Ghana’s first President and Pan Africanist Kwame Nkrumah: Africa’s artificial borders, in Nkrumah’s vision, stood in the way of continental unity. The arbitrary carving up of the continent at a meeting in Berlin, in which European colonial powers established borders within it, dividing African peoples into entities bearing hyphenated identities — British Somaliland, Italian Somaliland, Ethiopian-held Somaliland, Kenyan Somaliland and French Somaliland — and creating never-ending conflicts. Had Europe not interfered with the history of Africa and had Africa pursued its natural course, then, probably, Africa would have developed in the same way as other continents.
Some 38 years after his death, Ghanaians have finally decided to honour the memory of their first President, Kwame Nkrumah with a national holiday on September 21 this year, which incidentally would have marked the 100th anniversary of his birthday. The day has been declared a public holiday and aptly named Founder’s Day.
A larger than life figure, Nkrumah is credited with leading Ghana to independence from the British and championing a United States of Africa besides being a founder president of the Organisation of African Unity, now African Union.
The Africa Nkrumah envisaged is far from being a reality as the experience of writer Nuruddin Farah shows.
Below we run, in his own words, an account of his frustration with Africa’s artificial borders which, in Nkrumah’s vision, stood in the way of continental unity. Nuruddin Farah writes:
“In 2007, I telephoned the Consulate of Botswana in Cape Town on a Wednesday to inquire about a weekend visa to Gaborone as I meant to attend the wedding of a close friend’s daughter there. In reply to his question about my status and place of residence, I said that I was a permanent resident of South Africa and that I held three African passports and named these and the governments, which issued them.
He asked why I had not applied for a visa earlier, and I responded that I had just got back from a book promotion tour that had taken me to the USA, Canada, and Europe. He said I would have to wait for four to six weeks to get a visa issued on any of the three passports I held.
I was tempted to stress my disappointment by asking why his consulate was giving me a hard time about a weekend visa, while the British, the French, the US, the Swiss and Canadian embassies would not hesitate to issue me with five-to-ten-year duration visas within a few hours and while I waited. However, I thought better of it, maybe because I doubted he was the kind of reader that might enjoy my writings.
I got in touch with my friend whose daughter was getting married and a professor friend of mine who was expecting me to give a lecture at the University of Botswana to let them know that I was cancelling my trip. The professor suggested that his department apply on my behalf and recruit someone higher up in the government to intervene. That way, the consulate would issue the visa and I would attend the wedding and later in the week speak to the students and staff of the English Department. I said that the idea of going that route did not appeal to my sense of self-honour, and insisted that I would cancel my visit.
Six months or so later, I was a guest of the Federal President of Germany together with several African Heads of State among them the President of Botswana. On the second day, during coffee break, the President of Botswana asked if I had ever been to his country, given that I lived so close to it, in South Africa.
I replied that I had not; he wondered why not. I related to him what happened when I applied for a visa several months earlier whereupon he called his assistant, a lady, whom he instructed to take down my details and to make sure that I received a visa and a letter of invitation. He wanted me to promise that I would call on him once I got to Gaborone.
I declined to offer my details to the assistant. After all, my intentions were lofty, not personal, and I wanted him to see the absurdity of his government’s visa policies and to consider changing them, as it affected other Africans. In effect, I was pointing to him the set of circumstances that had led to my needing his facilitation, when Europeans, Americans, and many other nationalities from outside Africa could enter Botswana without requiring visas.
Given the opportunity, I might have referred to the to the arbitrary carving up of the continent at a meeting in Berlin, in which European colonial powers established borders within it, dividing our peoples into entities bearing hyphenated identities — British Somaliland, Italian Somaliland, Ethiopian-held Somaliland, Kenyan Somaliland and French Somaliland — and creating never-ending conflicts.
Perhaps implicit in my refusal to accept the President’s offer was this unspoken assertion: that the borders in Africa are stakes driven through our peoples’ hearts. In the Horn of Africa alone, border disputes have caused so much havoc, accounting for several all-out wars as well as the continued war of attrition between Ethiopia and Eritrea.
When I think back on my encounters over the years with sundry consular and immigration officials from various African countries, I cannot help wondering what might have become of Africa if Europeans had not imposed on our continent the maps we have today.
It follows, too, that Africa would occupy a more honourable place in the world if millions of our able-bodied men and women had not been removed to other continents as slaves, and if the savageries of Euro-greed in the insatiable shape of, to give an infamous example, King Leopold of Belgium had not been visited on the Congo. It has always been my contention that had Europe not interfered with our history and had we pursued its natural course, then we too would have developed in the same way as other continents.
Colonial subjugation and the mapping of the continent did contribute to the deceleration of our organic development as people. The mapping of Africa at the turn of the nineteenth century tethers us to a history littered with impediments.
The borders are but one of the numerous obstacle courses standing in the way of our economic and social well-being.
Indeed, the ephemeral nature of borders inspires me with guarded cynicism; their impermanence animates a caginess of the kind that produces optimism within me.
Those of us who have known the two sides of Germany before the fall of the Berlin Wall, for instance, will remember two of the most absurd borders between the two German entities – the one, a line of yellow buoys the height of a human above the water to mark the border in the sea between the then GDR and West Germany. The other was a road bridge at Domitz, built halfway across the River Elbe and, because uncompleted, left suspended in midair. With the fall of The Wall and the reunification of the two Germanys, the borders no longer existing point to their status of impermanence.
