter skinned Muslims against black Christians in the south. Why not face reality, partition the country and start again? The same is true of the Democratic Republic of the Congo. The Congo was created and held together only by brutal Belgian rule. Once that ceased, mayhem and war were the norm - punctuated by a long period of similarly brutal dictatorship under Mobutu. We have seen interventions there by the UN, the CIA, French paras, mercenaries of every kind and now by neighbouring African states. None of these has done more than produce a pause in the mayhem. Surely it would be better to partition into more manageable units there, too? Angola's endless war similarly suggests a partition between a Unita-ruled south and MPLA-ruled north.
There is some force to this, but not enough. The war between Eritrea and Ethiopia shows that conflict need not cease after partition, while some of Africa's smallest states - Uganda, Equatorial Guinea and Rwanda, for example - have seen some of the worst dictatorships and massacres.
The really key variable appears to be the nature of Africa's political elites. Irrespective of their political orientation, these elites have, with few exceptions, been corrupt and authoritarian and have often presided over the virtual destruction of their national economies. Often their rule has culminated in the complete disintegration of their states, so that all that is left by the end are feuding warlords in a Hobbesian state of nature. The end of the Cold War saw Western donors make their continuing aid conditional on "democracy and good governance". This has produced some improvement - but has also shown that you cannot drag these elites, kicking and screaming, towards democracy if they don't want it themselves.
Old colonial hands tend to regard the continent's elites as incorrigible and insist that trying to bully them into becoming democrats is a bit like trying to make a lion become a vegetarian. In any case, they argue, you can't divorce elite behaviour from the more general culture of African societies, in which patrimonialism and communalism remain the key values. Patrimonialism, they argue, breeds the cult of the big man who is expected to aggrandise himself in office and whose authority is not to be checked by mere elections - or mocked by a free press.
And communalism and the lack of private land ownership, they say, mean that Africans are used to taking whatever they want from their environment and making no effort to maintain or protect it. In conditions of dramatically increased population this leads to soil erosion, a failure to maintain the infrastructure and an endemic tendency toward pilferage.
There is enough truth in such assessments to make many commentators snort with derision when they hear President Mbeki speak of the 21st century being "the African century", the era of the "African renaissance". But whereas African leaders would once have denounced greater Western involvement in solving African disputes as colonialist, Mbeki is actually appealing for it - acknowledging in effect that Africa cannot manage itself. And the West, in any case, cannot just walk away. It is not merely that Africa is rich in raw materials, including huge and still untapped oil and gas reserves. With human rights becoming an ever more prominent theme of foreign policy - this is what the Bosnian and Kosovo interventions were all about, after all - it is just not possible for Western policy-makers to avert their eyes from human catastrophes of every kind in Africa without subverting their own policies elsewhere in the world. As the CIA now accepts, in a globalised world Aids in Africa is a threat to American security.
The real question is what form will Western involvement take? We have seen brief interventions, emergency famine relief and, as the realisation grows that this is a continent where only tough love works, diplomatic and economic pressure. This has not been enough. What is staring us in the face is a reversion to the old mandate system: an acknowledgement that decolonisation has not really worked and that Africa needs sustained outside help in reconstructing its ravaged economies and collapsed states. At present such a reinvention of colonialism - for that is what it is - brings gasps of politically correct horror. But sooner or later this is what will have to be faced.
R W Johnson is the author of Ironic Victory: Liberalism in Post-Liberation South Africa (OUP, 1999)
too bad about Africa. Like Russia, it has more than enought natural resources to provide a good life for everyone. Untill there is a rule of law and respect for private property, there is little they or anyone from outside the country can do.
My wife teaches high school history. The recent SOL testing had some tough questions on Africa. She and some of the other teachers thought Africa was relatively unimportant to receive so much emphasis. I told them I thought Africa is terribly important, for the following reason. Currently there is no "frontier". The reason America is so great is because it was the frontier where freedom could be had. Africa will be a frontier soon. The people who live there are voluntarily depopulating it.
