Author: Tongkeh Joseph Fowale Zimbabwe’s land crisis is a problem deeply rooted in the history of British colonial administration in Africa. It began with Cecil Rhodes and his BSAC.
The story of Zimbabwe today is a story of conflict over land between whites and blacks. It is a conflict that has dragged a once-prosperous country down to a level where it now constitutes a danger to its own self. It is also a story deeply rooted in the colonial history of Africa.
It has, however, been manipulated by politicians at the national and international levels such that the truth about the origins of Zimbabwe’s crisis has been buried in the ashes of international politics.
The Origins of Zimbabwe’s Land Crisis
The origins of the land crisis in Zimbabwe are firmly rooted in the period of British colonialism in Africa. Zimbabwe fell within the orbit of (Southern) Africa where in Walter Rodney’s words “the absolute limit of exploitation was found.” This tragedy began with the establishment of the British South Africa Company (BSAC) by John Cecile Rhodes in 1890.
Rhodes, the forerunner of British colonial rule in Southern Africa, obtained the Charter for the BSAC in October 1889 from Lord Salisbury; the then British Prime Minister whom Robin Harlett says “drew comfort from glis assumptions about the future.” To obtain this Charter, Rhodes had earlier duped the Ndebele King — Lobengula into signing two treaties in 1880 and 1888 which deprived the monarch of both his land and authority.
The BSAC and the Land in Rhodesia
According to the Charter granted to Rhodes, his administration was to last for 25 years, but BSAC administration only ended in 1923. Rhodes gave his name — Rhodesia to his new booty and proceeded to enact legislation that favored white ownership of land. This legislation was backed by force. The first instance in the use of force occurred in 1894 when the BSAC under L.S Jameson began allocating 6000 acre farms to white troopers.
In 1894, the BSAC promulgated the Matabeleland-Order-in Council by which the BSA assumed ownership of land by right of conquest. With the consent of British imperial authorities, the BSAC proceeded to destroy all African institutions that obstructed the “profit” motive of the BSAC. Africans where therefore prevented from growing food crops and used instead in white-owned mines and farms. “These Africans,” notes Atieno-Odhiambo, “lived in hovels where they could be controlled and made to feel very desperate.”
End of BSAC administration and the acceleration of Land excision
BSAC administration ended in 1923 and Southern Rhodesia became a self-governing territory. The 1923 Constitution that ended BSAC administration did not take African aspirations into consideration. It instead gave “effective powers to settlers” as Robin Harlett observes. This made further alienation of land easier. In 1925, the Morris Carter Commission recommended racial division of land in Rhodesia.
The outcome of the Carter Commission’s recommendation was the Land Apportionment Act of 1930. This law removed Africans from the most fertile lands to barren ones. Africans were also removed from settlements along railways and major roads to prevent them from enjoying any commercial advantages.
The Land Husbandry Act of 1957 and the monumental Land Tenure Act of 1969 revealed the climax of colonial land deprivation in Southern Rhodesia. In Claire Palley’s words, the Land Tenure Act “was the open acknowledgement of the principle of racial paramountcy in the respective racial areas.”
Zimbabwe’s land crisis was enmeshed in the political developments in Africa throughout the period of colonialism. Between 1890 and 1969, Zimbabwe itself underwent many political transformations. From the BSAC through British colonial rule to Ian Smiths UDI, all successive regimes placed emphasis on land seizure from blacks. It was against this background that African nationalism was born in Southern Rhodesia.
RacistCecil Rhodes, prime minister of Cape Colony, was also a gold and diamond mogul.
Sources:
• Atieno-Odhiambo, E.S. “The Origins of the Zimbabwe Problem, 1888-1923 in S.E Wilmer. Zimbabwe Now, 1973.
• Chiambatti, A.M. “Africans and the Struggle for their rights in Rhodesia” in S.E Wilmer. Zimbabwe Now, 1973.
• Harlett, Robin. Africa since 1875, 1999.
• Palley, Claire. “Analysis of the 1971 British Proposals for a Settlement with Rhodesia” in S.E Wilmer. Zimbabwe Now, 1973.
