Post-colonial hypocrisy

In the EU-Africa summit that took place in Lisbon this past weekend, the Libyan dictator Muammar Qadhafi declared Europeans ought to compensate Africans for their past colonialism. He said a billion euros would be a suitable figure to start with. Notwithstanding how ill-managed most foreign financial help has been in the hands of corrupt and incompetent African governments, and the fact that such a sum would never reach ordinary Africans, Qadhafi shows an endless capacity for hypocrisy. Like many others, he is merely banging the drum for the idea that African backwardness is the direct consecuence of colonialism. Of course, this kind of language suits well the Western illiberal, antiglobalization ideologues and their supporters, but historical facts point otherwise. That evidence should not lead us to deny, for instance, the pernicious colonial policies of the British Empire in late ninetieth and early twentieth-centuries in Southern Africa, which destroyed a whole functioning social order and replaced it with a great deal of disarray and suffering. However, this is not equivalent to stating that without Western intervention in the continent, it would now be composed of peaceful and developed nations. Most probably it would have not, since African problems are rooted both in the past and in modern times.

In any case, being a former colony does not necessarily amount to dealing with a corrupt government and a backward and caothic economy. Many former colonies are now success stories, challenging the partial and biased claims of dogmatic populists and nostalgic collectivists. Singapore, Hong Kong and South Korea are good examples of ex-colonies which made policy choices that, in turn, eventually prompted a ‘virtuous circle’ in terms of development and modernization.

Singapore was a British crown colony from 1867 until 1957, when it became a self-governing nation, though it was only in 1971 when the British withdrew their military presence. After the first and second Opium Wars (1839–42 and 1856-60), China was forced to put Hong Kong in British hands. Then, the Convention of 1898 stated that Hong Kong would be leased to Britain for 99 years (it returned to Chinese hands in 1997, though keeping a special status). Korea was a Japanese colony from 1910 to 1945, and then suffered a war from 1950 to 1953 -between its Northern and Southern parts- that cost four million lives. Nowadays -data are for 2006- Singapore enjoys a per capita income of US$29,473, the equivalent figures for Hong Kong and South Korea being, respectively, US$27,342 and US$18,220.

The complex array of reasons behind present African developmental and political difficulties lays not in its colonial past but somewhere else, and it deals more with the lack of respect for human rights, the non-existence of the rule of law and the aversion towards free markets and their necessary institutional frames (independent judiciary, democratic checks and balances, a stable economic-legal system). Some African leaders should stop looking so often for those reasons abroad and take a closer look at themselves and the policies they are pursuing.

Photo: Seme Beach, Southwest Province, Cameroon, 2005 © phil h

The same old story: Uganda and Zimbabwe

A contemporary observer gives the following account of Idi Amin´s ousting of Asians from Uganda after his arrival in power in 1971:

Traders from the Far and Middle East have been coming to East Africa for centuries. Until the 1970s, South Asians ran most of Uganda’s businesses, factories, and sugar and cotton mills; they built many of the towns, taught in the university, and owned a great deal of property. Then, in 1972, Idi Amin threw them all out and gave their property to black Ugandans. Chaos ensued. The new African entrepreneurs were totally inexperienced and the economy fell into ruin. Amin spent what little foreign exchange remained in the country on whiskey and transistor radios to placate the army, and soldiers and other government henchmen looted at will.*

Some dictators -even when they hold several degrees by Western Universities- either never seem to learn from the past or they are too attached to their privileges to think of anything else but their political fate. Zimbabwe´s Robert Mugabe presided over a long period of political and economic stability during which Zimbabwean economy was among the strongest three in the continent. On the other hand, most property, especially land resources, remained on the hands of white Zimbabweans, a small minority of the population. For political motives (i.e.: enlarging the number of supporters with an eye on his goal of staying in power), disguised as a way of correcting a social injustice, Mugabe´s government is devastating what once was a succesful developing country -albeit economically and socially very unequal-, when it is currently taking land and farms from their white owners by force. Mugabe´s replica of Idi Amin´s policies -as it was the case in Uganda- are not benefiting the general population either, as many properties have been distributed among political cronies and supporters. It all -combined with the international sanctions imposed on the country to force its government to walk towards democracy and the rule of law- is resulting in the highest inflation rate in the world, an astonishing level of unemployment, a massive process of emigration, record poverty levels and the disintegration of Zimbabwean economy. Finally, even if Mugabe´s intention of correcting past -and present- grievances were genuine -which are not-, the ‘way’ he chose to do it only adds new wrongs for blacks and whites alike without solving none of the previous problems. Only by setting up real democratic institutions, the rule of law and a free market may those huge difficulties be overcomed in the long term.

Read more about the current situation in Zimbabwe here.

(*) Helen Epstein, The Invisible Cure (New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux, 2007, p. 10), citing the following sources: Yoweri Museveni, What Is Africa’s Problem? (Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 2000); and Henry Kyemba, A State of Blood: The Inside Story of Idi Amin (Kampala: Fountain Publishers, 1997).

Photo: Mbarara, Uganda, 2006 © salarios

A moral dilemma

Russia is not a democracy. The Gulf Monarchies are not democracies, nor are many African countries. Human rights are respected in none of these countries or regions. On the other hand, we have commercial relations with them. We import oil, natural gas and all sorts of raw materials from them. We know in most cases the money we pay for those goods does not reach the population of those countries. It usually only fattens the Swiss bank accounts of the tyrants ruling them. Therefore, we are backing autocracies with our commercial policies. Put in another way, our commercial policies often undermine our foreign policy -provided it actively endorses human rights abroad-. It can be argued we should make our trade relations contingent upon progress in basic freedoms, human rights, the rule of law and democracy. In fact, that was the way we dealt with the apartheid in South Africa -along with diplomatic sanctions-. But, is it realistic to think the United States will cut oil imports from the Middle East or that Europe will stop buying natural gas from Russia or the corrupt Central Asian republics? Our economies depend increasingly on those resources. But even if they did not and we were able to devise some kind of embargo to help advance the cause of the high moral principles cited above, there will always be less scrupulous governments in need of those goods. Thus, if we do not buy Russian gas, China will; if we stop importing Saudi Arabia´s oil -and that is really science fiction now-, again, China will. Those are among the hurddles we encounter when we try to tackle security and human rights issues in the international realm. We only need to think of the difficulties to agree on economic sanctions as a way to stop Iran´s nuclear ambitions, or the increasing presence of Chinese firms -in many cases substituting Western ones- in Africa. When dealing with corrupt governments, the chinese will not raise the subject of human rights, to begin with because their civil society back home will not press them to do so (the chinese government does not permit the emergence of an independent civil society), as it is the case with Western companies and agencies, no matter how much we may criticize their behaviour. So, what is to be done? We certainly should not continue bowing down before dictators like Vladimir Putin or Teodoro Obiang while we happily buy their oil, but neither can we shut the door on their faces. If we want to advance the cause of human rights and democracy, that approach is bound to fail. I believe a solution to this moral dilemma ought to combine trade with diplomatic pressure and help directed to democratic elements in those societies, in particular the ones who could trigger political changes. I will try to further develop my viewpoint next week, when I return from an international seminar on the subject organized by the Foreign Office in London, UK. Let us hear what world experts on these matters have to say.