The Sunday Mail
On May 25, 2015 the continent celebrated the Organisation of African Unity’s 52nd anniversary, and, of course, the OAU transformed into the African Union in 2002.
Africa’s history — right from slavery — makes for some sad and depressing reflection.
This period can broadly be looked at in three phases: slavery, colonisation and neo-colonisation.
Slavery commenced with the slave trade itself, to the emancipation of slaves in North America, and then came the colonialisation of Africa by European nations, which culminated in the Berlin Conference of 1884-85 and saw the cake being partitioned and distributed.
That period extended to decolonisation, which started around the late 1950s, ending in 1994 with the liberation of South Africa from apartheid.
Only one African country — the Saharawi Arab Republic Democratic Republic — remains under colonial rule, strangely occupied by another country on the continent: Morocco.
The slave trade saw hundreds of thousands of Africans being forced across the Atlantic Ocean and sold for a song like merchandise.
Many did not survive the harsh ocean conditions, perished in transit and were thrown off board into the sea.
Yet, quite a number was left on some islands near America or taken to the shores of South America.
Slave labour contributed positively and immensely to the early development, industrialisation and prosperity of the United States of America.
Products from the sweat of slaves (mainly agricultural and other goods) were then exported to European markets and, thereby, also contributing to the industrialisation of Europe.
The Europeans would, in turn, export their trinkets back to Africa in exchange for more slaves and/or raw materials for their emerging industries.
This triangular trade persisted for decades, if not centuries, for the benefit of the two continents (Europe and America) at the expense and prejudice of Africa.
We should not overlook and underestimate the role played by some misguided, treacherous and overzealous Africans in this evil triangular slave trade.
Such characters facilitated the trade by capturing and surrendering their fellow Africans inland and, thereafter, presenting them to slave traders and masters at/near ocean shores in return for mere trinkets.
It should also be acknowledged that some of the slave trade occurred prior to and after this period, as some Arab and southern Asian countries, albeit on a much reduced scale, were involved such trade.
During or not so long after the emancipation of the slaves in the US, European countries started colonising Africa through brute and bloody military conquests.
The Europeans’ audacity and callousness in carving Africa in this manner never ceases to amaze me.
New country boundaries were drawn up and most of them exist even up to now. At its formation in 1963, the OAU was left with no choice and found it prudent to accept and recognise these boundaries.
People of the same ethicality found themselves on different sides of the same colonial boundaries, and this created a recipe for possible conflicts between and among various tribes.
Colonisation also heralded legal and organised looting of Africa’s God-given natural resources such as minerals.
This, no doubt, accelerated Europe’s industrialisation and development.
When Africans started demanding and asserting their right to self-determination — following closely on the example of other previously-colonised countries like India and Pakistan — some were fortunate enough to be granted independence on a “silver platter” as it were, while others waged difficult and vicious armed struggles, which was mainly the case in Southern Africa.
As decolonisation played out its full course, neo-colonisation took centre stage.
Neo-colonisation is characterised by the following:
(a) Africa’s natural resources are exported in their raw form at relatively cheap prices, mainly to the West, in return for expensive finished goods. A good example is Nigeria where a barrel of crude oil is being exported by multi-national corporations and the Nigerians earn a mere US$9 in royalties.
The same barrel is refined and then exported back to Nigeria at more than US$100 in most instances;
(b) Illicit financial flows mainly to EU/US estimated at trillions of US dollars in, say, a period of a decade, in return for a relative pittance in billions of US dollars’ worth of aid or grants and FDI; and
(c) Using the Bretton Woods Financial Institutions, the World Bank and IMF, to extend financial assistance and loans to some African countries.
Most of these loans have not resulted in noticeable developmental benefits to the concerned countries and civil strife has in some cases erupted in the recipient countries due to the rigid conditions imposed.
Most of these conditions have something to do with either rule of law, good governance issues and an attempt to impose Western democratic values.
Westerners have also puppet and stooge political parties singing from the same hymn book. They have also unleashed non-governmental organisations of the same disposition.
The above factors have all conspired to create what has sometimes been correctly referred to as financial imperialism. Given the scale of illicit financial out flows, poor terms of trade between imports and exports, the creditor/debtor relationship between Africa and the West, now stand distorted, confusing, compromised and discredited.
Some so-called independent African nations — particularly Francophone countries — still pay taxes to former colonial masters from proceeds realised from their natural resources.
The World Bank estimates that about 70 percent of the net wealth of Sub-Saharan Africa is owned by non-indigenous Africans or foreigners.
A slightly less percentage (65 percent) of the best arable land in that same region is still controlled or owned by whites or multi-national corporations.
These racial disparities are mostly acute in Africa’s supposed richest nation — South Africa. South Africa is the continent’s most powerful nation; however, it is also the continent’s most economically-colonised nation.
Ironically, a minority of its indigenous citizens are of the strange view that some of their economic misfortunes and unfortunate position are a result of their black colleagues from all over Africa, as evidenced by the recent Afro phobic violence in that country.
The OAU, which was re-branded the AU, has, without doubt, been a major political success, but has encountered major challenges on the socio-economic arena.
The political success was by reason of the instrumentality of its Liberation Committee, which has seen almost the total decolonisation of Africa.
One foresees some of the socio-economic challenges rectified under the AU’s blueprint — Agenda 2063.
The crafting of this blueprint is, to me, a major positive, as it sees most countries pulling in the same general direction.
The vision only requires to be harmonised with regional and domestic blueprints to ensure rapid implementation.
Other positives are the ongoing establishment of regional standby forces, which will help guarantee continental peace and security, which are both prerequisites of development and industrialisation.
The Pan African Parliament already exists. What remains, in my view, is an African Supreme Court that would deal with cases such as the justified and long overdue reparations to Africa by Europe and the US.
The charge sheet should include the evil system of slavery and illicit financial flows.
Healthy competition is also set to come following the inception of Brics financial institutions and Asian Investment Banks, which are geared towards Africa’s infrastructure financing and other funding requirements.
Africa is the world’s seventh-fastest growing economy.
The continent is fortunate to have President Mugabe as AU and Sadc Chair.
A renowned pan-Africanist, President Mugabe was there at the formation of the OAU and participated actively in Zimbabwe’s liberation struggle.
He is, therefore, well-positioned to tackle Africa’s socio-economic challenges.
