06/11/00
The writer of the article "The Heart of the Matter," published recently in the Economist of May 13-19, 2000, is driven by a desire on his part to justify Western neo-colonialist interests in Africa. Look at the perspective he brings to African affairs. He speaks of Africa as if he were a representative of the IMF, the World Bank, etc.--in short "globalization." But globalization for whom? Is the primary objective of the IMF to advance African interests? Or is it to advance Western interests in Africa?
But something else appears to be at work behind the article: the writer appears to be reacting to thwarted expectations, on the part of the West, for Africa in the twenty-first century. Apparently, Western presumptions about Africa are not going according to prescriptions worked out by the West.
Europeans are quite curious. When things don't go their way, they invariably retreat into their neo-colonial cocoons. That is what happened when African Americans moved into the so-called "inner cities," after they won freedom from the South and it became clear to European Americans that European Americans had lost control of Blacks in America. Whites ran away into the "suburbs," contending that African Americans would pollute the cities because African Americans possessed" inferior" human attributes. They relocated financial resources (including tax money paid by African Americans) from the inner cities to the suburbs, so that their presuppositions about African Americans became self-fulfilled prophecies, generating even more colonialist rhetoric directed against African Americans.
That is also what is happening with respect to European perceptions of Black athletes. Whites are saying that Blacks are dominating competitions in games like basketball, boxing, long-distance running, etc., because they are "genetically predisposed" toward physical activities like jumping and running-and by implication away from intellect-rather than because they are "working hard" to prepare themselves for the games.
The reaction to the events in Africa, particularly the Congo and Zimbabwe, by the Economist writer is similar. In resorting to the traditional colonialist myth of Africa as "the Heart of Darkness" in his analysis of contemporary African affairs, the Economist writer is responding to challenges encountered by the West in Africa that threaten Western influence in Africa.
It should be remembered that Africa, despite its political independence, is still very much within the hegemony of the West and that, for that reason, foresighted Africans are still very much struggling to free themselves from the West. What we are seeing now in Africa is a situation where we have a split between, on the one hand, Africans who have succumbed to Western power-in exchange for immediate economic interests-and, on the other, Africans who are determined to completely free Africa from further colonization. The first group consists of the so-called "new breed of African leaders"; the second group consists of African leaders from Angola, Namibia, Zimbabwe, and the Central African Republic.
Toward the end of the just-ended century, the West developed a plan for Africa that was supposed to dictate relations between the West and Africa throughout the twenty-first century. The idea was to control and exploit Africa's resources not through direct colonization of Africa but through proxies-that is, African leaders who were answerable to the West rather than to their own people and who would, therefore, do the bidding of the West whenever they were needed, even if it meant going against the interest of their own people.
The plan consisted of two parallel operations. One of these consisted of getting rid of all African leaders who drew their strength from within their own people. The other consisted of supporting African leaders who owed their power to other sources.
To accomplish the first objective, the West relied on the idea of "democracy." The West identified various African countries that it considered "strategic" in terms of Western interests and put pressure on them to change so as to conform to Western interests in the post-Cold War era. Change simply meant succumbing to the concept of "globalization," that is, transforming their countries into mere conduits of Western interests around the world.
Those who accepted the idea were embraced as "visionary" and as "democrats" despite the fact that what they did, essentially, was to mortgage their countries to the West through the IMF. Those who resisted were thoroughly demonized-branded as "autocrats," "corrupt," or "African Big Men"-by the Western media.
At the same time that these leaders were being undermined, young, relatively naïve African politicians were identified by the West and presented to Africans-and to the world-as "opposition politicians." They were given pre-packaged manifestos detailing various forms of revolutionary strategies-including "mass action"-and the necessary financial resources and unleashed on the African population like viruses.
To achieve popularity among African "voters," these new African leaders relied exclusively upon the Western mass media. Huge Western propaganda outlets like the BBC, the New York Times, and the Economist regularly interviewed them, and their views (which generally reflected the Western agenda for Africa at the turn of the century) were trumpeted around the world as if it was golden truth.
