Africa Faces New Threat of New Colonialism

[Malachi151]

http://www.projectcensored.org/publications/2004/10.html

Today, Africa is the most war-torn continent in the world. Over the past fifteen years, thirty-two of the fifty-three African countries experienced violent conflict. During the cold war years (1950-1989), the U.S. sent $1.5 billion in arms and training to Africa thus setting the stage for the current round of conflicts. From 1991-1995 the U.S. increased the amount of weapons and other military assistance to fifty of the total fifty-three African countries. Over the years these U.S. funded wars have been responsible for the deaths of millions of Africans, and the subsequent displacement, disease, and starvation of many millions more.
In June of 2002, leaders from the eight most powerful countries in the world (the G8) met to form a New Partnership for Africa’s Development (NEPAD) as an "anti-poverty" campaign. One glaring omission, however, is the consultation and representation of the African nations. Not one of the eight leaders was from Africa. The danger of the NEPAD proposal is that it fails to protect Africa from exploitation of its resources. NEPAD is akin to Plan Columbia in its attempt to employ Western development techniques to provide economic opportunities for international investment. Welcomed by the G8 nations, this development plan reads like a mad dash to grab up as much of Africa’s remaining resources as possible.
According to Robert Murphy of the US State Department’s Office of African Analysis, Africa is important to “the diversification of our sources of imported oil” away from the Middle East. The U.S. currently gets 15% of its total oil imports from the African continent. By 2015, that figure will be 25%. Rather than a plan to reduce African poverty, NEPAD is a mechanism for ensuring that U.S. and other Western investments are protected.

[Ed]

Better than cannibalism, I suppose.

[hgc]

Malachi,

Perhaps you could explain how the Rawanda genocide is due to outside (non-African) interference, as opposed to the lack thereof.

Looking forward to it.

[Segnosaur]

Could you find sources that are any more biased?

Lets see:
- They blame the US for $1.5 billion in cold war military aid (suggesting it lead to the current fighting), but don't acknowledge that other groups (such as the Soviet block) were also involved in Africa. (Cuba was even sending troops)
- The linked article complains about the US underselling agricultural products (making it impossible for some African countries to sell their products), without acknowleging that: 1) Much of the lower cost of American goods comes from higher efficiencies, and 2) Europe (with high agricultural subsidies) is at least partly to blame
- Are the African countries going to be forced to participate? (Are they going to actively invade African countries that choose not to particpate) If not, then why should anyone care who is involved in this NEPAD organization?
- They blame the US for wanting African resources, but guess what? That's what global trade is about; you trade items that you have a surplus of, for items that you don't have. Are they suggesting Africa go without oil just because the US wants it?

[Tony]

I want some tequila.

[corplinx]

should we just rename this forum "blog for thirteen yead old marxists" instead of politics and current events?

[Skeptic]

Frankly, I'd bet most Africans would welcome a new colonialism with open arms, judging by the utter failure of most independent African nations.

[DialecticMaterialist]

Part of me thinks that certain European nations, seeing as they disrupted Africa and somewhat catapulted them into the modern age, have some moral resposnsibility in bringing order to the region. I consider them leaving the regions to "govern themselves" somewhat short-sighted and reckless.

[Malachi151]

Originally posted by DialecticMaterialist
Part of me thinks that certain European nations, seeing as they disrupted Africa and somewhat catapulted them into the modern age, have some moral resposnsibility in bringing order to the region. I consider them leaving the regions to "govern themselves" somewhat short-sighted and reckless.

Yes, Africa has been totally mismanaged. The problem is that when the Europeans initially colonized Afrrica it was completely exploitive in nature. Most places were segregated and the Africans were reduced to sub-humanstatus in their own lands.

Because of this they fought to kick the Europeans out, and they did leave in a way, but not exactly.

The problem there is that everything was in conflict prior to the pullout from Africa, so that when they did pull out they left it a total wreck. It wasn't something that was done with much cooperation so it left a horrible power void that was largely filled with all the worste types of people and the populations were basically like blacks in America after salvery ended, they didn't have any education or knowledge or anything.

Obviously something needs to be done and the Africans need some major help. I think the place has a lot of promise if they could get the right people in there. IMO they need to form a United States of Africa, get assistance from all of the European countries that exploited them, and they need good leadeship that is honestly concerned with the welfare of the Africans and not in trying to exploit them some more.

