Posted by Madibeng Kgwete: 29 July 2008
In his preface to Franz Fanon’s book, The Wretched of the Earth, Jean Paul-Sartre says, amongst other critical things, that, during the colonial period the colonial powers were satisfied to keep some feudal rulers in their pay in an attempt to divide-and-rule African communities.
“There, dividing and ruling [the colonisers have] created a native bourgeoisie, sham from beginning to end; elsewhere [the colonisers have] played a double game: the colony is planted with settlers and exploited at the same time. Thus Europe has multiplied divisions and opposing groups, has fashioned classes and sometimes even racial prejudices, and has endeavoured by every means to bring about and intensify the stratification of colonized societies,” writes Paul-Sartre.
First published in 1961, Fanon’s book makes so much relevance today it could have been published for the first time this year. Reading the book whilst comparing Fanon’s views against what is happening in Zimbabwe at the moment would raise your emotions (if you are a genuine and patriotic African).
Various national and international media have carried stories today indicating that the negotiations between various Zimbabwean political players have stalled.
Details of the reported stalemate are not available due to the media’s lack of access to the talks, but unnamed sources are quoted as saying that the talks have stalled due to Zanu-PF’s insistence that Movement for Democratic Change (MDC) leader Morgan Tsvangirai should be given an inferior position (such as second vice-president) in a transitional government.
The stalemate, if there really is a stalemate, is regrettable. However, regretting alone will not help. The parties must be encouraged by all, including the mediator/facilitator, President Thabo Mbeki, and international institutions such as the United Nations.
The Zimbabwean leaders taking part in the talks should avoid outside interference, especially from British and the United States diplomats and politicians.
The interests of these so-called Western powers is to ensure that the talks collapse so that they can get their man (President Robert Mugabe) out of office in a manner so dramatic that it will scare off other African leaders from attempting to grab land from white farmers.
The US and Britain seems to be hoping that the talks would collapse completely so that the further sanctions they are imposing on Mugabe and “his cronies” will ultimately pit the hungry Zimbabwean citizenry against Mugabe’s government in a street revolution.
The revolution would then necessitate the involvement of the undemocratic UN Security Council in ensuring that the Western powers send in troops to oust Mugabe, thus sending a clear message to other African leaders: that you are damned if you try to threaten the unfair economic dominance of the African community by people historically and emotionally aligned to the West.
Fanon was right is 1961 regarding the destructive role that Africa’s former colonial master were playing across the continent; and he is still right today about the same powerful donour states. Yes, they give us aid, but the value of the aid does not even amount to a quarter of the value of the mineral resources their mega companies get from Africa.
As Africans we have three choices in relation to the current international political and economic system. Firstly, we can oblige and remain permanently beholden to our former colonisers. Secondly, we can resist their interference as individual countries and have the whole of Africa become a present-day Zimbabwe. Thirdly, acting as a united collective, the African continent can break rank with the powerful donor states and become a Cuba.
Showing posts with label African unity. Show all posts
Showing posts with label African unity. Show all posts
Tuesday, July 29, 2008
Wednesday, July 11, 2007
The economic costs of African unity
By Madibeng Kgwete: posted on 11 July 2007
Those who support the immediate formation of a union government for the entire African continent argue that their position is premised on the view that political unity is a prerequisite for economic developlemnt – that there cannot be any economic development if political unity is not forged.
Those arguing in favour of this view may well be labelled Nkrumahists, for it was the former Ghanaian leader who famously said: “Seek ye first political wisdom, and all else shall follow”.
On the other hand, there are those arguing that Africa must firstly strengthen its regional institutions, such as the Southern African Development Community (SADC) and the East Community of West African States (ECOWAS).
Delivering a speech at a Ghanaian university after he was honoured with a doctorate, President Thabo Mbeki said those arguing for the immediate formation of a United States of Africa are failing to realise that you cannot start building with a roof – that the key to Africa’s political unity is in the viability of its regional institutions.
A variety of political arguments have been exhausted, but very few have calculated the monetary costs of merging African states under one union government to enable faster cross-border trade.
In 2002, when South Africa’s population was still standing at around 43.6million citizens, there were, for example, nine African states the combination of whose populations was slightly above a half of South Africa’s population; and the combination of their economies could not even account to a quarter of South Africa’s economy.