Sadly, this is not so in Africa. Because in 1963, our continent’s Heads of State endorsed the borders bequeathed to us by the colonial powers at the inaugural meeting of the Organization of African Unity, one felt profound sorrow at the decision, wrongfully catapulting us into everlasting political and economical disaffection, something the recent formations of regional groupings, dividing the continent into four main trading blocs, will not be able to eradicate as long we continue to endorse the border regime established in 1884 at the Berlin summit.
Borders are an anathema, which we must discard if we wish our continent to develop culturally, scientifically and economically as a single unit — and organically at that.”
About The Author: Africa Insight is an initiative of the Nation Media Group’s Africa Media Network Project. Additional reporting by Francis Kokutse in Accra.
Libyan president Muammar el-Qaddafi who has repeatedly proposed immediate unity and the establishment of a single currency, army and passport for the entire continent of Africa, was named chairman of the African Union on Monday, wresting control of a body he helped found and has long wanted to remake in his pan-African image.
His installation as the new head of the 53-member body resembled more of a coronation than a democratic transfer of power. Colonel Qaddafi was dressed in flowing gold robes and surrounded by traditional African leaders who hailed him as the “king of kings.”
The choice of Colonel Qaddafi was not a surprise – he was the leading candidate – but the prospect of his election to lead the African Union caused some unease among some of the group’s member nations, who were meeting in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia, as well as among diplomats and analysts. Colonel Qaddafi, who has ruled Libya with an iron hand for decades, is a stark change from the succession of recent leaders from democratic countries like Tanzania, Ghana and Nigeria.
PIC: Col Gadaffi gave up trying to unite the Arab world and is concentrating on Africa instead. On Monday he was named Africa’s “king of kings” by a gathering of traditional rulers.
Colonel Qaddafi is an ardent supporter of a long-held dream of transforming Africa, a collection of post-colonial fragments divided by borders that were drawn arbitrarily by Western powers, into a vast, unified state that could play a powerful role in global affairs. He has repeatedly proposed immediate unity and the establishment of a single currency, army and passport for the entire continent. He pledged Monday to bring up the issue for a vote at the African Union’s next summit meeting, in July.
While a few African leaders share his passion and his timetable for this pan-African vision, most prefer a go-slow approach, given the political realities that have emerged in the half-century since most of Africa became independent.
“In principle, we said the ultimate is the United States of Africa,” said Tanzania’s president, Jakaya Kikwete, the previous African Union chairman, according to the BBC. “How we proceed to that ultimate – there are building blocks.” — [ MORE ]
———————————————————————————————————————-
Special Read: Reviewed By “doc peterson” of (Portland, Oregon USA)
In “How Europe Underdeveloped Africa,” Walter Rodney convincingly argues that much of the “Third World” is a product of European Imperialism in the 19th and 20th centuries.
Several points are made in his argument. Among them are the arbitrary borders established by the colonial powers for their convenience, with utter disregard for the indigenous people, their histories or past animosities. (The result?Violence in places like Rwanda, for example.)
Rodney also points out that with the European conquest of Africa, the vast natural resources of the continent were – and still are being – plundered, from West African oil, to South African diamonds, to minerals like bauxite and copper on the interior.
With this in mind, the infrastructures the European created (roads, ports, cities, transportation and power grids) were designed exclusively for the removal of these resources in as quick and efficient manner as possible.
For me the most significant argument Rodney made, however, was the political legacy of European colonialism – that Africans, after nearly 100 years of economic exploitation and political repression (they had no say in the political dealings of their homeland, mind you), the Europeans up and left with little preparation or training for the maintenance of the economic and political infrastructure.
No wonder there is so much political unrest, economic uncertainty, wide spread poverty and disease.
I give it 4 stars because of the strength and oblivious passion Rodney had for his subject matter, and for making an excellent argument.
I cannot give it 5, however, because the book is not without its flaws. For example, the Africans are not held accountable for THEIR role in the continuing underdevelopment of the continent – Africa remains tremendously rich in resources; only now are the Africans beginning to manage and control the export of these to their advantage.
When African hypocrites line up to sing Obama’s eulogies, none of them makes mention of Obama’s maternal contributions to his success. No African leader has yet come to realize that kinship is a matter of ideas and not of race, region or color. No African leader has come to accept the fact that it is natural to differ, but necessary to tolerate. Leadership in Africa is a cult; power is an obsession, an addiction. — Tongkeh Joseph Fowale
Author: Tongkeh Joseph Fowale Introduction
The excitement and jubilation with which Africa greeted Barack Obama’s victory as 44th President of the United States of America suggests the continent’s expectations of Obama. It also reveals the hidden passion and desire of the “forgotten continent” to be seen and heard. To have a “Black Boy” (as Richard Wright would have it, – suggestive of a racial struggle) in the White House, at the helm of global power, is one of those rare events in modern history which our generation has been privileged to witness. This is not only because it has never happened before, but rather because it “might” arguably take a very long time to happen again. I do not claim to predict the future with absolute certainty. What I am trying to insinuate is that, even if America were o have another black President in the near or distant future, much reference would be made to Obama just like Obama’s victory owes a great debt to the dream and vision of Martin Luther King.
