Maravi

(HERALD) Let’s revive Pan-Africanism to counter West’s domineering tactics

Let’s revive Pan-Africanism to counter West’s domineering tactics
By Political & Features Editor Mabasa Sasa

WHAT is it about Libyan leader Cde Muammar Gaddafi’s vision for African unity that sends chills up and down the spines of Westerners?

Whenever the idea of advancing Africa’s unity is put forward, it is met with a combination of derisive calls and snickers, or it is treated as a non-issue by not just Europeans and Americans, but by some Africans as well.

As Chairman of the African Union, Cde Gaddafi has said he will try and expedite the creation of a single African Government initially through the scrapping of visas so as to facilitate free movement of people and goods, and through the establishment of a single currency for the continent.

This will then be followed by the creation of a continental Trade Ministry, Finance Ministry and Defence/Security Ministry.

This has been a long-standing dream of Africa’s political elite, but for some reason it has never seen the light of day.

Even before Kwame Nkrumah proposed the setting-up of an African monetary union back in 1963 as the Organisation of African Unity was being founded, there were attempts to unify the continent in this way — albeit through regional groupings.

President Mugabe has already made clear that Zimbabwe’s position on this issue is grounded in the belief that regional unity is a prerequisite for continental unity and for all practical purposes this is the best way to go.

Southern Africa is moving towards a common currency in the near future while France established a CFA franc zone back in 1945.

West Africa has its monetary union while a British attempt to create an East African Currency Board in 1919 can still be used to harmonise the currencies of that region via use of the shilling.

This means that a foundation for a continental currency is already in place and it can be used to unify the continent fairly swiftly.

According to Professor Mammo Muchie, this has not happened as quickly as initially anticipated because of the lack of Pan-Africanist momentum following the liberation of the continent from colonial rule.

Prior to independence, African countries were driven by a zeal that is lacking today as they tend to be bogged down in the day-to-day practicalities of managing a State.

As such, less attention has been paid to the issue of African unity.

And this is exactly what the West would want.

In a 1992 interview, Julius Nyerere, who believed that Africa should take gradual steps in creating a continental government, said: "I tell our people to look at the European Union, at these people who ruled us who are now uniting . . .

"The small countries in Africa must move towards either unity or co-operation, unity of Africa . . . if we can’t move towards bigger nation states, at least let’s move toward greater co-operation.

"This is beginning to happen. And the new leadership in Africa should encourage it . . . Southern Africa has a tremendous opportunity . . . because of South Africa . . . but you need leadership, because if you get proper leadership there, within the next 10-15 years that region is going to be the Asean (Association of South-East Asian Nations) of Africa . . . "

Nyerere believed that "the balkanisation of Africa is a source of weakness to our continent".

He added: "The forces of imperialism and neo-imperialism will find their own strength in this basic weakness of our continent."

Europe saw the advantages in unity, hence the creation of the EU and this is what they don’t want to see in Africa.

Europe’s unity will allow it to weather the storm of the present global economic recession.

If a similar crisis were to affect an industrialised Africa, it would be every state for itself and keep your fingers crossed that the problems will just pass by.

In addition to the economic benefits of continental unity, there is also the issue of peace and security.

The West has thrived on exploiting a divided Africa.

Indeed, colonialism used divide-and-rule to great effect and this is still happening today.

That is why two African countries can invade a fellow African country with the support of the United States of America without thinking about the long-term consequences on continental development such actions have.

A united Africa would not have room for any country to be used to forment a war in a neighbouring State as was done to the Democratic Republic of the Congo only for little Zimbabwe — which does not even share a border with that country — to see the need to send troops to help restore stability.

And with America going ahead with its Africom project, it is all the more imperative for Africa to have a co-ordinated approach to issues of continental peace and security.

But this requires a strong and decisive African leadership.

Cde Gaddafi has been called all sorts of things for advocating greater unity on the continent and anyone who stands with him on this issue will have to face the same tempests.

As writer Amengeo Amengeo noted: "Those who seek Africa’s full emancipation are doomed to demonisation, destabilisation and death whenever possible.

"Consider the fate of Patrice Lumumba, Amilcar Cabral, Eduardo Mondlane, Samora Machel, Laurent Kabila, Thomas Sankara and countless other foot soldiers for Africa’s full freedom — they were all assassinated by agents and stooges of Western hegemony."

As things stand right now, Africa is open to all manner of exploitation by resource-greedy western countries.

Zimbabwe has borne the brunt of this resource greed over the decade following the start of the Land Reform Programme and it took African countries too long to realise that they had to step in to assist a fellow country in need.

The anti-Zimbabwe campaign and the destruction of its economy were allowed to happen because the continent does not have a unified approach to dealing with foreign meddling in its domestic affairs.

Cde Gaddafi is presently called all manner of things by the western Press because it is simply not in their interest to see Africa united.

Why then should Africans consider the arguments of westerners with their own interests ahead of our own interests?

A united Africa will have a greater say in global power dynamics and even the United States would have to think twice about use of pre-emptive military options against weaker States.

The continent will be better positioned to reap the full rewards of owning all the resources on its land through the employment of a unified trade and diplomatic approach. Presidents Nkrumah and Nyerere saw the dangers of neo-colonialism 50 years ago.

We are presently paying the price for our fragmentation and the demise of the Pan-African agenda.

It is up to Africans and Africans alone to determine what kind of future they want and the continent’s most viable options presently lie in unity.

Whether that is done via regional integration first or we take the plunge and go all the way from the word go should not be an argument we are still having so many decades after independence.

Whichever route is taken must be taken quickly.

Labels: NEOCOLONIALISM, PANAFRICANISM

posted by MrK @ 4:31 PM