It can work, the problem is finding decent people who also have the power to get in there and make it work and in getting cooperation from all the different groups in Africa.

Africa has enough natural resources to be a wealthy place if they all get together and form one nation and spread the wealth. Its really amazing how much potential the place has.

[Hypocolius]

Originally posted by Malachi151


Yes, Africa has been totally mismanaged. The problem is that when the Europeans initially colonized Afrrica it was completely exploitive in nature. Most places were segregated and the Africans were reduced to sub-humanstatus in their own lands.

Crap

Because of this they fought to kick the Europeans out, and they did leave in a way, but not exactly.
Complete crap. Independence movements throughout Africa were generally peaceful and non-violent. There are some obvious exceptions, but even the most famous (the Mau-mau uprising) resulted in the deaths of only a couple of dozen Europeans.
The problem there is that everything was in conflict prior to the pullout from Africa,
Ah, I see, you're thinking of Angola and Mozambique aren't you? Not everywhere was like that.

so that when they did pull out they left it a total wreck.
When the Brits pulled out of Zambia (leaving behind a stable infrastructure and a large population of expats who now wished to work for the Zambian government BTW) Zambia declared the following year income-tax free because they were doing so well.
It wasn't something that was done with much cooperation so it left a horrible power void that was largely filled with all the worste types of people and the populations were basically like blacks in America after salvery ended, they didn't have any education or knowledge or anything.
You have absolutely no idea of what you're talking about.
Obviously something needs to be done and the Africans need some major help. I think the place has a lot of promise if they could get the right people in there.
How generous of you.
IMO they need to form a United States of Africa, get assistance from all of the European countries that exploited them,
They already get oodles of cash and other aid from just about every European nation, whether or not that nation ever had anything to do with them. And United States of Africa? In Africa stability is produced by fragmentation, not Federation. Zaire (now DRC) is one of the largest, most ethnically diverse countries on the continent, and has been in a state of continuous civil war for decades. Swaziland, Lesotho and Botswana OTOH are all ethnically homogenous (nearly), small (or smallish) and peaceful. Wars in Africa are generally fought along tribal lines, and are usually about who gets power in the country. A United States of Africa is one way of exporting the conditions that prevail in DRC to the whole continent.
and they need good leadeship that is honestly concerned with the welfare of the Africans and not in trying to exploit them some more.
And where will these paragons come from?
It can work, the problem is finding decent people who also have the power to get in there and make it work and in getting cooperation from all the different groups in Africa.
You make it sound so simple, why didn't we think of that?
Africa has enough natural resources to be a wealthy place if they all get together and form one nation and spread the wealth. Its really amazing how much potential the place has.
I don't even know how to respond to this. Maybe this is why Africa is such a mess. Being patted on the head and told you're a good little African must have driven them so crazy that they went out and blew eveything up.

Look, I don't want to get on your case too much, but I'd suggest you do a little background reading (Start with The Scramble for Africa by Packenham).

[Jon_in_london]

All of Africas problems are caused by the the greed and incompetence of Africans. Nobody has treated the Africans worse than the Africans.


In June of 2002, leaders from the eight most powerful countries in the world (the G8) met to form a New Partnership for Africa’s Development (NEPAD) as an "anti-poverty" campaign. One glaring omission, however, is the consultation and representation of the African nations. Not one of the eight leaders was from Africa.


Fook it Malachi!!!!! dont you actually take the time to fooking research this crap before you start spamming this forum? No consultation with the Africans concenring NEPAD? FOR FOOKSAKE MALACHI!!! NEPAD IS THE BRAIN-CHILD OF THABO MBEKI!!!!!

THATS THABO MBEKI, PRESIDENT OF THE REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA YOU FRINKIN MORON!!!!

[hammegk]

Jon, here I thought we would never agree, but those statements are right on the mark imo.

The biggest threat facing Africa is if re-colonialization doesn't occur, and this time stay the course until national infrastructure and political systems are in place.

Left to themselves I see no hope for a hundred years or more, if ever.

Malachi, have you actually even been to "Africa"?

[Jon_in_london]

NEPAD is akin to Plan Columbia in its attempt to employ Western development techniques to provide economic opportunities for international investment. Welcomed by the G8 nations, this development plan reads like a mad dash to grab up as much of Africa’s remaining resources as possible.