Does this suggest that Obama owes an incalculable debt to his ancestral and paternal home – Africa? Many pundits and analysts have invested considerable time and energy in trying to quantify how much Africa stands to reap from its son in the White House. Some see it in the form of direct material benefits – the flow of American dollars into Africa, increased aid and trade opportunities and policies to reach out directly and immediately to Africa’s poor masses. Others see immaterial benefits such as a greater commitment to advance democracy in Africa and efforts to assist African institutions such as the African Union (AU) and the New Partnership for African Development (NEPAD) to grapple with the challenges facing the continent. Considered either or both ways, it boils down to one question – what does Obama hold for Africa?
A moment of great expectations
There are many African proverbs which suggest the advantages of having a brother in power or in any situation to improve the lot of his immediate family. One says that if your brother is a hunter, you will surely eat the heart of a lion one day. A similar proverb agrees that if you have a brother up the tree, you will never eat unripe fruits. How then can Africa continue to starve when its son is in control of the dollar-spinning machine? This line of thinking which largely defines the mindset of modern Africa is perhaps the most agreeable point from which to start any analysis of Africa’s expectations of Obama.
Upon close examination, however, one comes to realize that this general cry of “salvation at last,” this narrowly defined victory of the “black race” is nothing but the revelation of deep-rooted frustration that runs through the continent from top to bottom; from leaders to the masses. It once again highlights the need for a role model in a continent under the grip of ageing dinosaurs in the name of leaders who constantly renew their strength with the blood of their own people. These same leaders who suddenly rose, as if stung by a bee, to hijack Obama’s victory and redefine it along racial lines, are the same ones who stand directly opposed to what brought Obama to historical and global prominence – change.
Could Obama’s call for change make him prominent in Africa? One needs a simple experiment to answer this question. Let’s create a hypothetical situation where Obama, for love of race, were to return to Africa with his vision and passion for change. The chances are that Obama would be silenced from the very beginning. Chris Agbiti, writing on this subject, suggests that if Obama were to be brought up in Kenya, “with all his seeming grace and intelligence, he would have ended up, at best, as a very brilliant but frustrated University don holed up somewhere in one of our glorified secondary schools called University – like many other frustrated Obamas in our African society today.”
As clear as this picture is, one should add that Obama would get this position not by the strength of his brain but by his connection with the ruling elite at the family or tribal level, or by identifying with the ruling party. Without this connection, he would either need somebody up the “tree of power” or drink from the same cup with “holders of power” in one satanic cult or another. He would have to seek protection and promotion from one sorcerer or juju man. This entails blood. Here is where Obama would have to place the lives of his wife and children on the line. This is one of the possibilities that would be open to Obama if he returned “home.”
The second and higher possibility is that Obama would have to pay the ultimate price for trying to change a system that is antithetical to change. For this he would have to languish in jail. He would face torture, and charges would be levied against him, false charges manufactured by the system he would be trying to change. He would see the true face of injustice and pain. He would be forced to join the ranks of African youths fleeing the continent either as migrants or refugees. If Obama returned home, the same group of people who praise him on the basis of his “African roots” would be the same ones to remind him that he is not Kenyan or Ivorian because his mother came from here or there.
When African hypocrites line up to sing Obama’ s eulogies, none of them makes mention of Obama’s maternal contributions to his success. Nobody sees Obama as a product of an environment in which tolerance has prevailed, a society that has risen above trivial issues like race and color, where cultural diversity has been harnessed into national glory, where a “patchwork heritage” as Obama himself called it, has been transformed into national strength. No African leader has yet come to realize that kinship is a matter of ideas and not of race, region or color. No African leader has come to accept the fact that it is natural to differ, but necessary to tolerate. Leadership in Africa is a cult; power is an obsession, an addiction.
How then does Obama plan to engage these “permanent leaders” who abhor change? What is his rescue package for the oppressed African masses under the tyranny of their leaders? What will Obama do to change Africa? As yet there is no clear answer to these questions. The situation only raises more questions. Does the state of decadence in Africa today suggest that Africa lacks creative minds? Can those African babies who die in their thousands before their first birth days not be groomed into Obamas? Do African youths lack the steam and rigor necessary to become Obama? Putting these questions together, one arrives at a bigger and more complex question. Why do Africans excel only out of Africa? Statistics revealed by Obama’s campaign team confirm this thesis. These figures revealed that Africans are the most educated immigrant group in America and also that African born men and women have higher median earnings than all foreign born men and women in the U.S. What then can African leaders say about this flight of talent or brain drain of African youths?
During politically festive periods in Africa, the youths are constantly reminded that they are the future leaders of the nation. These liars in the name of leaders stay in power throughout (or twice) the lifetime of an African youth whose sojourn on earth today is decided by HIV/AIDS, hunger, disease and frustration. Those trapped in the crossfire of conflicts, ethnic cleansing and all forms of butchery do not live to tell the story. Their plight is, however, a sad reminder to Obama as to what African youths face on a daily basis. It is a wakeup call for change which will never come from Africa’s present leaders. What can Muamar Gadaffi say about change after 40 years in power? Omar Bongo – 41 (tipped President for life), Obiang Nguema – 28, Robert Mugabe – 29, Hosni Mubarak – 28, Paul Biya – 27, Zine al-Abidine Ben Ali – 22, Yoweri Museveni – 22, Omar Al Bashir – 19, Idriss Derby – 17, Yahya Jammeh – 14, Denis Sassou Nguesso – 12 (second shift in office), … and the list is elastic. These where the leaders who lined up to shower praises on Obama for being “democratically elected.”