• Rodney, Walter. How Europe underdeveloped Africa, 1990
From the AIG bonuses, to the economic meltdown, to the war in Afghanistan, it has been an eventful two months in office for President Obama. Steve Kroft has the behind-the-scenes interview.
President Barack Obama said he believes the global financial system remains at risk of implosion with the failure of Citigroup or AIG, which could touch off “an even more destructive recession and potentially depression.”
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
The struggle against oppression was the central thesis of Frantz Fanon’s revolutionary philosophy. And colonialism was the target of this fury. Fanon condemned colonialism in the most bitter terms and advocated violence in its most extreme form to confront this plague. In his words, “colonialism is not a thinking machine nor a body endowed with reasoning faculties. It is violence in its most natural state … and will only yield when confronted with greater violence.”
Frantz Fanon This revolutionary outlook is reflected in many of Fanon’s works, among which include: Black Skin White Masks, A Dying Colonialism, Toward the African Revolution and The Wretched of the Earth. The latter book, acclaimed as Fanon’s most accomplished work, has been described as the “bible of decolonization” because of its radical impact on, and eventual success of the anti-colonial struggle.
Half a century after Fanon’s death, his thesis of violence still remains an object of heated debate. This controversy is increasingly fanned by the undying contradictions within postcolonial Africa. Dr. Homi K. Bhabha questioned the relevance of Fanon’s radicalism in contemporary Africa. “Is The Wretched of the Earth now only a historical and scholarly artifact?” he asked. Continued he, “In the era of globalization is it a relic of naturalistic struggle? Or do Fanon’s insights transcend the particulars of his time? Might they help us make sense of today’s political and economic tensions?” Dr. Bhabha’s doubts suggest both the climate of tension and uncertainty in Africa on the one hand, and the almost-futile search for solutions to the innumerable problems infecting the continent. All of these calamities always boil down to conflicts of one form or another. Where is Fanon’s place in this violence-plagued continent?
Judged against the background of current upheavals in Africa, one requires a deeper reading and then a second interpretation of Fanon. These twin tasks can only make sense when we strive to understand the climate of Fanon’s time and compare it with that of today. Given that Africa alone currently accounts for more than 35% of the world’s conflicts, Fanon still has many questions to answer. Firstly, did Fanon in the middle of his rage ever prescribe an end to violence in Africa in the foreseeable future? Secondly, what is the difference between the unabated spiral of violence in Africa and the colonial-type violence? Put in other words, is violence in contemporary Africa a mark of change or is it of continuity? Thirdly, is half a century not time enough for Africa to reconsider its reverence for violence? And consequent upon these questions, is the struggle lost for Africa?
Violence in Africa, a colonial heritage
Colonialism was without doubt a turning point in Africa’s history and destiny. It accelerated the pace of devastation initiated by the obnoxious slave trade. In Walter Rodney’s words, colonialism completely destroyed what remained of the political, economic and socio-cultural achievements of Africa and left in its place “nothing of compensatory value.” This colonial havoc was the springboard of Fanon’s philosophy of violence. Its test ground was Algeria where Fanon saw for himself what he later called “the psychiatric disorders of colonialism.” Angered by this bestiality of colonialism, Fanon concluded that the Algerian revolution had created “an irreversible situation” for the entire African continent.
Fanon was not alone in preaching violence as the only way out of colonialism and neocolonialism. Che Guevara in 1964, also made it unequivocally clear that “to solve the problems now besetting mankind, there is need to eliminate completely the exploitation of the dependent countries by the developed capitalist countries.” And he spelt it out clearly “with all the consequences that this implies.” This loud call to arms explains the triumph of violence throughout Africa in the 1960s, 70s and 80s. The eventual success of liberation forces in Africa lent credit to Fanon’s dictum that “only violence pay.” Even the Organization of African Unity (OAU), the continental body formed in 1963 to free the continent from colonial rule recognized the need for violence by establishing a Liberation Committee. Its task was to use every means possible, including violence to end colonial rule. And this it did.