So Malachi! you blithering jibbering trolling cumrag, Since the plan was invented by an AFRICAN POLITICIAN are you prepared to acknowledge that:

orginally posted by moi
All of Africas problems are caused by the the greed and incompetence of Africans. Nobody has treated the Africans worse than the Africans.


<marquee behavior=alternate>
?
</marquee>

[WildCat]

So many things to pick from here, I'll just address this whopper before I go out to subject myself to another Bears game (a foolish, masochistic thing to do I know).
Originally posted by Malachi151

Africa has enough natural resources to be a wealthy place if they all get together and form one nation and spread the wealth. Its really amazing how much potential the place has.
I'd settle for peace between the Christians and Muslims in Nigeria and the Sudan, various ethnic rivalries in Somalia, Rwanda, Uganda, the limb-chopping internal strife going on in Morocco (sponsored by the peace-loving gov't of Libya), the latest power grab of a desperate despot in Zimbabwe, etc. etc. etc.

Many have blamed Europeans for making artificial African countries made up of different (and traditionally rival) ethnic groups, and you want to lump them all together?! Plan Malachi sounds like a bloodbath to me, potentially even more so than what the Bears/Vikings game seems destined to be.

Sorry for the football references, but it is Sunday after all, the day God set aside for playing football. :wink:

[American]

Originally posted by hgc
Perhaps you could explain how the Rawanda genocide is due to outside (non-African) interference, as opposed to the lack thereof.

Looking forward to it.


If you and I were ever to find common ground, I think that was it. (But the moment has already passed...)


I think Africa had better accept outside help if it stands a prayer against fighting AIDS. Somehow the witch doctors, drum beats, and ornate cultural face-masks aren't doing the trick.

[Malachi151]

Crap

Umm.. no, not crap, that was totlaly accurate.

For example:

http://members.tripod.com/~marklsl/Writings/africa.htm

In promoting a dominant colonial system of stratification, white society set up physical, economic and socio-cultural boundaries in a bid to maintain control over their colonial subjects. Consequently, colonial society embarked on numerous ways to defend these boundaries and to resist any form of transgression that would breach these barriers. Therefore, any attempt to penetrate these boundaries often led to opposition and resistance on the physical, economic and socio-cultural fronts, both in terms of societal repercussions, as well as in drastic measures taken to enforce these barriers. To a certain degree, these measures of boundary enforcement succeeded in maintaining the prevailing social order, with many incidents of barrier encroachment successfully defended against. However, certain boundary transgressions proved too powerful to guard against, and eventually resulted in a toppling of the established colonial system. This can be seen in the eventual independence of Kenya from British rule, which set up a new system no longer led by whites at the top of the hierarchy, but with blacks in the forefront of power.

The facts behind this are so obvious and so blatant I am puzzled that anyone would say otherwise.

http://users.erols.com/mwhite28/images/afri1914.gif

http://users.erols.com/mwhite28/afri1914.htm

Complete crap. Independence movements throughout Africa were generally peaceful and non-violent. There are some obvious exceptions, but even the most famous (the Mau-mau uprising) resulted in the deaths of only a couple of dozen Europeans.

First of all when I say fought I didn't not mean via war, I meant they struggled, which took form in a variety of ways from war, to protest, to non-cooperation, etc.

Ah, I see, you're thinking of Angola and Mozambique aren't you? Not everywhere was like that.

No, I'm talking about most of Africa. There was conflict everywhwere in a variety of forms, from social and economic tension to physical conflict.

When the Brits pulled out of Zambia (leaving behind a stable infrastructure and a large population of expats who now wished to work for the Zambian government BTW) Zambia declared the following year income-tax free because they were doing so well.

Teh British puulout of Africa was generally peaceful, but the socio-economic conequences were still devestating. You can't really say that its the British's fault for the way the pulled out, the problem lay more with what they did while they were in and some of it was really no fault of anyone it was just a fact of the differences between British and African cultures, which were very different in terms of sophistocation. Nevertheless the problem faced by the Africans is the same.

Britain quit colonial Africa in a windy hurry; many of Africa's problems stem from that era.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/sierra/article/0,2763,244068,00.html

A bloody history: Namibia's colonisation

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/1514856.stm

On 2 October 1904 the German commander, General von Trotha issued the following proclamation:

"I, the great general of the German troops, send this letter to the Herero people... All Hereros must leave this land... Any Herero found within the German borders with or without a gun, with or without cattle, will be shot. I shall no longer receive any women or children; I will drive them back to their people. I will shoot them. This is my decision for the Herero people."