These countries are Burundi, Comoros, Gambia, Lesotho, Mauritius, Rwanda, Togo, Seychelles and Swaziland.
The combination of the populations of Gambia (01, 455 842) Comoros (614, 382) and Mauritius (01, 200 206) was slightly higher than the population of the South African city Johannesburg (03 000 000).
In 2002, South Africa’s GDP was worth about US$255 155, which is 836 times more than the GDP of the West African country of Guinea Bissau. If the country experienced an annual growth rate of say 06% in its GDP, it would take it 139 years to be where South Africa was in 2002.
Some countries in Africa are so poor that a single rich US$ billionaire can run them using his own money.
Sources:
(1) Wikipedia; List of African countries by population density.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_African_countries_by_population_density
(2) Wikipedia; List of African countries by GDP.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_African_countries_by_GDP
Those who support the immediate formation of a union government for the entire African continent argue that their position is premised on the view that political unity is a prerequisite for economic developlemnt – that there cannot be any economic development if political unity is not forged.
Those arguing in favour of this view may well be labelled Nkrumahists, for it was the former Ghanaian leader who famously said: “Seek ye first political wisdom, and all else shall follow”.
On the other hand, there are those arguing that Africa must firstly strengthen its regional institutions, such as the Southern African Development Community (SADC) and the East Community of West African States (ECOWAS).
Delivering a speech at a Ghanaian university after he was honoured with a doctorate, President Thabo Mbeki said those arguing for the immediate formation of a United States of Africa are failing to realise that you cannot start building with a roof – that the key to Africa’s political unity is in the viability of its regional institutions.
A variety of political arguments have been exhausted, but very few have calculated the monetary costs of merging African states under one union government to enable faster cross-border trade.
In 2002, when South Africa’s population was still standing at around 43.6million citizens, there were, for example, nine African states the combination of whose populations was slightly above a half of South Africa’s population; and the combination of their economies could not even account to a quarter of South Africa’s economy.
These countries are Burundi, Comoros, Gambia, Lesotho, Mauritius, Rwanda, Togo, Seychelles and Swaziland.
The combination of the populations of Gambia (01, 455 842) Comoros (614, 382) and Mauritius (01, 200 206) was slightly higher than the population of the South African city Johannesburg (03 000 000).
In 2002, South Africa’s GDP was worth about US$255 155, which is 836 times more than the GDP of the West African country of Guinea Bissau. If the country experienced an annual growth rate of say 06% in its GDP, it would take it 139 years to be where South Africa was in 2002.
Some countries in Africa are so poor that a single rich US$ billionaire can run them using his own money.
Sources:
(1) Wikipedia; List of African countries by population density.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_African_countries_by_population_density
(2) Wikipedia; List of African countries by GDP.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_African_countries_by_GDP
Wednesday, May 30, 2007
Why rush US of Africa whilst colonial pattern persists?
By Madibeng Kgwete: posted on 30 May 2007
In his letter in The Star newspaper, http://www.thestar.co.za/, “We need a United States of Africa” (Letters, May 30, 2007), Mncebisi Mashingoane makes some highly significant observations about the need for more awareness, particularly among young South Africans, regarding Africa Day, celebrated annually across the African continent on 25 May.
Relying heavily on Dr. Kwame Nkrumah’s pan-Africanist philosophy, Mashingoane rightly opines that: “Because of South Africa ’s late arrival in the fold of independent African states, we need to double our efforts to raise awareness about the significance of Africa Day among the population”.
Mashingoane then spoils everything else he says by arguing, quite narrowly, that: “A national programme aimed at combating xenophobia would be the best tribute to Africa Day in South Africa , as xenophobia (in our country) has become the primary adversary of the ideal of African unity”.
Narrowing down the whole ideal of African unity to some “national programme aimed at combating xenophobia” is to counter the very pan-Africanist philosophy that the likes of Dr. Nkrumah so selflessly dedicated their lives.
Because the sweeping perception that South Africans are generally xenophobic cannot be proven to be correct, we the African people therefore need to think broadly enough to realise that better political unity and economic cooperation must be our first priorities towards the envisaged United States of Africa.
So far, our leaders have done relatively well in working towards political unity and closer economic cooperation. For example, Nepad, though not functioning at its full potential as yet, has been a great stepping stone towards African economic solutions to African economic challenges.
