Breaking the chains of the past: The road to equality in Afro - European relations.
Tongkeh Fowale
January 30, 2008
Africa and Europe are continents held together by history and geography. They are also held apart by extreme levels of development and power. This diametrical relationship is explained by one historical phenomenon-colonialism. Colonialism did what the Slave Trade left undone in ravaging Africa. It firmly established the "horse-and-rider" relationship that bound Africa and Europe for close to a century or more. This decisive period did not only constitute a "lost century" for Africa, it laid the seeds of chaos, uncertainty and underdevelopment that are quite visible throughout the continent today.
To fast-forward the story of Afro-European relations, the Second World War broke Europe´s ability to hold its African empire together. "The Wind of change," or to cut it to size, the volcano of liberation that erupted in the 1960s signaled the beginning of the end of empire. The Cold War further submerged Europe´s position in international politics. America and Russia took up the challenge of preventing Africa from falling into either capitalist or communist hands. The resultant "proxy wars" saw Europe standing only behind America in this desperate defense of capitalism in their former African colonies.
Shattered and battered by World War 11, and barely surviving on American economic aid, Europe embarked on reconstruction, unification and development. Europe adopted an "inward´ looking policy to address its immediate problems, which implicitly meant a diversion from Africa. This volte-face marked a new beginning in Europe´s ties with Africa. It created a large vacuum in Africa´s external relations enterprise. African states either sought refuge in the OAU, regional organizations or bilateral treaties with the outside world.
During this three-decade long period of abandonment, the most Europe could show in the name of alliance with Africa was the Lomé Convention. This narrow and thin string tied France, Britain, Belgium and Portugal to their former colonies in Africa, the Caribbean and Pacific. At its best, this EC-ACP alliance, as it is called, was a trade structure that encouraged the economies of Africa, the Caribbean and Pacific regions to provide primary products for the European industrial economies. The ACP products enjoyed a non-reciprocal preferential access to the EC market.
The logic of Lomé considered trade as a stimulus for economic development. The EC backed this trade mechanism with several structures which it called assistance programs. The European Development Fund (EDF), the Industrial Cooperation Board (ICB) the Centre for Industrial development (CID), the Stabilization of Exports (STABEX) and the System for Mineral Products (SYSMIN) where all back-up structures to ensure the regular and uninterrupted flow of raw materials and minerals from the ACP countries to Europe. African countries, former colonies of Europe constituted a majority in this ACP group.
Out of the EC-ACP network, Britain held sway over her former colonies in the Commonwealth, while France responded with the Francophonie. These neo-colonial allegiance systems frustrated attempts at putting the several bits and pieces of Africa together after colonial rule. The Non-Aligned Movement (NAM) further provided sanctuary and consolation to African states as they struggled to insulate themselves from the heat of the Cold War. Up north, the Arab League drew the attention of African Arab states especially following the volatile situation in the Middle East in the 1970s and 80s.
In this atmosphere of neglect, the gigantic task of restoring and imposing Africa´s image in the international scene was bestowed on the OAU. Born in the heat of the Cold War in 1963, this organization inherited the task of accelerating the pace of decolonization and ending historical abuses on the continent such as apartheid. Despite the several problems plaguing the OAU from birth, its Liberation Committee successfully wrestled the oppressed colonies of Angola, Mozambique and Zimbabwe from European rule. The OAU also fought relentlessly to end apartheid in South Africa. Thanks to the efforts of the OAU, Africa entered the 21st century as a free continent. The OAU had a decent burial in 2002, giving birth to the African Union (AU).
Since the signing of the Lomé Pact in 1975, the international climate has witnessed considerable changes. The Lomé Convention itself has undergone many negotiations, renegotiations and appraisals. This Convention even owed its ancestry to the Yaounde Convention of 1963. As the international climate changed, so did the language of Lomé. European attitude towards ACP countries became coated with "conditionalities" which were hitherto unknown or unspoken of. These "strings" as they have been called were attached to all "aid" programs in this growing "donor-recipient" relationship. Europe used this "aid diplomacy" to whip African states into compliance and subservience. Today, it is a mark of success and a cause for jubilation among African countries to be able complete payment of European debts.
The dependency Syndrome and trade orientation of Lomé sent shockwaves throughout Africa when the EC decided to subsidize agriculture in member countries. This subsidization of high-tech industries in Europe led to the production of surplus crops which found their way to the African markets, disrupting local producers. This left African farmers with what Fidel Castro calls "starvation salaries." Stacks of onions, tomato paste, milk, beef and chicken, all from across the EU made their way into the African market unopposed. These broken economies which constantly flock to the IMF, World Bank and donor countries seeking for aid are constantly reminded to meet up with the exigencies of "globalization." This means opening their markets, reducing import duties and privatization of state-owned companies.