Words of praise for Obama
Listen to African leaders as they blessed and glorified Obama after his election victory. The pride of place in this ranking goes to Mr. Mwai Kibaki, President of Kenya the country from where Obama traces his paternal roots. The Kenyan President described Obama’s victory as a “momentous” occasion for Kenya. He took the victory very personal, calling it “…our own victory because of his roots here in Kenya.” He bathed in pride as he heaved praises on Obama. “As a country, we are full of pride for his success.” Kibaki did not hesitate to tie Obama down to his Kenyan roots. “Your victory is not only an inspiration to millions of people all over the world, but it has special resonance with us here in Kenya.” Kibaki’s eulogy was long and passionate, but when all is said and done, this was the man who rigged elections in broad daylight early in 2008, reducing Kenya into an ethnic volcano. This coincidentally was the period when Obama’s campaign machinery was convincing the American electorate about the need for change.
Nigerian President Oumaru Yar’Adua who recently acknowledged that the elections which brought him to power were flawed, also had praises for Obama. “The election of Barack Obama … has finally broken the greatest barrier of prejudice in human history. I believe for us in Nigeria, we have a lesson to draw from this historic event. Adua also agreed that the election of Obama had “created a totally and completely new era.”
Denis Sassou Nguesso whose blood-sucking Cobras brought him to power in 1997 after a bloody coup, came forth with praises. He described Obama’s victory as a “moving historic moment,” and likened this victory to the triumph of vision. “We see how visionaries like Martin Luther King saw coming events. His dream has come true.”
Chad, the centre of a ruthless dictatorship and state brutality, also joined the queue of praise-singers. National Assembly leader, Nasser Guelindoksia agreed that Obama’s victory should serve as a beacon to other countries. “It’s an example to follow, especially by Africans as Americans show that democracy knows no color, religion or origin.”
Somalia, which recently topped the list of 20 failed states in Africa, and now the centre of instability and piracy, came forth to beg for salvation from Obama. Former President of the Transitional Somali government, Abdullahi Yusuf Ahmed, defined Obama’s victory as “a great moment for America and for Africa.” He saw in Obama, an end to the crisis plaguing his country. “I am hopeful that he will help end the major crisis in the world, particularly the endless conflict in my country.”
Sudan, whose authorities preside over the butchery of Africans in Darfur, claimed to reflect on Obama’s message of change. Khartoum released its own message of congratulations to Obama. “We would hope that the slogan of President Obama – change – would be reflected in the foreign policy of the United States.” The tone also sounded personal and imploring. “We would like to see some real change between Sudan and the United States.”
South African President Kgalema Motlanthe, who has inherited the blame for not standing up to Mugabe’s atrocities, also expressed a lot of hope in Obama. “Your election … carries with it hope for millions of your country men and women as much as it is for millions of people of … African decent.” As long as Motlannthe continues to follow along the “softly, softly” approach initiated by his predecessor – Thabo Mbeki towards Robert Mugabe, the meaning of his “hope” will continue to baffle onlookers. Recent xenophobic attacks in South Africa targeting Africans also throw doubts on Mr. Motlanthe’s language of hope among Africans.
Even Robert Mugabe who has slapped democracy in the face by vowing that “only God” can remove him from power, also struggled to be heard. The Zimbabwean leader, who has made it clear that the opposition MDC will never rule Zimbabwe, used the same mouth to praise Obama. “As the government and people of Zimbabwe join you in celebrating this event in the history of the U.S.A, I take this opportunity to assure you Mr. President-elect that the Government of the Republic of Zimbabwe remains ready to engage your government in any desirable endeavor to improve our bilateral relations,” he said. Mr. Mugabe, whose government has taken the blows of severe sanctions from the previous U.S administration, promised to mend ties with the new government under Obama.
Close to three decades in power, Mugabe continues to see international politics from purely racial lenses, and like his peers throughout Africa, domestic politics goes along ethnic lines pure and simple. With this racial obsession, Mugabe had, prior to the March general election in the U.S predicted that America would never have a black president. He had on several occasions thrown insults at former President George Bush’s Secretary of State – Condoleezza Rice, calling her a “slave” to white masters. Back home, Mugabe has embarked on a policy of zero-tolerance towards the opposition, and delivered death and misery to those outside his ruling tribe whom he identifies with the opposition. He continues to blame his countries woes on the West even as thousands of his people die of cholera.
The embattled leader of Zimbabwe’s opposition Movement for Democratic Change (MDC), Morgan Tsvangarai, expressed his hope to see the end of tyranny and the eventual triumph of democracy in his country. “This is the dream that we continue to aspire to, the right that we demand, and the change that we know will come to our country as long as we stay true to our democratic ideals,” he said as he joined the African voices hailing Obama.
Libyan leader, Muammar Gadaffi, the very symbol of African obsession with leadership and a synonym for controversy, saw Obama’s victory along racial lines. “This can be considered the beginning of victory for black people,” he declared. His Ugandan counterpart Yoweri Moseveni expressed surprise that American voters could transcend race. “That all the sections of the American people could transcend race and vote for an African-American is, indeed, an historic achievement for the U.S.A and the World – the latter by the force of example.”