You have absolutely no idea of what you're talking about.

No, actually that would be you. You can read any number of hundreds of accounts about the rapid pullout of Africa by the Europeans. That was what the Africans wanted, but it did have negative effects as well, it was just inevitable.

They already get oodles of cash and other aid from just about every European nation, whether or not that nation ever had anything to do with them.

Anyone who has worked in just abtou any major engineering field, be is computer, social, electrical, mechanical, etc knows that its typically much more expensive to fix a problem then it is to create a problem. Creating problems is cheap adn easy, fixing them is costly and painful. Thats exactly why we all need to be so damned careful not to create these kinds of problems in the first place, fixing them takes generations and tons of money a dedication and the problems have global impacts.

And United States of Africa? In Africa stability is produced by fragmentation, not Federation.


Fragmentation will never be a long term solution to anything. The only long term solution is increasing unification. African fragmentation comes from several factors.

#1 The traditional trical rivalries in Africa
#2 The colonial boundaries and splits which again created rivalry because most of the colonial powers were fighting among each other as well.
#3 Introduced religion, Islam and Christianity, these again cause rivalry.
#4 Poverty. Poverty has the effect of making people self defensive and militant.

I'd suggest you do a little background reading

Exactly, you need to do some background reading....

dont you actually take the time to fooking research this crap before you start spamming this forum

I didn't write it, nor did I comment on it, I simply presented it for discussion, why are you getting all hopped up?

NEPAD IS THE BRAIN-CHILD OF THABO MBEKI

So? How does that represent Africans at this particular meeting?

http://www.dfa.gov.za/docs/nepa275a.htm

From what I understand this meeting in 2002 was between NEPAD and the groups like the IMF and World Bank. Apparently the problem being highlighted here is that ths was a meetign among the leaders fo the G8 on "how to deal with NEPAD". NEPAD wants to cancel all debts and things of that nature, and these leaders do not.So, the question is, why have a meeting on NEPAD if only the interests of one side of the issue are present?

All of Africas problems are caused by the the greed and incompetence of Africans. Nobody has treated the Africans worse than the Africans.

Untrue. Yes it is true that in the post-colonial stage Africans have abused their power and caused prblems for the African people. There are corrupt people among every group, but the problem was teh social infrastructure that was creted and left behind that led to this kind of situation in the first place as well as who cooperated with who.

This is the story behind all of colonialism and Americas actions around the world as well. Western pwoers seek out people to work with in these foriegn countries who will represent thier interests. They often end up delaing with scum that will sell their own people out for a buck, who often end up going against the interests of the Western powers too. They are people out for themselves and they tell Western businessmen and politicans what they want to hear.

Instead of choosing to work with a guy that says "I want to help the poor people become better educated and earn higher wages", they work with the guy that says, "Yes I can arrange to run those mines for you and get you a good price on the diamonds and gold." Then 10 years down the road you have a disaster.

Many have blamed Europeans for making artificial African countries made up of different (and traditionally rival) ethnic groups, and you want to lump them all together?!

Well, at the time I had no idea that anyone else was thinking about this, but I did a search and:

http://www.finalcall.com/international/1999/oau9-21-99.htm

http://www.worldlink.co.uk/stories/storyReader$1100

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/africa/829060.stm

http://mondediplo.com/2000/09/12africa

http://www.geocities.com/unitedstatesafrica/

You may also want to research Pan Africanism.

[Hypocolius]

Originally posted by Malachi151
Umm.. no, not crap, that was totlaly accurate.

No, that would be opinion.
In promoting a dominant colonial system of stratification, white society set up physical, economic and socio-cultural boundaries in a bid to maintain control over their colonial subjects. This sounds to me to be a fair description of Victorian society as a whole, and not confined to Africa. But this is all beside the point. It
should be fairly obvious that colonialism per se was not the major problem. Leaving aside the patronising paternalistic viewpoint of the colonisers (we can't after all judge our predecessors by the standards of today), on the whole colonialism brought infrastructure, education and development. That's what the intent was, and that is largely what happened. In the post second world war era, the colonising countries could no longer afford the luxury of overseas dominions (which were a net drain on their economies) so when the winds of change blew through Africa (fanned by communist-supported insurrections and freedom fighters) they took the opportunity to let go, possibly precipitously. As someone who grew up in post-colonial Africa, however, let me tell you that it was far from
that when they did pull out they left it a total wreck

I'm not going to include your splendid map becasue of space, however I will point out one or two things.