You can believe the Chinese are pondering this, long term.
in much of Africa local people regard it as uncontroversially true that things were better under colonialism
I have been reading similar ideas for a few years now. Privately, many among Africa's elites yearn for recolonialization. It is politically incorrect to say so publicly of course.
With human rights becoming an ever more prominent theme of foreign policy - this is what the Bosnian and Kosovo interventions were all about, after all
I think we've seen enough to disprove this rationale for Mr. Bill's Splendid Little Balkans Adventure. Human rights had almost zilch to do with anything there (as evidenced by the fact that no one in the Clinton/Gore/Albright/Blair/Jospin clique gives a damn about Albanian atrocities committed against ethnic Serbs).
Bump
These problems will continue in both Africa and Russia until people realize that it's better to be a rich peasant than ruler of a poor country.
Other remedies are possible. One would be to break up some of the bigger countries. The never-ending war in the biggest state of all, the Sudan, pits northern lighter skinned Muslims against black Christians in the south. Why not face reality, partition the country and start again? The same is true of the Democratic Republic of the Congo. The Congo was created and held together only by brutal Belgian rule.
Britain used to be an empire, until it became politically incorrect to continue calling it that. So, it renamed itself into a "Commonwealth." But, one should always be wary when imperials speak of dividing up sovereign nations for the alleged good of said sovereign nations. In principle, it's not different from the old adage of "divide and conquer."
There are tons of valuable natural resources in Africa. That's all that the colonials ever really cared about. The only reason to divide and conquer is to make extraction and exploitation of those resources easier for those who covet them.
What Africa needs is to be left alone so they can fight among themselves until they build stable countries.
In Europe, the people fought for centuries until the borders and languages were firmly established.
This has never happened in Africa. Tribes have never coalesced and nations have never formed.
If Africa is re-colonized, you simply do two things. First, you perpetuate and build greater resentment towards the west. Second, African nations will never pass through the necessary phase of “nation building”.
With modern weapons this can be very bloody. We also may have to face the fact that the African people simply don’t have what it takes to build stable, safe, and thriving nations. In that case, re-colonization would be an option. However, if that plan were to be implemented, it would have to be a full “take over” and not a political partnership.
As far as I can see, Africa is a lost cause and a loose-loose situation for the west.
I beg to differ....Rhodesia during the Smith years had a higher GDP than the US.....tribes were peaceful...food was exported to the poor african states......it was not until the Brits and Jimmy Carter started playing politics...pandering to American Black voters is the reason Southern Africa became the mess it is now......thats the good news the bad news ......it's your turn now!
Old colonial hands tend to regard the continent's elites as incorrigible and insist that trying to bully them into becoming democrats is a bit like trying to make a lion become a vegetarian.
Good article. I don't agree with the proposed remedy, but the diagnosis of the problem is pretty good.
The reason America is so great is because it was the frontier where freedom could be had
America without a frontier is America without a destiny.
Related editorial in the Wash Post:
Africans are used to taking whatever they want from the environment...
Call the Sierra Club and Greenpeace to the rescue. We have a surplus of greenies in America and Britain.
Oh...., you mean..?.. I see... The greenies only "help" mostly white American capitalists....
Now I see... Green must be Red.
"Clear-eyed?" Are you recommending that American troops participate in the crazy imperial effort? The lion's share of Africa's problems stem from a clear source. Its "national" borders are a legacy of colonial power rivalries, rather than ethnic or tribal boundaries. The African "nations" were never nations per se. Lest we think that whites are immune, I call attention to Bosnia (an artificial "country") which has a lot in common with its counterparts in Africa for precise the same historical reasons.
The only way that Africa can overcome these problems is not a social engineering re-colonialization scheme but a hands off policy. Since the first European attempt at colonialization failed so miserably by creating these arbitrary "nations," why do you think a reckless second attempt would be "clear-eyed?" Do you also support "re-colonialization" of Bosnia? The logic of your argument would indicate that you do.