The African Union, also not functioning at its full potential as yet, has proven to be a useful platform towards common African positions on critical international matters, ranging from as controversial as the situation in Zimbabwe to as celebratory as the 2010 FIFA World Cup in South Africa .
We should not rush to forming a United States of Africa if such a bloc is not going to be viable in the foreseeable future, nor should we be so narrow as to place perceived xenophobia as the key towards continental unity. We must be realistic and truly independent in our thinking.
The biggest obstacle to African unity at the moment is Africa ’s dependence on its former colonial and imperialist masters for so-called aid. We need to ask ourselves whether our former masters “aid” us to be economically independent or to keep us as closely tied to them as we currently are.
The so-called “aid”, I would like to argue, is another form of debt, which we will be expected to pay back in some unspecified non-monetary terms: and this may mean keeping our markets and resources (both material and human) open for exploitation.
For as long as we rely on our former masters for “aid”, the United States of Africa will remain a pie in the sky. We can fix everything else, including the supposed xenophobia cited by Mashingoane, but if we continue to rely on the West for “aid”, we aren’t going anywhere.
Dr. Nkrumah wrote in his book, Neo-Colonialism, the Last Stage of Imperialism, that: “In order to make it attractive to those upon whom it is practiced, [neo-colonialism] must be shown as capable of raising their living standards, but the economic object of neo-colonialism is to keep those standards depressed in the interest of developed countries”.
In his letter in The Star newspaper, http://www.thestar.co.za/, “We need a United States of Africa” (Letters, May 30, 2007), Mncebisi Mashingoane makes some highly significant observations about the need for more awareness, particularly among young South Africans, regarding Africa Day, celebrated annually across the African continent on 25 May.
Relying heavily on Dr. Kwame Nkrumah’s pan-Africanist philosophy, Mashingoane rightly opines that: “Because of South Africa ’s late arrival in the fold of independent African states, we need to double our efforts to raise awareness about the significance of Africa Day among the population”.
Mashingoane then spoils everything else he says by arguing, quite narrowly, that: “A national programme aimed at combating xenophobia would be the best tribute to Africa Day in South Africa , as xenophobia (in our country) has become the primary adversary of the ideal of African unity”.
Narrowing down the whole ideal of African unity to some “national programme aimed at combating xenophobia” is to counter the very pan-Africanist philosophy that the likes of Dr. Nkrumah so selflessly dedicated their lives.
Because the sweeping perception that South Africans are generally xenophobic cannot be proven to be correct, we the African people therefore need to think broadly enough to realise that better political unity and economic cooperation must be our first priorities towards the envisaged United States of Africa.
So far, our leaders have done relatively well in working towards political unity and closer economic cooperation. For example, Nepad, though not functioning at its full potential as yet, has been a great stepping stone towards African economic solutions to African economic challenges.
The African Union, also not functioning at its full potential as yet, has proven to be a useful platform towards common African positions on critical international matters, ranging from as controversial as the situation in Zimbabwe to as celebratory as the 2010 FIFA World Cup in South Africa .
We should not rush to forming a United States of Africa if such a bloc is not going to be viable in the foreseeable future, nor should we be so narrow as to place perceived xenophobia as the key towards continental unity. We must be realistic and truly independent in our thinking.
The biggest obstacle to African unity at the moment is Africa ’s dependence on its former colonial and imperialist masters for so-called aid. We need to ask ourselves whether our former masters “aid” us to be economically independent or to keep us as closely tied to them as we currently are.
The so-called “aid”, I would like to argue, is another form of debt, which we will be expected to pay back in some unspecified non-monetary terms: and this may mean keeping our markets and resources (both material and human) open for exploitation.
For as long as we rely on our former masters for “aid”, the United States of Africa will remain a pie in the sky. We can fix everything else, including the supposed xenophobia cited by Mashingoane, but if we continue to rely on the West for “aid”, we aren’t going anywhere.
Dr. Nkrumah wrote in his book, Neo-Colonialism, the Last Stage of Imperialism, that: “In order to make it attractive to those upon whom it is practiced, [neo-colonialism] must be shown as capable of raising their living standards, but the economic object of neo-colonialism is to keep those standards depressed in the interest of developed countries”.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