In this loud chorus of praises, the single voice that carried meaning and substance was that of Nelson Mandela. Icon of the struggle against one of the worst forms of abuses on African dignity – apartheid, Mandela alone understood what it takes too change an asphyxiating system and the price that comes with it. “Your victory has demonstrated that no person anywhere in the world should not dare to dream of wanting to change the world for a better place.” Mandela also expressed hope and confidence in Obama’s determination to combat poverty and disease. “We are sure you will ultimately achieve your dream of making the United States a full partner in a community of states committed to peace and prosperity for all.”
Dealing with Africa
Though Obama faces a mountain of challenges in his early days in office and in the next four years – a crippling economy, the global financial crisis, restoring America’s damaged image around the globe, terrorism, Irag/Afghanistan, climate change etc, Africa still cries out loud for Obama’s attention if not because of the African blood that runs through his veins, then at least because of his conviction and commitment to change. This is where by every stretch of the imagination, Africa expects to take the pride of place in Obama’s busy schedule.
Will Obama’s approach towards Africa be based therefore on, or influenced by such considerations as race, history, sympathy or ancestry? Or will Obama fine-tune his Africa policy in line with America’s interests? These conflicting views create a new dimension to this discussion. While ultra-optimists can’t wait to see U.S dollars raining into Africa as sign of “Obama at work,” conservatives are very careful in their prognostics. The ageing Cuban revolutionary icon, Fidel Castro, who expressed confidence in “the intelligent and noble face of the first black President of the United States …,” also expressed doubts about Obama’s ability to work independently because of the constraints around him. “What will he do soon, when the immense power that he has taken in his hands is absolutely useless to overcome the insolvable antagonistic contradictions of the (American) system?”
While Castro sees Obama as the victim of a system, Senegalese President, Abdoulaye Wade, situates Obama within the proper context. “Obama is first and foremost an American. He’s not the only American to have roots outside the United States … but at the end of the day, they are all American.” Dr. Yash Tandon of the Switzerland based think-tank – South Centre, seems to agree with President Wade. “Obama after all is answerable to his electorate, and to his own congress,” he said.
This line of thinking leads to the logical conclusion that Obama’s policy towards Africa will be geared first and foremost towards the protection of America’s vital interests, and all other things in biblical terms “shall be added unto it.” This premise notwithstanding, it would be a distortion of history to discard the “African factor” (to avoid the explosive word “race”) in Obama’s climb to victory. “What remains to be determined…” says J. Peter Pham, “is what role Africa will play in the foreign policy of Obama and what approaches he might adopt with respect to the continent.” Pham goes further to highlight three challenges to American interest in Africa which require Obama’s urgent attention – terrorism, hydrocarbons and humanitarian challenges.
One important clue to understanding, or at least predict Obama’s level of engagement with Africa is his Africa Agenda, outlined in his campaign message. He spelt out three areas of priority. The first was to accelerate Africa’s integration into the global economy. The second was to enhance the peace and security of African states. The third was to strengthen relationships with those governments, institutions and civil society organizations that are committed to deepening democracy, accountability and reducing poverty in Africa.
Obama’s campaign promise touched on key areas of conflict. It identified Darfur as a priority and promised to end the genocide that has cost 2.500 African lives and displaced countless others. He promised to encourage dialogue to end the crisis in eastern Congo and support the UN military force – MONUC. In the Niger Delta, Obama promised to consult with the EU, AU and other stakeholders to stabilize the restless region. In Zimbabwe, he expressed the need to accelerate the pace of the recently signed power-sharing agreement and to move Zimbabwe from a Mugabe-controlled government to one that reflects the results of the March 29 election that was won by the MDC.
To check hunger in Africa, Obama promised o revive African agriculture with what he called Add Value to Agriculture Initiative (AVTA). This scheme hoped to ensure food security and alleviate high food costs in Africa. Still along this line of hunger and poverty alleviation, he promised to consolidate the gains of the African Growth and Opportunity Act (AGOA) and open up more U.S markets to African producers, and also encourage U.S companies to invest in Africa. With the help of the Overseas Private Investment Corporation, Obama expressed his intention to increase lending to small and medium size companies, thus create jobs, sustainable incomes and raise the living standards of Africans.
Obama’ campaign laid out strategies to redress Africa’s predicaments such as AIDS, climate change and promised to restore Africa’s dignity in a global community of nations. It recognized the need to alleviate poverty to rid Africa of terrorism. He promised a Global Education Fund to help fill the financing gap for primary education in Africa and the developing world. In a nutshell, Obama promised to make the Millennium Development Goals “America’s goals.”
At the diplomatic level Obama gave preference to dialogue on issues concerning Africa. He identified China as a major player in Africa and promised to engage China in constructive dialogue with Africa as a full member in this discussion. In his words, “the days of external powers on their own deciding what is best for Africa needs to come to an end once and for all.” Leadership in Obama’s vision is all “about recognizing the inherent quality, dignity and worth of all people.”
Conclusion
By every standard, Obama will be judged by his promises to Africa come 2012. His hair-raising inaugural speech on January 20th further raised African hopes to very high levels. “To the people of poor nations we pledge to work alongside you to make your farms flourish and let clean waters flow; to nourish starved bodies and feed hungry minds.” To those countries that have fed themselves fat on Africa’s oil, minerals and labor, and who continue to do so, they too might have listened to Obama. “And to those nations like ours that enjoy relative plenty, we say that we can no longer afford indifference to suffering outside our borders; nor can we consume the world’s resources without regard to effect.”