Robnoel: "Rhodesia during the Smith years had a higher GDP than the US."
Wow! Can you provide a source for this claim that Rhodesia ever had "a higher GDP than the U.S.? If you can, you can completely overturn our understanding of world history.
"Clear-eyed?" Are you recommending that American troops participate in the crazy imperial effort?
No, do you like putting words in other people’s mouths?
The lion's share of Africa's problems stem from a clear source. Its "national" borders are a legacy of colonial power rivalries, rather than ethnic or tribal boundaries.
Part of the problem, but as the writer pointed out the "corrupt and authoritarian" leadership of these countries has also been a large part of the problem.
why do you think a reckless second attempt would be "clear-eyed?"
I clearly stated (apparently not clearly enough for you) that there is much to debate in the article. I felt his analysis of the current situation was clear-eyed.
Do you also support "re-colonialization" of Bosnia? The logic of your argument would indicate that you do.
Why do you feel the need to invent "the logic of my argument" for me? Where did I even say that I supported recolonization, let alone explain the logic behind it? If you have a disagreement with the author, you can you learn to state your disagreements without devolving into childish and emotional hyperbole.
If you had some faith in your own ability to counter the author’s opinion, you could do so. Instead, you assigned a strawman opinion to me and knocked it down. Your post lacks substance.
Well documented in many publications.....if you never were told the history of Rhodesia and most if not all Americans were not......I know this fact is hard to deal with
Heres a source Ian Smith
I apologize for putting words in your mouth but your enthusiastic praise of the article (with no amendments) did not give me much to go on. In any case, we disagree that there is anything particularly original or insightful in this article. Must of us know that Africa is a screwed up place and that it is ruled by authoritarian and corrupt elites. The only new thing in article was that the scary and reckless assertion that it is time consider re-colonization Africa. By using the term "clear-eyed," I assumed that you agreed with the central thrust of the article, (e.g. re-colonialization) and were not referring to the less important background details about Africa (which are common knowledge).
Thank you for the source. I will check it out. Does he argue that the total GDP of Rhodesia was higher than the U.S. which, to be honest, simply is not true, or was he claiming that the per capita GDP was higher (which I do not believe is true)? Now, I do agree that economic policies under Smith were much better under Mugabe, and GDP *growth* may have been higher than that of the U.S. but that is different than your original claim.
come on....it had to be "per capita GDP "......which means Rhodesians were more productive .....this IMHO was just another reason to kill it....
"Sooner or later"??? I don't see any difference between 'developing' africa and 'civilizing' africa. Africa has been under liberal colonization and liberal missionary efforst for 50 years. If you want to change things you would have to set them free, not take them in. Either that or use conservative colonizationa and missionary work instead of the liberal junk.
I'll give $5 to anyone who can give me a coherent explanation of why 'develop' is any different from 'civilize' and why 'undeveloped' is any different from 'uncivilized.'
I think that probably the question of colonialism in Africa is basically not so much a matter of "whether," so much as it is "when, by whom, and by what euphemism will it be called?" I think the "how" part is in the midst of being established.
The sad fact is that much of Black Africa is apparently incapable of stable governance. Civilized people are naturally horrified by the violence there, and want the violence ended. Africa is also a tremedous source of natural resources, but getting to them requires stability. If you combine the sentimental and economic motivations for peace in Africa, it's virtually certain that the various U.N. "peacekeeping" missions will continue.
The U.N., of course, has a dismal record in African peacekeeping. For whatever reason, African peace-keepers aren't getting the job done. (My own guess is that it's because the peacekeeping forces are usually from countries that are only marginally more stable than those in which they're keeping the peace.) More effective peacekeepers are needed.
So: given the imperative for "peacekeeping", and the inability of Africans to succeed at it, the only viable alternative is to introduce peacekeepers from other continents. In reality, this means Europe; the US and Canada; and perhaps China, and eventually, perhaps, Russia.
It would not be surprising to see Africa broken up into "zones," each controlled by a different large "peacekeeper." These might initially operate under the aegis of the U.N., but over time nationalistic concerns would edge out any real U.N. control.