In calling on the African masses to resort to violence against colonialism, Fanon did not have to search too far for reasons to convince his audience. He pointed to the exploitative relationship that existed between the settlers and the Africans. The settlers used every means possible to secure their economic interests, including extreme brutality which Fanon describes as “bayonets and caning.” Violence and cruelty were therefore major features of colonialism. Fanon therefore pressed on the need to counter this violence “with greater violence.” Even at the cost of 45.000 lives in Setif, 90.000 in Madagascar, 2000 in Kenya and 250000 in German Tanganyika, Fanon urged Africans to answer violence with violence. This was only part of the price Africans had to pay for carrying the “Whiteman’s burden,” the imposed weight of colonialism.
Like Rodney, Fanon blames the diametrical relationship existing between Africa and Europe entirely on colonialism. Says Fanon, “the well-being and progress of Europe have been built on the sweat and dead bodies of negroes….” And Fanon did not mince words when he made a strong claim that “Europe is Africa’s creation.” To Fanon therefore, the colonized man only “finds freedom in and through violence.” In the course of this struggle, Fanon warns that the native should be prepared to “…sacrifice everything and water their native soil with their blood.” He further cautioned seriously that as a strategy in this struggle, the native can accept a “compromise with colonialism, but never a surrender of principle.”
Another damaging aspect of colonialism which Fanon vociferously decried was the physical and spiritual partition of Africa. It was under colonial rule that Africa was split into several halves for European domination. Colonialism seized African land and minerals for European economic enterprise. It was under colonial rule that Africans were graded, degraded and finally classified into natives and assimiles. Colonialism obliged Africans to carry identification badges on their own soil. On a more dramatic scale, colonialism dissected Africa along the Sahara and prided the northern part of the continent with civilization because it bordered Europe, the land of achievement and wonder. The Southern part of the continent was termed “barbaric” and “uncivilized.” This “primitive” part needed the civilization missions from Europe, hence the justification for European “paternalism” in Africa.
This deliberate attempt at tearing Africa apart was the handiwork of colonialism and a forerunner of (and compliment to) the “divide and rule” policy that marked colonial rule. Added to this puncture on Africa, was the tendency to implant and enforce the notion of racism and ethnicity which have today set Africa ablaze. Observes Fanon, “Colonialism does not simply state the existence of tribes, it also reinforces it and separates them … colonialism is separatist and regionalist.” As a result, continues Fanon, this “legalized racism … maintained in the very depth of the consciousness (of the African people) can only be combated by force.” Fanon’s anger at colonialism is reflected by the dose of fury with which this plague had to be confronted. “No diplomacy, no political genius, no skill can cope with it except force,” he stressed.
Violence in the postcolonial context
Did the coming of independence halt the specter of violence in Africa? Or put in other words, has independence met the expectations of Africans who fought for and eagerly awaited this “wind of Change?” The answer to this question is found on the faces of millions of African children who are either born with disease, or turned refugees or orphans at infancy. It is found on the faces of African youths with bleeding feet on the sands of the Sahara as they make their way to Europe where persecution, prejudice and deportation await them. The answer is found on the faces of millions of Africans caught in the crossfire of civil wars and armed conflicts, genocide and state brutality. Who else can tell the true meaning of independence than those Africans caught in the claws of AIDS, malaria, hunger, mismanagement and corruption? What should the peasants of Africa say of independence when they survive on what Fidel Castro calls “starvation salaries?”
When Europe granted flag independence to Africa, the new breed of European spokesmen in the name of Presidents saw no need to severe the colonial bond. Mr. leon M’ba of Gabon could claim with impunity that “Gabon is independent, but between Gabon and France nothing has changed.” His counterpart in the Ivory Coast, Houghouet Boigny had earlier opposed independence for Africa at the Bamako Conference insisting that “there is no national problem in Black Africa.” The successors of M’ba and Boigny are the current leaders of Africa. This is the bunch Fanon calls “the straw men and traveling salesmen of colonialism.”