As a colonial legacy, 80 percent of Africans make their living on agriculture. While Europe claims to assist in agricultural development through loans and aid programs, it impedes this development by exporting its own surplus to Africa in the name of free trade. It is estimated that the amount OECD countries receive each day in subsidies corresponds to the amount these countries pay in agricultural assistance to Africa annually. In 2005, the United Nations Human Development Report (UNHDR) summarized this problem in three words "rich countries subsidize." According to this report, these subsidies are responsible for destroying livelihoods in some of the world´s poorest countries, majority of them in Africa. The report further observed that "the world´s highest trade barriers are erected against some of the poorest countries."
Senegal stands out as an example in this analysis. This country´s peanut industry came to a halt thanks to European policy. Senegalese farmers experimenting with tomato cultivation found their markets flooded with cheap tomato paste from EU countries. The fishing industry which provided 15 percent of employment faced its doom when the EU bought fishing rights in Senegalese waters. Between 2002 to 2006, the EC paid €12 million a year to Senegal alone for fishing rights. This is a situation that replicates itself throughout Africa where agriculture is the mainstay. The specter of climate change and its resultant droughts and floods spell doom for these fragile economies. This ugly scenario has repeated itself on many occasions in Africa. When such calamities strike, the West uses food aid as an instrument of policy in Africa.
This is the situation that greeted Afro-European relations in the 21st Century. So far, it has been a relationship of inequality by every standard. However, many new players have joined the race since Lomé, altering the geo-political landscape. One of such players is China. Though a friend of Africa since the 1950s, China has cleverly and cautiously picked on Europe´s mistakes and turned them to her favor. China offers "soft loans" with little or no interest or "conditionalities" to desperate African countries which have lived under the asphyxiating strings that characterize European loans.
Though Europe still prides itself as the number one development partner in Africa, the growing "Sino-euphoria" in Africa today is demonstrated by the look "east policy" wholeheartedly embraced by African governments from north to south, east to west. China ranks only third behind the US and France in terms of investment in Africa. And there is every indication that China is pushing harder without fear of stepping on European and American turf.
China´s presence in Africa is fast becoming an issue of worry to Europe which considered Africa its backyard as stipulated by the hypothetical "sphere of influence theory" in Berlin in 1884. China was however not a signatory to this slaughter document and therefore cannot be bound by its terms. For lack of any meaningful charges, the west accuses China of stiffling democracy in Africa, for supporting pariah and rogue governments in Africa.
Without attempting to trigger an argument, one cannot help pointing to western silence and cooperation with terrible regimes such as Equatorial Guinea because of oil. "Blood diamonds" from Sierra Leone and Angola make big money in European and American markets. Stable democracies in Africa like Mali and Benin remain ignored because they lack strategic resources. Mugabe comes into the spotlight as one of the bad guys receiving Chinese support. The reason is obvious, the land dispute in Zimbabwe, another colonial legacy of monumental proportions. Despite this rank and "never-subsiding" hypocrisy, President Jacques Chirac commented positively on the benefits of Sino-African relations to China, Europe and Africa. "It is good for China, Africa and Europe because (in this process) China has gained new room to develop itself. Africa has got new investment and Europe has been stimulated to be competitive."
The possibility of loosing Africa to China is real and Europe is beginning to realize this. It is a wake-up call to Europe which has so far folded its arms only to see China making history in Africa. This was the driving force behind the Europe-Africa Lisbon Summit of December 8-9 2007. It was one of those rare opportunities where Europe sounded apologetic and willing to treat with Africa in terms of equality. This apology wrapped in subtle terms was offered by Portuguese Prime Minister José Socrates, host of the Lisbon Summit. "I think I can say the idea that has been expressed most often is that this summit represents the turning of a page in history." In Lisbon, there was general consensus between Europe and Africa "to move away from a traditional relationship and forge a real partnership characterized by equality and the pursuit of common objectives" and which "capitalizes on the lessons of the past".
Lisbon was another historical venue visited by the ghost of colonialism. The long standing dispute over land between Britain and Zimbabwe kept Gordon Brown away as he refused to look Mugabe in the eye. Despite his absence, his representative Baroness Amos reflected on the plight of Africa and the reasons why this continent has been held back. "…there are a whole range of reasons why countries in the African continent have been held back. Which have to do with conflict governance politics, slavery, colonialism, imperialism". And she capitalized "African peoples have historically been through a great deal in terms of slavery, imperialism colonialism."
It might be too early to judge the seriousness of the mood swing in European attitude towards Africa. There are however, visible signs of cooperation between the EU and the AU. Europe is also visibly concerned in conflict resolution throughout Africa. This can be seen in Kenya where the colonial legacies of tribal empowerment (tribalism) and "divide-and-rule" are once again showing their ugly faces. The level of commitment on both sides still remains to be tested. But while waiting one cannot help wondering aloud with Fidel Castro. "I think of Africa and its almost one billion population…. The diseases, flying at the speed of air planes, proliferate at the speed of AIDS, and old and new diseases affect its population and its crops, with not one of the former colonial powers being really capable of sending them doctors and scientists."