Which means: colonialism under the guise of peacekeeping.
You may be proved correct.
I beg to differ....Rhodesia during the Smith years had a higher GDP than the US.....tribes were peaceful...food was exported to the poor african states......it was not until the Brits and Jimmy Carter started playing politics...pandering to American Black voters is the reason Southern Africa became the mess it is now......thats the good news the bad news ......it's your turn now!
Zim now has a per capita GNP of around $2,500. I once read somewhere that the economy has shrunk by 40% since the whites lost power. That would mean that per capita GNP was $3,500 in 1980, which does not support your claim.
No one needs to exagerate on this issue because the facts are on our side. When you exagerate you just weaken an already strong argument.
Why couldnt these African countries seize the assets of the former leaders like the U.S. would. Lord knows that if anyone in this country tried to sneak $10,000 anywhere, the gubmint would grab hold on and never let it cross the borders.
I must agree. In the face of recent screeds like Jonah Goldberg's in National Review, calling for us to more or less invade Africa and straighten things out, comments like "clear-eyed" sound suspicious.
We need to avoid military involvement in Africa like the plague. Colonialism sounds like fun when the "elite" are begging you to come in and run things. It's when the determined 10% that hates your guts starts their guerrilla wars that things get ugly.
Our foreign policy should be simple: let the chips fall where they may in foreign countries, and get along with whoever is in power. No entangling alliances, no empires.
All too often, America has chosen one side in a domestic dispute and helped them fight the other side. The best that can come of this is that the other side hates us for life. The worst is that the whole country comes to despise us. Mind your own business, and you have the potential to be hated by neither.
If someone is still determined to go straighten out Africa, he can pack his rifle and go do it himself.
" That would mean that per capita GNP was $3,500 in 1980, which does not support your claim."
I think my calculation was off. The population of Zim in 1980 was 6 million, while it's now 10 million. Assuming the entire economy has remained constant(which I believe is true) the per capita figures have to adjusted.
Therefore, the per capita income of Rhodesia was $5,800 per person. This about what South Africa's is today.
Where is all this madness coming from?
I agree that we should not go in Africa, now or ever.
But what I want to know is where it's all coming from. From when Zimbabwe started boiling, to Sierra Leone and now to these grand schemes for re-colonisation. It's all been rather quick. Next we'll be in the Congo and Eritrea.
Where has all this come from and just what have they got to gain?
Any way, now I've a chance to plug my Yahoo! club on just this topic. Come along,
Dibs on South Africa.
I ain't gonna play Sun City!!
(oh, OK, maybe I can get in 18 before I hit the bar.)
The economy of Rhodesia in the 1970's (with sanctions in effect) was one of the hottest in the world.
Let all Africa cook longer - in the pot they set to boiling.
Black rule in Black Africa is decades from being worthy of any additional assistance.... Up to now - most has been stolen or wasted.
If African "leaders" refuse to condemn the murderous bastards in their midst - and their actions -- I'm all for leaving them all to their own "sweet charity".... but NONE from me.
Sorry - but I have no additional compassion... I would rather direct efforts and money to where there is some hope of improving living conditions - LONG TERM.
Semper Fi
--I would say in the long run that africa will be recolonised. In the short and medium run it's sort of apparent that they are being purposively exterminated, by egged on conflicts that are forced into becoming bigger wars, and by diseases. And I am sort of suspicious of the diseases-some of them. They don't really make anything over there, all the weapons come from some place else. They get these various forms of foreign aid, then their warlord chieftain dictators use the bulk of that aid for their own pockets and to buy - foreign weapons.
hmmmm, doesn't seem much of a stretch here really.....
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
[
Top
|
Latest Posts
|
Latest Articles
|
Self Search
|
Add Bookmark
|
Post
|
Abuse
|
Help!
]
FreeRepublic , LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794 Forum Version 2.0a Copyright © 1999 Free Republic, LLC |