The idea, of course, was to re-colonize Africa through proxies disguised as "democrats." Because these "democrats" were essentially creatures of the West, they would, on taking power, do exactly what the West wanted them to do.
At the same time that this was going on, some African intellectuals, particularly those studying in Western universities, were identified, recruited into underground intelligence organizations, given huge sums of money, and unleashed on the African intellectual scene. They spent long hours churning out volumes of rhetoric ridiculing Africans in the most stereotypical ways imaginable. They did more to destroy the image of Africans in the eyes of the world than some of the very worst colonialists ever did.
The other strategy used by the West in its agenda to re-establish indirect rule in Africa at the turn of the century consisted of supporting young military rulers who assumed power in Africa through the barell of the gun. Because these young men did not draw their support from their own people, they could be easily won over. Receiving support from the West legitimized their claim to power.
The Western media played a crucial role in co-opting these new young leaders within the Western agenda for Africa. The Western media flattered them by referring to them as "the new breed of African leaders," and as "role models for the rest of Africa," despite the fact that the regimes they were running were no more than military dictatorships.
Museveni and Kagame, in particular, are important to the West because they are busy advancing the economic interests of the West in the Congo. Congo, as we know, is potentially one of the richest countries in the world; it is just that it has been poorly managed, primarily because of Western interference in its internal affairs. Let us not forget that Lumumba, its first president, was murdered, with CIA support, and that his replacement, Mobutu, functioned primarily as a stooge and puppet of the West. When Mobutu grew too old to execute Western interests in the Congo, he had to be replaced. Kagame and Museveni, who had essentially become Uncle Toms, became useful. Money was poured into the two countries, most of which was channeled into their military organizations. Military advisers were flown into the region. Ugandan and Rwandan soldiers were told to go into the Congo and establish a new government. Important Western political leaders toured the two countries to assess the progress of the plan.
Kabila was used as a front. He was not expected to hang onto power. He was supposed to function as an extension of Museveni and Kagame-as a puppet.
The Rwandan genocide was not foreseen, but it was an important by-product of this international problem. The genocide was sparked by the shooting-down of the then presidents of Rwanda and Burundi-who were traveling together in a plane from Tanzania to their respective countries after negotiating a peace agreement between the Hutu and the Tutsi under the sponsorship of Nyerere. No one knows who shot down the plane, but the shooting occurred as Tutsi rebels, led by Kagame, were invading Rwanda from Uganda, where they had received training for years. Furthermore, the shooting resembled the downing of the plane in which Samora Michell, the former president of Mozambique, who was hated by the South African apartheid regime, was killed.
As the genocide unfolded, however, it was worked into the plan to neo-colonize the Congo through Uganda and Rwanda. Protection of Rwanda and of Uganda against insurgents from the Congo became the excuse to further advance Western interests in the Congo. The Western media picked it up and trumpeted it to the world until it was internalized in almost everybody's mind. The international forces at work in the Congo were glozed over. The defense of Rwanda against Hutu rebels and of Uganda against Ugandan rebels was used to justify the intrusion of Rwanda and Uganda into Congolese affairs on behalf of the West.
In any event, however, the plan to re-colonize the Congo-and to exploit its numerous natural wealth-through Uganda and Rwanda as proxies is not going according its original plan. It has encountered resistance from unexpected quarters. First, Kabila refused to front for Uganda and Rwanda. Secondly, Zimbabwe, Angola, Namibia, and the CAR-who understood what the West was up to because of their own experiences fighting revolutionary wars against the West-- decided to challenge Museveni and Kagame.
The trouble started when Kabila refused to be co-opted into Museveni and Kagame's plan. Unlike Museveni, Kabila stuck to his socialist principles-although he did not have the opportunity to institutionalize them because of the war. Furthermore, he did not mind sticking his neck out, even when the West itself held the axe. So, once he was fully established in power, he told Museveni and Kagame to get out.
The reaction from Uganda and Rwanda was predictable. The two countries sought to remove Kabila from power and to replace him with another, more malleable rebel. A number of academics-who were based in Western universities and who had little or no experience in politics or military matters-were flown in and transformed into revolutionaries overnight. Kabila, who up until then had been hailed by the West as a democrat and as a human rights advocate, was instantly demonized. The Western media termed him a "dictator" and a new "African Big Man."