Obama’s message could not have been complete without a word for Africa’s dinosaurs all of whom had sought to curry favor by lavishing him with hypocritical praises. This is what they got in return. “To those leaders around the globe who seek to sow conflict, or blame the ills of their society on the west, know that your people will judge you on what you can build, not what you destroy.” Aware of what power means to African leaders, Obama warned further. “To those who cling to power through corruption and deceit and the silencing of dissent, know that you are on the wrong side of history.”
Edmund Burke, the Irish political theorist observed in the 18th century that “the only condition necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.” Placing Burke’s foresight in the context of new U.S – Africa relations, one can conveniently rephrase Burke to read “the only condition necessary for the continuation of suffering in Africa is for Obama to do nothing.” Are Africa’s dictators ready to “unclench their fists” for Obama to “extend a hand?” Can African masses, shun left, right and center turn to Obama? Will Africa become part of Obama’s world? These questions provide the answer to the question “What does Obama owe Africa?”
Africa entered the 21st century with immeasurable optimism, hope and the promise of a bright future after decades of chaos. This new-found optimism in the hitherto “forgotten continent” was rooted on developments unfolding within Africa and on the international scene. “African renaissance” as this resurgence came to be called, was inspired by the birth of the African Union (AU) and the New Partnership for African development (NEPAD). These new instruments of African power ushered the continent into a new century, and also signalled a new dawn in Africa’ relations with the outside world. This internal revolution coincided with the renewal of interest in Africa by great powers.
The prospects and challenges of African development in the 21st century have been (and continue to be) shaped by two conflicting forces. The first pressure emanates from outside players wrestling for Africa’s strategic and natural resources. This external pressure largely defines the pattern of trade, aid, investment and development in Africa. The second push comes from within Africa as the continent struggles to mobilise its resources in pursuit of development. “African solutions to African problems” as this new drive is called, attempts to give an African orientation to Africa’s developmental challenges which revolve around political instability, conflicts, poverty, disease, economic stagnation and lack of infrastructure.
Another significant cause for optimism in Africa in the Third Millennium was the coming of the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) in September 2000. This ambitious scheme which has been adopted by 190 nations outlined eight critical goals which fundamentally touched on the roots of Africa’s developmental challenges. These goals include; the eradication of poverty and hunger, the achievement of universal primary education, the promotion of gender equality and the empowerment of women, the reduction of child mortality, the improvement of material health, combating HIV/AIDS, malaria and other diseases, ensuring environmental sustainability and the development of a global partnership for development.
The MDGs highlighted the need to co-ordinate global efforts in lending a hand to Africa and to bring the continent into the orbit of what French President Nicolas Sarkozy called a “globalized world” at the September 2008 UN Meeting on African development. “The globalized world needs Africa,” he said. “It would be a delusion to envision Europe’s prosperity without working for the emergence of a major economic partner.” Sarkozy’s hope-laden message is quite similar to those echoed repeatedly by many world leaders aimed either at placating or comforting Africa. President George Bush earlier in February 2008 inspired hope in the continent when he declared “Africa in the 21st century is a continent of potential.” Behind these loud promises of hope, there is also a large vacuum of undelivered promises to Africa.
A decade of undelivered promises
For all its efforts at development, for all its pleas for assistance, and in its struggle to escape from plaguing poverty, Africa has received several responses, among them undelivered promises This “… rhetoric or fancy accounting” as Takumo Yamada, spokesman for Oxfam International described it, has left serious repercussions on Africa’s way out of poverty. Though the balance sheet of African development shows positive improvements, these gains cannot be consolidated with Africa’s efforts alone. Commending Africa’s struggle for development, UN General Assembly President Miguel d’Escoto observed, “Brave as its nations may be — and we know that they are brave indeed, — Africa cannot move ahead on its own.”
From the MDGs of 2000, through the aid promises of the G8 at Gleneagles in 2005, to promises made at bilateral and multilateral levels, Africa has been fed to the full with rhetoric. While traditional problems of political instability, violent conflicts, economic stagnation, poverty, disease and malnutrition continue to baffle the continent, Africa still has to make room for words. With the emergence of new global challenges such as the world food and fuel crises, the world financial crisis, and climate change, there are looming fears all around the developing world that the developed countries will hide behind such excuses to renege on pledges made to Africa.
UN Secretary General Ban Ki Moon raised such concerns when he called on the developed countries to come to Africa’s rescue. “No one is more alarmed than you at the current trends which indicate that no African country will achieve the Millennium development Goals by 2015.” Ban cited the colossal $267 billion spent by OECD countries last year alone on agricultural subsidies to highlight his call for increased attention to Africa. It becomes even more pathetic to realise that these subsidies are part of Africa’s development frustration.
This same EU which invests considerable energy and resources on subsidies to farmers, made a pledge of $15 billion to ACP countries under the Cotonou Agreement in 2000. Eight years on little is yet to be realised. President Abdoulaye Wade of Senegal sounded his frustration with Europe, the West and the G8 over undelivered promises to Africa in very harsh terms. “I achieved more in my one hour meeting with President Hu Jintao — during the G8 meeting in Heiligendamm than I did during the entire orchestrated meeting of world leaders at the summit — where African leaders were told little more than that the G8 nations would respect existing agreements.” Continued he, “It is time for the west to practise what it preaches.”