In Fanon’s words, independence for Africa simply meant the replacing of one “species” of men with another “species” of men. This new species constitutes the core of the neocolonialist framework, the logical continuation and consequence of colonialism. Here, Fanon singles out two groups of people who need an equal dose of violence. These are the national bourgeoisie of the Third World and the lumpenproletariat. The former group Fanon says, balances its budget with loans and gifts. And together with the latter group, both simply serve the role which Fanon describes as “a transmission line between the nation and capitalism.”
To Fanon, there is a vivid contrast between the bourgeoisie of the metropole and that of the periphery. While the metropolitan bourgeoisie contributed enormously to the development of the colonial country, the bourgeoisie of the colonised country has always remained ignorant and underdeveloped. This group is more preoccupied with what in Fanon’s words are “activities of the intermediary type.” Its major concern is with “the ground nut harvest, with Cocoa Crop and olive yield.” This parasitic group remains contented with sending “out raw materials, being Europe’s small farmers who specialize in unfinished products.”
Fanon has found many apologists in modern Africa. Walter Rodney vividly painted the picture of an African peasant entering colonialism “with a hoe” and leaving “with a hoe.” Five decades after Fanon’s pronouncements on Africa, his views on African agricultural backwardness were repeated by French President Nicholas Sarkozy on his visit to Senegal in 2008. The French President observed that African peasants were living according to the seasons and were therefore outside of history. In”the African imaginary world … there was no place for human adventure or the idea of progress,” he said. Sarkozy however admitted that “Europe had ruined a way of life during its colonization of the continent.” Does Sarkozy share Fanon’s advocacy for violence? It is difficult to tell because the Frenchman expressed sympathy for Africa when he wept “the suffering of the black man is the suffering of all men.”
Insisting that the Third World bourgeoisie exists only in spirit, Fanon observes that this class invests its energy on a “neo-colonialist industrialization in which the country’s economy flounders.” This poorly informed and misdirected middle class instead of investing in the priorities of their people, instead take to leisure thus transforming Africa into what Fanon sees as “Europe’s brothel.” This class makes virtually “no change in marketing of basic products.”
It was against this background of economic inefficiency, mismanagement and misdirected priorities that Fanon reminded the exploited army of peasants throughout Africa that “only violence pays.” His thesis of violence was recently invoked by Nelson Mandela, former South African President and icon of the anti-apartheid struggle. Angered by the level of decay in Zimbabwe, Mandela was among the few African leaders to invoke a “Fanonist” approach to the crisis in Zimbabwe by calling for an uprising against the leadership. “Ordinary people should depose leaders who enrich themselves at the expense of their countrymen,” Mandela said in 2000. Was Mandela Speaking for Fanon?
One very strong case Fanon makes against the bourgeoisie of the Third World is the political weakness of this class. Its Leadership is marked by cruelty, greed and violence. This “unmasked, unpainted and cynical” dictatorship is given a tribal connotation because it emerges from the dominant tribe. If Fanon were alive today, he would have been alarmed by the fact that there is not one country in Africa which has been spared the scourge of tribalism. This tribal dominance of power and resources is at the heart of the ceaseless conflicts in Africa. These conflicts take different forms; civil wars, inter-tribal wars, coups and state brutality. From the Congo and Nigeria in the 1960s, through Rwanda in the 1990s to present day Kenya, Chad and Sudan, cases abound. There is little indication that the wave of violence in Africa shows any signs of ebbing. What then do we make of Fanon’s thesis of violence?
In Fanon’s view, the diminished effect of independence (or its complete lack of meaning) owes largely to the complacency of the Third World bourgeoisie. This class rose to power in the name of a “narrow nationalism.” Unable to put into practice a government even with a “minimum humanist content,” this class took to rhetoric and propaganda. In Fanon’s words, they “bandy about in irresponsible fashion phrases that come straight out of European treaties on morals and political philosophy.” Alex Thomson in his book “An Introduction to African Politics” seems to agree with Fanon on the surge of personal philosophies by African leaders. Thomson cites Sengho’s negritude, Kaunda’s humanism, Nyerere’s Ujama and Mobutu’s Mobutuism.