Because African journalists traditionally take their cue from Western media outlets like BBC, CNN, and the Economist, they followed suit. They all competed to out-do themselves in their condemnation of Kabila and in their praise of Kagame and Museveni. They did not have a clue that they were, in fact, advancing Western neo-colonialist interests in Africa.
Colonialism capitalizes on ignorance. People are colonized either because they do not know that they are being colonized or because they have bought into the notion that they are "inferior" and that they therefore deserve to be colonized. However, once the intended victims of colonialism step beyond the boundaries of their ignorance, they cannot be colonized anymore.
When the colonizer discovers that he has lost the psychological control he has so far had over the colonized-and let's not forget that a lot of Africans still live under European psychological colonialism despite African political independence from Europe-he attempts to recuperate the myths with which he has previously used to colonize "the native." He reminds the native that he (the native) is "inferior"-that he is essentially a sub-human-and that, therefore, he deserves to be re-colonized.
What the West failed to see-with respect to the Congo-is that most Africans can now see through the West and that they are willing to stand up to defend the continent against another colonial agenda, however disguised it might be.
The West has been trying to create the impression that Zimbabwe, Angola, Namibia, and the Central African Republic sent troops into the Congo for selfish reasons. Sadly, many African intellectuals-as often happens with African intellectuals-have bought into this argument. They have taken the cue from the West, as usual, and they are singing the argument louder than the West itself. But the truth is that the argument doesn't hold much water at all. Zimbabwe, Angola, Namibia and the CAR sent their troops into the Congo to challenge Western interests in the Congo. They are not-and this needs to be underlined-fighting Kagame or Uganda. Nor are they supporting Kabila. They are simply defending Africa against a more sophisticated-and dangerous-form of colonialism. Rwanda and Uganda are not important in and of themselves; they are important only because they are advancing the interests of the West in the region-and, by implication, throughout Africa. They are operating at the forefront of a broad international agenda to exploit African resources, for Western, not African, interests, and for the next several centuries. Zimbabwe, Angola, Namibia, and the CAR acted to stop this move. And they did so from experience. More than most other Africans, Zimbabweans, Angolans, and Namibians understand the nature and manifestation of Western colonialism. They did not win the war of independence chiefly through negotiations, as happened with respect to many other African countries; they actually fought the West, and they actually defeated the West in battle. They are in the Congo to prevent a repeat of that problem. They understand that if the current plan for the Congo succeeds, they could be next on the list of African states to be subjugated. Let us not forget, for instance, that Savimbi, who has been fighting Angola for more than thirty years now, used to receive his military supplies through the Congo and that he is now rumored to be hiding in Uganda. The Angolans, knowing that Musenveni has essentially replaced Mobutu as the West's "blue-eyed boy" in the region, couldn't have simply sat back and let Savimbi rebuild himself through Uganda and the Congo. It would have been political suicide on their part, to say the least.
If you look at Africa's problems from this perspective, you will begin to see where Zimbabwe's problems with white farmers are coming from. The problem, again, has to do with the Congo. The West stopped aid to Zimbabwe-through the IMF-to punish Mugabe for daring to challenge the West in the Congo (remember that the West is supplying Museveni with close to a billion dollars every year despite Uganda's involvement in the Congo). Mugabe reacted with his threat against white farmers because it was the only leverage he had against the West under the circumstances. Mugabe wants to redress the land problem in Zimbabwe. But he understands the historical origin of the problem. Until the IMF cut off its aid to Zimbabwe, he had worked out a plan with Britain, the former colonial power, to compensate white farmers whose land was taken away and transferred to land-less Zimbabweans. When Britain reneged on that plan-and when the IMF cut off aid following the confrontation in the Congo-Mugabe was forced to resort to alternative means of redressing the land problem in Zimbabwe.
What Mugabe is saying, essentially, is that if the West eases off on the Congo, he will ease off in Zimbabwe.
