It is not uncommon for ocean waves to crash violently
against the cliffs of the Ghanaian town of Elmina. Some speculate
that the violent seas are a manifestation of the anger of the spirits
of countless Africans who endured unspeakable tortures or violent
deaths at a slave trading castle that still stands on the Elmina
shore. It would not be surprising if those waves were crashing
more violently than usual when Tony Blair stood before the world
recently and announced that he, on behalf of Great Britain, will
lead a western campaign to save Africa from itself.
For those who are uninformed, Blair’s hopes for increasing
foreign aid to Africa by an additional $25 billion per year may
seem not only reasonable, but commendable. The proposed foreign
aid increase was suggested in a report by Blair’s Commission for
Africa that, among other things, urges Africa to reform itself,
and for the Western powers to be more sensitive to the continent’s
plight. However, the absurdity, even outrageousness of Blair’s
piety and the implication that Africa made its own mess, are apparent
only when one understands that, in this instance, Great Britain
is not unlike an individual who offers to help pay the medical expenses
of a crime victim when the good Samaritan is actually the person
who perpetrated the rape, robbery and humiliation of the patient.
England was among the most notorious colonizers of
the African continent. For an extended period, England was directly
involved in the slave trade, sending inestimable numbers of Africans
into Caribbean plantation hell. The workers in England’s colonies
in Africa were paid unconscionably low wages that were often immediately
reclaimed as “taxes.” African land was taken by force, as was the
labor of thousands of African peasants in Sierra Leone who were
forced to build that country’s cross-country railroad.
England thoroughly and completely underdeveloped countries
like Ghana, which had the capacity to become agriculturally self-sufficient.
However, the sweet tooth of “Mother England” resulted in the dedication
of numerous acres of farmland to the production of cocoa, which
in turn caused a need for Ghana to import agricultural products
of other types that the country could have otherwise grown for itself.
The damage done to Africa by England and other European colonizers
is simply unquantifiable. It is against this backdrop that Blair
has the nerve to offer his “help” as though the country he leads
is blameless.
This is not the first time that England has piously
assumed a posture of holiness during disingenuous efforts to “save”
Africans. Back in the 19th Century, England’s was a leading voice
in the call for the abolition of the slave trade. The country’s
abolitionist posture had nothing to do with humanitarian impulses,
and everything to do with facilitating England’s entry into a then
newly-emerging global free market that promised larger profits.
To understand this, consider that England built its Industrial Revolution
on an exclusive mercantilist trading relationship with its Caribbean
colonies. This ensured that West Indian planters had a guaranteed
market for their agricultural products, and “Mother England” had
a guaranteed market for its manufactured goods. But when it became
clear that greater profits could be obtained by negotiating for
cheaper raw materials from other suppliers, and by placing manufactured
goods on the open market, England sought with a vengeance to crush
the Caribbean planters by cutting off their supply of the slaves
who were indispensable to the islands’ agricultural operations.
England was never forthright about the true reasons
for its opposition to the slave trade. Similarly, Blair is saying
nothing that suggests that he has anything other than humanitarian
concerns. However, the truth may have something to do with the fact
that, to all appearances, Great Britain’s influence on the African
continent has been eroding at an ever increasing pace. When Blair
suspended Zimbabwe from the British Commonwealth, there were other
African states that were not at all intimidated. In fact, many politicians
and grassroots activists throughout Southern Africa were emboldened
by Zimbabwe’s defiant response. Inspired by Zimbabwe’s stubborn
determination to pursue its land reclamation program (which drew
British ire in the first place), Africans in other countries have
begun to demand, in ways that cannot be ignored, that their own
governments take a similar approach to the land issue. This is particularly
true in Kenya. Add to this the continuing efforts to promote African
self-sufficiency through the African Union and otherwise, and it
becomes clear that England is becoming ever more irrelevant to a
continent that it once dominated in the way that a parent dominates
a child.
We can all watch with some amusement as Tony Blair
pathetically makes the rounds trying to persuade the world that
he is still the Great White Father, and that Africans are his ever-dependent
children. We should watch with even greater amusement George Bush’s
bewilderment with Blair’s pleas that the U.S. join him in this enterprise.
By his actions, Bush has at least honestly affirmed that he has
never cared about Africa, and he is not about to start just because
Blair suggests that he should. In the end, it may be a difficult
pill to swallow, but Blair and those who share his perspective need
to come to terms with the fact that the sun has set on the British
Empire. If Blair really wants to do something for Africa, he should
receive with grace a bill for reparations and restitution for all
that England took from its African colonies and the enslaved individuals
forced into the Diaspora. After England pays that bill, Blair should
just back away from Africa and shut up.
Mark P. Fancher is the author of "The Splintering
of Global Africa: Capitalism's War Against Pan-Africanism." |