In recent years, this rhetorical campaign has grown even louder from the state to the continental level. Libyan leader Muammar Gadhaffi takes centre stage as the protector of the oppressed and defender of African unity in modern times. Zimbabwe’s Robert Mugabe, the bete noire of the West comes in as champion of a “look east” policy for Africa. South Africa’s Thabo Mbeki poses as the flag bearer of an “African renaissance.”
When cut to size, do these philosophies offer any credible alternatives to the postcolonial frustrations in Africa? Does Mr Mbeki’s silent diplomacy towards Zimbabwe and the recent upsurge of Xenophobia in his country augur well for his “renaissance scheme?” Does Mr Mugabe’s absolutism give him any moral authority to tell Africa which direction to look when his own people have nowhere to turn and no one to look up to? Does the alleged maltreatment of black Africans in Libya and the rest of North Africa speak well of President Gadhaffi’s position as the unifier of a divided continent? Are these leaders still “the transmission line between the nation and Neo-colonialism?”
When one situates Fanon within the context of ceaseless uncertainties in contemporary Africa, one easily identifies the root causes of violence. This remains the only weapon in the hands of the suppressed and exploited masses. To these “wretched of the earth” as Fanon would call them, “national consciousness is nothing but a crude empty shell…the cracks in it explain how easy it is for young independent countries to switch from nation to ethnic group and from state to tribe which is terribly detrimental to the development of the nation and national unity.”
Fanon was very prophetic in foreshadowing what Dr. Bhabha later termed “ethno-nationalistic switchbacks” of our time. In post independent Africa, such switchbacks in the form of violent conflicts are quite visible. The entire continent is ablaze with conflicts of one kind or another all of which trace their origins to bad leadership, neo-colonial intrusion and lack of vision for the continent. While serving with the Press Services of the National Liberation Front (FLN) in Algeria, Fanon seized this opportunity to amplify one of his first themes, “the unity of Africa.” What have African leaders made of this call? Fanon himself saw these compradorbourgeois as obstacles to African unity. As solution, he stressed the need to “turn the revolution inwards” against these agents of African underdevelopment.
From Fanon’s time till present, violence in Africa has taken many forms. State brutality against the people has provoked equally hostile responses from the people against the state as seen in Sudan. Tribes have stood against tribes, leading to unforgettable genocides as seen in Rwanda. Coups and counter coups, border conflicts, religious conflagrations, secessionist attempts and the struggle among people and nations for access to resources such as land and water are among the several causes of this chaos. None however, is as evident as bad leadership, greed, graft and corruption, which remain the worst forms of violence against Africans by Africans.
It was in Fanon’s own Algeria (where he gave his life in the fight against oppression), that the army showered bullets on defenceless youths in 1988. This act of carnage forced Fanon’s widow, Josie, to cry from her sickened heart “Oh Frantz, the wretched of the Earth again.” If Fanon were alive today, he would have reiterated the need for such gruesome acts to “be beaten down by force.”
Conclusion
Fanon died in 1961 at the age of 36 with the language of violence still fresh in his mouth. He was very unrepentant in his claim that “colonialism only loosens its hold when the knife is at its throat.” He would have repeated these same words in the present context of neo-colonial oppression with the conspiracy of Africa’s new “species” of men in the name of leaders.
Since Fanon’s death in the age of “the wind of change,” millions of Africans are yet to know the meaning of change. The challenges still remain for millions more who go night and day without food, clothing in a supposedly scientific, technological and space age. Adding his voice to Fanon’s call for violence against oppression, Rodney not only identifies the presence of “African accomplices in the imperialist system,” but challenges the oppressed masses to take up the responsibility to understand the system and work for its overthrow. There are two lessons to be drawn from this line of thinking. The first is that violence in Africa is intricately linked with the nature of leadership and governance. Secondly, and consequent upon the first implication, Africa still has many conflicts on its way if the current system remains unchanged. The AU and NEPAD do not have to search too far for causes of instability in Africa.
They rather have to search far for solutions beginning with “in-house” cleaning.
Zimbabwe’s land crisis is a problem deeply rooted in the history of British colonial administration in Africa. It began with Cecil Rhodes and his BSAC. 