Predictably, the West has responded to Mugabe in its usual fashion. The Western media is attempting to demonize him as "an African Big Man." Whether or not the West succeeds in destroying him will depend largely on whether or not Africans are too ignorant to see through Western propaganda.
The fact that Western commentators, like the author of The Economist articles, are reacting to the confrontation in the Congo by attempting to recuperate the myth of "the Dark Continent" would appear to indicate that Africans are not being fooled. The West is reacting to Mugabe the same way Whites have reacted to Black athletes who have defeated White athletics.
Another source of frustration for the West has to do with the problems that have emerged between the so-called "new breed of African leaders." These guys have essentially self-destructed. In the Congo, Kagame is fighting Museveni. In the horn of Africa, Ethiopia and Eritrea are fighting.
It would appear that these guys have learned their lessons from the West too well. You see, American foreign policy revolves around what I have come to term "cowboy" ideology. Essentially, what the Americans do is identify who "the bad guys" are and who "the good guys are." Then they proceed to equip "the good guys" with the biggest guns available and to teach them how to be the first "on the draw." That is what Uganda, Rwanda, Ethiopia, and Eritrea, have learned. The problem is that the Americans told all of them that they were "good guys." The result is that each of them is now trying to emerge as America's preeminent point-man in his respective region.
Could it be that the is West watching its excruciatingly constructed "African Master Plan" disintegrate-before its very eyes-like a collapsing house a cards?
No one, it should be emphasized, is contesting the idea of democracy per se. Those who align themselves against democracy are fighting on the wrong side of history.
But when one people use democracy to impose their will upon another people-and when they do so for the primary purpose of exploiting that people's resources for their own benefit-then democracy ceases to be democracy and becomes something else all together.
Democracy is not perfect; it has many flaws. But it is the most workable system of governance available to us today. Democracy presumes that it is impossible to fulfill "the will of all," but that it is possible to fulfill "the will of the majority," at least within a given time period. Hence democracy is intended to create the enabling conditions within which "the majority of the people" pursue their "common good" without necessarily jeopardizing the interests of "the minority."
The problem is that what we are seeing in Africa at the moment is not democracy but an illusion of democracy, one that is meant to advance Western interests in Africa-and again, for the most part, to the disadvantage of Africa.
The problem has to do with the role that the West-or "the donors," as the West is euphemistically referred to in pro-Western rhetoric concerned with Africa-is playing in the "democratization" process in Africa. In Africa today, "the donors" have effectively usurped the role of "the majority of the people."
Most African economies are intrinsically connected to Western economies through the neo-colonial relationship perpetuated by the IMF and the World Bank in African countries. Therefore, by withholding aid-and effectively imposing an economic embargo upon African countries whose policies do not correspond with the West's post-Cold War objectives-the West has devastated many African economies. As a result, many African leaders have placed the resumption of aid above all other concerns in their respective countries. They have essentially substituted the interests of "the donors" for the interests of "the majority" of their people.
In fact, at the moment in Africa, the primary criterion by which "democrats" are being distinguished from "non-democrats" is the extent to which such "democrats" are articulating the "the will of the donors" in public discourse. The majority of "the African people" are, for the most part, being left out of the equation.
For this reason, Western power brokers, not Africans, constitute the primary impetus behind the ongoing "democratization" process in Africa. Many prospective African leaders-whether in the "opposition" or in government-are listening more to the West than to their people for clues about how to proceed. The daily stories that Western journalists-stationed in cities around Africa-are sending back home to their editors or transmitting over the airwaves are playing a more important role in determining who becomes the next president in most African countries than the votes ordinary Africans are casting in the so-called "emerging African democracies."
Because Western journalists for the most part speak on behalf of Western multi-national corporations rather than of the African people, African countries are slowly being transformed into appendages of Western multi-national corporations. Many African leaders are playing the role of CEOs while officials at the IMF, the World Bank, etc., are taking on the role of the Board of Directors.
What we have here is an open and shut case: the prescriptions of the IMF and the World Bank for Africa's ills are doing more harm than good to Africa. And Western journalists are contributing substantially to that problem.