To fast-forward the story of Afro-European relations, the Second World War broke Europe´s ability to hold its African empire together. "The Wind of change," or to cut it to size, the volcano of liberation that erupted in the 1960s signaled the beginning of the end of empire. The Cold War further submerged Europe´s position in international politics. America and Russia took up the challenge of preventing Africa from falling into either capitalist or communist hands. The resultant "proxy wars" saw Europe standing only behind America in this desperate defense of capitalism in their former African colonies.
Shattered and battered by World War 11, and barely surviving on American economic aid, Europe embarked on reconstruction, unification and development. Europe adopted an "inward´ looking policy to address its immediate problems, which implicitly meant a diversion from Africa. This volte-face marked a new beginning in Europe´s ties with Africa. It created a large vacuum in Africa´s external relations enterprise. African states either sought refuge in the OAU, regional organizations or bilateral treaties with the outside world.
During this three-decade long period of abandonment, the most Europe could show in the name of alliance with Africa was the Lomé Convention. This narrow and thin string tied France, Britain, Belgium and Portugal to their former colonies in Africa, the Caribbean and Pacific. At its best, this EC-ACP alliance, as it is called, was a trade structure that encouraged the economies of Africa, the Caribbean and Pacific regions to provide primary products for the European industrial economies. The ACP products enjoyed a non-reciprocal preferential access to the EC market.
The logic of Lomé considered trade as a stimulus for economic development. The EC backed this trade mechanism with several structures which it called assistance programs. The European Development Fund (EDF), the Industrial Cooperation Board (ICB) the Centre for Industrial development (CID), the Stabilization of Exports (STABEX) and the System for Mineral Products (SYSMIN) where all back-up structures to ensure the regular and uninterrupted flow of raw materials and minerals from the ACP countries to Europe. African countries, former colonies of Europe constituted a majority in this ACP group.
Out of the EC-ACP network, Britain held sway over her former colonies in the Commonwealth, while France responded with the Francophonie. These neo-colonial allegiance systems frustrated attempts at putting the several bits and pieces of Africa together after colonial rule. The Non-Aligned Movement (NAM) further provided sanctuary and consolation to African states as they struggled to insulate themselves from the heat of the Cold War. Up north, the Arab League drew the attention of African Arab states especially following the volatile situation in the Middle East in the 1970s and 80s.
In this atmosphere of neglect, the gigantic task of restoring and imposing Africa´s image in the international scene was bestowed on the OAU. Born in the heat of the Cold War in 1963, this organization inherited the task of accelerating the pace of decolonization and ending historical abuses on the continent such as apartheid. Despite the several problems plaguing the OAU from birth, its Liberation Committee successfully wrestled the oppressed colonies of Angola, Mozambique and Zimbabwe from European rule. The OAU also fought relentlessly to end apartheid in South Africa. Thanks to the efforts of the OAU, Africa entered the 21st century as a free continent. The OAU had a decent burial in 2002, giving birth to the African Union (AU).
Since the signing of the Lomé Pact in 1975, the international climate has witnessed considerable changes. The Lomé Convention itself has undergone many negotiations, renegotiations and appraisals. This Convention even owed its ancestry to the Yaounde Convention of 1963. As the international climate changed, so did the language of Lomé. European attitude towards ACP countries became coated with "conditionalities" which were hitherto unknown or unspoken of. These "strings" as they have been called were attached to all "aid" programs in this growing "donor-recipient" relationship. Europe used this "aid diplomacy" to whip African states into compliance and subservience. Today, it is a mark of success and a cause for jubilation among African countries to be able complete payment of European debts.
The dependency Syndrome and trade orientation of Lomé sent shockwaves throughout Africa when the EC decided to subsidize agriculture in member countries. This subsidization of high-tech industries in Europe led to the production of surplus crops which found their way to the African markets, disrupting local producers. This left African farmers with what Fidel Castro calls "starvation salaries." Stacks of onions, tomato paste, milk, beef and chicken, all from across the EU made their way into the African market unopposed. These broken economies which constantly flock to the IMF, World Bank and donor countries seeking for aid are constantly reminded to meet up with the exigencies of "globalization." This means opening their markets, reducing import duties and privatization of state-owned companies.