1: Aside from the fact that one or two conflicts are missing (Matabeleland in the 1890's, the Zulu war of 1879, the First Boer War of 1881, and the several smaller conflicts against such tribes as the Griquas, Basutho etc), doesn't it strike you how few armed conflicts there were between the indigenous populations and the occupiers over what is a considerable period of history?

2: Also, the only country that was not colonised is Abyssinia, now Ethiopia. Can you see any correlation between how stuffed up a country is now, and whether or not it was once colonised?

Teh British puulout of Africa was generally peaceful, but the socio-economic conequences were still devestating. You can't really say that its the British's fault for the way the pulled out, the problem lay more with what they did while they were in and some of it was really no fault of anyone it was just a fact of the differences between British and African cultures, which were very different in terms of sophistocation. Nevertheless the problem faced by the Africans is the same.
Thank you for the exoneration. I think that the issue here is the sudden, precipitous on rush of a new era, that would have happened whether the country was colonised or not. Most of Africa went from relativley unsophisticated, subsistence type existences to 20th century urban sprawl in a matter of decades, a journey that in Europe was taken over centuries. It is not surprising then that social chaos resulted. This was not a result of colonialism, and in fact its effects could well have been muted by the colonisers. The two African countries who retained European type colonialism for the longest (Zimbabwe and South Africa) are arguably the most socially integrated into the 20th century (the 21st century is not due in Africa for a while yet).
Fragmentation will never be a long term solution to anything. The only long term solution is increasing unification. African fragmentation comes from several factors.

#1 The traditional trical rivalries in Africa
#2 The colonial boundaries and splits which again created rivalry because most of the colonial powers were fighting among each other as well.
#3 Introduced religion, Islam and Christianity, these again cause rivalry.
#4 Poverty. Poverty has the effect of making people self defensive and militant.

I agree with all the above, especially #3, though the London Missionary Society was fairly influential in combatting the slave trade. However I don't think that fragmentation is a bad thing, after all look at Eastern Europe since the collapse of the Soviet Union. Your first point about tribal rivalries comes in here. It has to be recognised that Africa is not, and never has been homogenous. A Masai has as much right to retain his own cultural identity as a Zulu. Any attempt to smother that inherent right is doomed to failure.
There are corrupt people among every group, but the problem was teh social infrastructure that was creted and left behind that led to this kind of situation in the first place as well as who cooperated with who.
The main problem here is that traditionally most African tribes are run on quite paternalistic grounds, with a series of paramount chiefs and headmen making political decisions without consulting the populace. Should an individual (the classic African 'Strong Man') gain influence over these cheifs he effectively can control a large group. This has happened innumerable times throughout Africa (think Shaka Zulu). The imposition of a Westminster style of government with a single figurehead will obviously jump-start this process, an unfortunate side effect of imposing democracy on a population that is socially and culturally not suited to it.

Instead of choosing to work with a guy that says "I want to help the poor people become better educated and earn higher wages", they work with the guy that says, "Yes I can arrange to run those mines for you and get you a good price on the diamonds and gold." Then 10 years down the road you have a disaster.
And why can't the poor people get higher wages from working in a mine? Socialism in all its forms has been tried throughout Africa, it doesn't work. Capitalism however might have a better chance.

You may also want to research Pan Africanism.

The slogan of the Pan Africanist Conference used to be "One Settler, One Bullet" I don't think that that is a very helpful attitude, do you?

[Ed]

Malachi:

When you say "Fragmentation will never be a long term solution to anything. The only long term solution is increasing unification. African fragmentation comes from several factors.

#1 The traditional trical rivalries in Africa
#2 The colonial boundaries and splits which again created rivalry because most of the colonial powers were fighting among each other as well.
#3 Introduced religion, Islam and Christianity, these again cause rivalry.
#4 Poverty. Poverty has the effect of making people self defensive and militant."

I take that, by extention, to mean that you think that the "diversity" concept in the US is dangerous. Is that so?

[Mr Manifesto]

Originally posted by Ed
Better than cannibalism, I suppose.

Altogether now, folks:

"Africa went downhill the day the colonialists left!"
































(and the White Supremacists sing do, de-do, de-do, doo-de-do-do, de-do, de-do, doo-de-do-doooo!)