When former British Prime Minister Tony Blair diagnosed Africa’s problem as “a scar on the conscience of the world” in 2005, expectations ran high that under his stewardship of the G8 Africa’s salvation was in sight. Under Blair’s leadership, the G8 vowed to “more than double aid to Africa,” backing this up with a promise of $25 billion worth of aid to the continent by 2010. Three years on, only $4billion of this money has materialised. “Does any body seriously think the 21 billion-dollar gap will be met in two years?” asked Glennys Kinnock, Chair of the ACP-EU Parliamentary Assembly. Citing the current financial crisis as a possible excuse for developed countries to renege on their promises to Africa, she insisted “If the strongest economise need stability, the weakest economies need dependability.”
As African leaders continue to make their pendulum swings east and west in search of develop assistance, they always return with briefcase-loads of promises. President George Bush promised a “Lazarus effect” on the continent when he came visiting in February 2008. China had promised salvation to Africa in the form of a “win-win” relationship. The EU with a waning influence on Africa, continues to make overtures in the form of Economic Partnership Agreements (EPAs). Japan promised to make the 21st century “a century of Africa” through an agricultural revolution. India promised to transform the 21st century into a “Century of Asia and Africa.” President Sarkozy offered to be more transparent to Africa and cried out loud that “the suffering of the black man is the suffering of all men.”
It would, however, be grossly misleading o underestimate the role of external assistance in Africa’s development efforts. Africa’s current 6% growth rate, the reduction of conflicts, new democratic strides, the growth of trade, investment and infrastructure all owe significantly to new opportunities provided by outside players. Europe despite its declining trade with Africa, still remains a significant development partner. America’s Agricultural Growth and Opportunities Act (AGOA) and the Millennium Challenge Corporation (MCC) have opened up vast trade and investment opportunities for Africa. Her role in advancing democracy, checking terrorism and contributing towards fighting AIDS and malaria are highly commendable efforts. China and India, the new “Southern drivers” of the global economy are the new forces behind Africa’s new growth patterns. These Asian powers have also made invaluable contributions in the area of infrastructural development in Africa.
These contributions notwithstanding, as long as the outside players continue to attach strings to their assistance to Africa, as long as the continent continues to be viewed as a place to be robbed in the name of aid or trade, as long as Africa is seen as a charity case, as long as their economic relations with Africa are shaped by ulterior motives, the MDGs will have little meaning. When trade with Africa becomes trade in arms, when the continent is militarised for any reason whatsoever, when promises of aid become practises of plunder, every effort will boil down to conflict and misery, the same ills the MDGs have vowed to check. Observed Ban Ki Moon, “The recent spate of conflicts over food and natural resources show that our security depends on building prosperity in the developing world.”
Africa’s fragile trade regime and the challenges of development
Among Africa’s countless economic problems, its fragile trade regime stands out distinct. According to a report published in September 2008 by the United Nations Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD), the continent has not only lost its share of global trade in the last twenty five years, but the level and composition of its exports have not changed significantly.
The UNCTAD report which examined the effects of recent trade liberalization policies on African observed that these policies have not had any impact on intra-African trade. According to the report, intra-African trade accounted for only eight percent of total African trade in 2006, a figure much lower than in other regions.
The causes (and consequences) of Africa’s poor trade performance are many. Heavy dependence on primary products makes the continent very vulnerable to fluctuating commodity prices. Poor infrastructure leads to heavy transportation costs. Bad weather conditions result in crop failure hampering food production and trade. Low levels of technology and mechanization lead directly to very low productivity. Diseases such as HIV/AIDS and malaria and typhoid take a heavy toll on Africa’s youthful population leading to a shortage of manpower in production. Conflicts in the continent seriously hamper. Western agricultural subsidies send a direct and dangerous ripple effect on African farmers. This is further worsened by the erection of tariff barriers against African products in the markets of developed countries.
This unfavourable trade structure was highlighted earlier by South African President Thabo Mbeki who frowned at the nature of Sino-African trade. “The challenge is that you could — develop a relationship between China and the African continent which in reality isn’t different from that developed between Africa and the former colonial powers.” He made the same call at the Japan-Africa Summit in Yokohama in May 2008 when he insisted that Africa’s future economic development should be based on trade not aid. “Without discounting the importance of trade” Mbeki said, “improved terms of trade are critical to ensure [Africa's] full integration into the global economy.”
Among the many changes in Africa’s trade structure advocated by Mbeki was the call for greater access to new technologies at affordable prices and investment in research and development, technology and innovation as key instruments in enhancing African trade and ensuring economic growth. Tanzanian President Jakaya Kikwete spoke the same language at the Fourth Tokyo International Conference on African Development (TICAD 1V) calling on Japan to increase its trade with Africa. “What remains to be seen” he said, “is increased trade and investment between Africa and Japan ….”
What prospects for the MDGs
2015 is the target year of the Millennium Development Goals. Halfway in 2008, Ban Ki Moon has made it clear that the goals cannot be realised with the current trends. What makes this prospect bleaker is the number of new challenges facing the developed countries especially the current global financial crisis. Africa as usual stands at the receiving end of these odds.
The current trend also shows that without any major changes in its relations with its “development partners,” Africa has to pay the price not only for their economic problems, but for their further development as well. For example, the EU, caught up in the middle of its integration and economic crisis is trying to force a bitter pill down the throats of Africa in the form of Economic Partnership Agreements. Fearful of loosing Africa to its perceived rival – China, the U.S. is embracing a military approach towards Africa in the name of an Africa Command (AFRICOM). China on its part has embarked on a wanton exploitation of Africa’s raw materials backed by a counter-productive arms trade and also raising environmental concerns in the continent.