As a colonial legacy, 80 percent of Africans make their living on agriculture. While Europe claims to assist in agricultural development through loans and aid programs, it impedes this development by exporting its own surplus to Africa in the name of free trade. It is estimated that the amount OECD countries receive each day in subsidies corresponds to the amount these countries pay in agricultural assistance to Africa annually. In 2005, the United Nations Human Development Report (UNHDR) summarized this problem in three words "rich countries subsidize." According to this report, these subsidies are responsible for destroying livelihoods in some of the world´s poorest countries, majority of them in Africa. The report further observed that "the world´s highest trade barriers are erected against some of the poorest countries."
Senegal stands out as an example in this analysis. This country´s peanut industry came to a halt thanks to European policy. Senegalese farmers experimenting with tomato cultivation found their markets flooded with cheap tomato paste from EU countries. The fishing industry which provided 15 percent of employment faced its doom when the EU bought fishing rights in Senegalese waters. Between 2002 to 2006, the EC paid €12 million a year to Senegal alone for fishing rights. This is a situation that replicates itself throughout Africa where agriculture is the mainstay. The specter of climate change and its resultant droughts and floods spell doom for these fragile economies. This ugly scenario has repeated itself on many occasions in Africa. When such calamities strike, the West uses food aid as an instrument of policy in Africa.
This is the situation that greeted Afro-European relations in the 21st Century. So far, it has been a relationship of inequality by every standard. However, many new players have joined the race since Lomé, altering the geo-political landscape. One of such players is China. Though a friend of Africa since the 1950s, China has cleverly and cautiously picked on Europe´s mistakes and turned them to her favor. China offers "soft loans" with little or no interest or "conditionalities" to desperate African countries which have lived under the asphyxiating strings that characterize European loans.
Though Europe still prides itself as the number one development partner in Africa, the growing "Sino-euphoria" in Africa today is demonstrated by the look "east policy" wholeheartedly embraced by African governments from north to south, east to west. China ranks only third behind the US and France in terms of investment in Africa. And there is every indication that China is pushing harder without fear of stepping on European and American turf.
China´s presence in Africa is fast becoming an issue of worry to Europe which considered Africa its backyard as stipulated by the hypothetical "sphere of influence theory" in Berlin in 1884. China was however not a signatory to this slaughter document and therefore cannot be bound by its terms. For lack of any meaningful charges, the west accuses China of stiffling democracy in Africa, for supporting pariah and rogue governments in Africa.
Without attempting to trigger an argument, one cannot help pointing to western silence and cooperation with terrible regimes such as Equatorial Guinea because of oil. "Blood diamonds" from Sierra Leone and Angola make big money in European and American markets. Stable democracies in Africa like Mali and Benin remain ignored because they lack strategic resources. Mugabe comes into the spotlight as one of the bad guys receiving Chinese support. The reason is obvious, the land dispute in Zimbabwe, another colonial legacy of monumental proportions. Despite this rank and "never-subsiding" hypocrisy, President Jacques Chirac commented positively on the benefits of Sino-African relations to China, Europe and Africa. "It is good for China, Africa and Europe because (in this process) China has gained new room to develop itself. Africa has got new investment and Europe has been stimulated to be competitive."
The possibility of loosing Africa to China is real and Europe is beginning to realize this. It is a wake-up call to Europe which has so far folded its arms only to see China making history in Africa. This was the driving force behind the Europe-Africa Lisbon Summit of December 8-9 2007. It was one of those rare opportunities where Europe sounded apologetic and willing to treat with Africa in terms of equality. This apology wrapped in subtle terms was offered by Portuguese Prime Minister José Socrates, host of the Lisbon Summit. "I think I can say the idea that has been expressed most often is that this summit represents the turning of a page in history." In Lisbon, there was general consensus between Europe and Africa "to move away from a traditional relationship and forge a real partnership characterized by equality and the pursuit of common objectives" and which "capitalizes on the lessons of the past".
Lisbon was another historical venue visited by the ghost of colonialism. The long standing dispute over land between Britain and Zimbabwe kept Gordon Brown away as he refused to look Mugabe in the eye. Despite his absence, his representative Baroness Amos reflected on the plight of Africa and the reasons why this continent has been held back. "…there are a whole range of reasons why countries in the African continent have been held back. Which have to do with conflict governance politics, slavery, colonialism, imperialism". And she capitalized "African peoples have historically been through a great deal in terms of slavery, imperialism colonialism."
It might be too early to judge the seriousness of the mood swing in European attitude towards Africa. There are however, visible signs of cooperation between the EU and the AU. Europe is also visibly concerned in conflict resolution throughout Africa. This can be seen in Kenya where the colonial legacies of tribal empowerment (tribalism) and "divide-and-rule" are once again showing their ugly faces. The level of commitment on both sides still remains to be tested. But while waiting one cannot help wondering aloud with Fidel Castro. "I think of Africa and its almost one billion population…. The diseases, flying at the speed of air planes, proliferate at the speed of AIDS, and old and new diseases affect its population and its crops, with not one of the former colonial powers being really capable of sending them doctors and scientists."