Though the MDGs touched on pertinent issues affecting the continent, they significantly avoided the perennial problems of migration, brain drain, capital flight and ethnicity which threaten the growth, peace and stability of Africa. No discussion about African development can be complete without paying regard to Africa’s youths, a large proportion of whom are, or will become migrants in search for decent lives. This youthful population also constitutes the cream of Africa’s intellectual wealth and therefore the engine of its future development.
Conclusion
Development is a process rooted in time and space. Every development process requires resources (human and natural). The external factor is also significant. Among these however, the human resource is the most important. President Bush did not miss the point when he observed “Africa’s most valuable resource is not its oil; it’s not its diamonds, it’s the talent and creativity of its people.” It is only when Africa’s “development partners” realise the need to make Africa’s human wealth more productive that the MDGs would have scored a point. To think that promises and hypocrisy can bail Africa out of poverty would be wishful thinking and the consequences will be shared by all. Bush again, “We have seen that conditions on the other side of the world can have a direct impact on our security.”
Climate change for example is a vivid illustration of how Africa has had to pay for the crimes of others. Said Ban Ki Moon, “it is sadly ironic that the poor who contribute the least to global warming suffer most from its ill effects.” It was in this light that the UN boss reminded the world that investing $72 billion yearly to achieve the MDGs, to pull “millions out of extreme poverty in Africa looks like good value.” The promises, the prospects and the challenges of the Millennium Development Goals stare at Africa, they stare at the world. “Paternalism has got to be a thing of the past,” said President Bush. “Joint venturing with good, capable people is what the future is all about.”
Sources
Delegates attend the ninth summit of African Union in Accra on July 3, 2007. African leaders have reaffirmed their common vision of a future continental union under a single government, but agreed to study the details and timing of how to achieve it.
African heads of state and government who recently attended the ninth African Union Summit in Accra, Ghana, to discuss regional integration agreed in principle on the need for the formation of the United States of Africa.
But they raised concern over the modalities of such integration, with many advocating economic and social cooperation rather than political union.
We are gathered here today to focus our minds and exchange views on an issue that preoccupied the minds of the founding fathers of Africa’s independence and democracy movements.
The creation of a supranational union will require enormous resources and consensus on the modalities of achieving such a goal. Towards this end, the views of non-state actors and the common citizenry are of paramount importance.
This is principally because the desired union government must be a union of the African people, and not merely a union of states and governments.
Opinions were, however, varied on the pace this process should take. That notwithstanding, the predominant view underscored the need to accelerate integration through the regional economic communities as the building blocs of a united Africa.
We in the East African Community have made major strides in our integration process. As we forge forward towards unification, I wish to underscore the need to reinforce our shared history, language, culture and a common heritage.
Nigeria has consistently supported and advocated the imperative of the ultimate goal of the African Union being full political and economic integration leading to evolvement of the United States of Africa. The critical issue at this point is whether to fast-track the process or to pursue the same objective through gradual incrementalism.
Of critical importance is the identification of the vital institutional and operational challenges which the concept of union government throws up, and principles approaches to meeting this challenges. This makes a strong case for gradual incrementalism.
There are clear and present threats and challenges which we must face up to. We cannot ignore the social, economic and political inequalities within and among our member states, which if not bridged would pose daunting obstacles on the march towards the union.
While economically I support integration with everybody, politically we should only integrate with people who are either similar or compatible with us. The whole of Africa has got some obvious incompatibilities when it comes to political integration. In East Africa we have been talking about fast-tracking the political federation.
East Africans are compatible, they can and should integrate economically and politically. Other areas of Africa that feel they have got a comparative degree of similarity or compatibility could also work for political integration.
Insisting on political integration at the continental level will bring together incompatible linkages that may create tension rather than cohesion.
Our recommendation is that we take a functions-based rational approach. What functions can most rationally be done at what level — village, district within Uganda, national, regional or continental?
There are definitely functions that can be done at the continental level, such as environment, trade negotiations, defence pact and common market.
The world has become a global village. In a globalised world ’splendid isolation’ has no place. The more countries, especially in Africa, remain as individual countries, the more marginalised they shall remain. United we stand, divided we fall.
But even as we pursue this noble objective, we cannot ignore the factors that militate against it. Full political integration presupposes total surrender of sovereignty. To some of us this may indeed be a tall order. Partial surrender of sovereignty in some areas may be the best option. The most appealing form of integration would be economic integration.
In 1959 Liberia called for a more measured approach [in the creation of a United Sates of Africa] through an association of African states which would focus attention on building institutions as a path towards President Kwame Nkrumah’s dream of one Africa.
Today, 45 years after the Casablanca and Monrovia movements, we are back to the challenge, we are in the country of President Nkrumah to discuss, once again, the unity of Africa. Today, Liberia, this promoter of African liberation, lies in ruins.
When Liberia was in the throes of self-destruction, West Africa and Africa generally intervened to save us form ourselves. We lost our sovereignty.
Liberia believes that this meeting should endorse without further study the concept of the United States of Africa.
Some 38 years after his death, Ghanaians have finally decided to honour the memory of their first President, Kwame Nkrumah with a national holiday on September 21 this year, which incidentally would have marked the 100th anniversary of his birthday. The day has been declared a public holiday and aptly named Founder’s Day. 
