How Europe contributes to Africas misery

(part II)

W a r s & C o n f l i c t s

Recent decades have seen many regions of Africa involved in war and internal or external conflicts, from the seven or so countries directly involved in the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC) to the Sierra Leone crisis and the war in Ethiopia/Eritrea and various other civil wars.

There are close to 3 million African refugees (Refugees.Org). In 2007, close to half of Internally Displaced People (IDP) worldwide were located in Africa, spread across 20 countries. The Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC), Somalia and Sudan were among the five countries with most new displacements, while DRC, Somalia and Uganda each hosted a million or more IDPs by the end of the year. 5.8 million were forcibly displaced within Sudan’s borders, in southern Sudan, Darfur and the capital Khartoum. Most IDPs were in Sub-Saharan Africa, where nine high-intensity violent conflicts were ongoing as governments and non-state actors battled for national, regional or local power and resources. (Internal Displacement Monitoring Centre)

According to the BBC at least 200,000 people are thought to have died in the fighting between Sudan's government, Arab militias and rebel groups that began some five years ago.

If this scale of destruction and fighting was in Europe, then people would be calling it World War III with the entire world rushing to report, provide aid, mediate and otherwise try to diffuse the situation.
Yet the western mainstream media does practically nothing to raise this awareness. Who cares?! They are just Africans. When a bear is born in a zoo, that's far more interesting. It's sooo cuuuute!

Occasional coverage is provided, but not anywhere near the volume like we had seen during the build up and ensuing crisis in Kosovo. When reporting on conflicts hardly any countries outside the Western hemisphere seem to be worth reporting about. And the little coverage given only focuses on the brutality of the conflict and not on possible solutions.

But why is it important whether or not media outlets in countries such as those in the west provide coverage of African or other conflicts that they do not appear to be involved in?
Here are just two reasons (I am sure there are more):

• Background such as the colonial as well as post World War II history, social and political context, international economic issues and much more are all perspectives needed to help people in the 'West' and elsewhere to really begin to understand the present situations and issues in appropiate context. Simplistic views (which are often racist and prejudice) offer little understanding of the complexities of causes, let alone a platform from which to form ideas on how to move forward.
  
• In international affairs, influential nations, such as many from western countries, all have direct and indirect influences around the world, so I feel it it is important for such issues to be presented broadly and to see issues such as those in Africa with this context in mind.

There have recently been numerous civil wars and conflicts going on in Africa, some of which are still going on, including:

Angola, which has seen an estimated 500,000 people killed since 1989 and an estimated 3 million refugees. It reached independence in 1975 and is also being torn apart due to resources such as diamonds and offshore oil, with various fractions fighting for these prizes, supported by multinational corporations and other governments. For more infos visit GlobalWitness.Org - one of the first organisations trying to break the silence.
But also countries such as Algeria, Burundi, Congo, The Democratic Republic of Congo [DRC] (some 45,000 continue to be killed each month), Cote d'Ivoire, Eritrea/Ethiopia, Liberia, Nigeria, Rwanda, Sierra Leone, Sudan, Uganda and Zimbabwe have been or still are involved in civil wars. No less than 28 Sub-Saharan African states have been at war since 1980 (id21.Org).

Influential nations in the world benefit from the vast resources coming from the DRC and other regions in conflict.

Now, what is causing these problems?

Political corruption, lack of respect for rule of law, human rights violations are all common reasons heard for some of the causes of Africa's problems. Although, not the only reasons, some often overlooked root causes also include the following:

• European colonialism had a devestating impact on Africa. The artificial borders created by colonial rules as they ruled and finally left Africa had the effect of bringing together many different ethnic people within a nation that did not reflect, nor have the ability to accommodate or provide for, the cultural and ethnic diversity. The freedom from imperial powers was, and is still, not a smooth transaction.
  In the 1870s European nations were bickering over themselves about the spoils of Africa. In order to prevent further conflict between them, they convened at the Berlin Conference of 1884-1885 to lay down the rules on how they would partition up Africa between themselves.
  Between 1870 and World War I alone, the European scramble for Africa resulted in adding of around one fifth of the land area of the globe to its overseas colonial possessions. In some areas Europeans were encouraged to settle, thus creating dominant minority societies.
  Some argue that pointing to colonialism is not an excuse as many African countries have had decades to try and resolve this. The implication of the arguement is that the effects of centuries of colonialism are supposed to be overcome in just a few short years.

"To establish a type of nationwide government, [European] colonial administrators effectively set about inventing African traditions for Africa , that would make the process more acceptable to the indigenous population. The most far-reaching inventions of tradition in colonial Africa occurred when the administrators believed they were respecting age old African custom whereas a commentator notes “What were called customary law, customary land-rights, customary political structure and so on were in fact all invented by colonial codification.” By creating an image of Africa steeped in unchanging tradition the colonizers condemned the continent to live in a reconstructed moment of its past. A vast continental theme park — Africa-land, that hindered development for decades. But perhaps the most pernicious of the traditions which the colonial period bequeathed to Africa was the notion of Tribalism. Just as every European belonged to a nation, every African must belong to a tribe, a cultural unit with a common language, a single social system and established customary law. In Zambia the chief of a little known group once remarked, “My people were not Soli until 1937 when the Bwana D.C. told us we were. The concept of the Zulu as a discrete ethnic group did not emerge until 1870.” These were the dangerous sands upon which the colonialists imposed a new political geography. However once in motion, the process was enthusiastically reinforced by the Africans themselves. Tribes became the object of passionate African imagination. Some chroniclers have endowed their tribes with a retrospective primordial essence. Rather like Yeats did with the similarly disenfranchised Irish.

The British ruled through these local hierarchies, a process which unconsciously promoted the most malleable, collaborative or corrupt local chiefs and where none existed, as we've seen, they simply created one, enabling ambitious individuals and groups to achieve positions of status, dominance, and wealth that might otherwise have been unattainable.

To counter this tribalism some African leaders proclaimed the single party state to be the only means to control the excessive, ethnically based competition for the global goods of modernity — education, health, and the eradication of poverty. Competitive democracy they said would only lead to penury. Yet one-party rule unrestrained by the moral check of shared community had the same result. It proved to be a mask for oppression, ethnocracy and kleptocracy. Of the 107 African leaders overthrown between 1960 and 2003 two-thirds were murdered, jailed or slung into exile. Up until 1979 59 African leaders were toppled or assassinated. Only three retired peacefully and not one was voted out of office. No incumbent African leader ever lost an election until 1982.

… imposing … cultural beliefs on other people, whether by economic muscle or cruise missile, so that they can be more like us is a farce, particularly when the obvious external purpose is regional control of resources and political influence."
~ Bob Geldof, Why Africa? speaking at St. Paul's cethedral, April 21 2004

• Colonialism had this transformed an entire continent. Vast plantations and cash crop-based, or other extractive economies were set up throughout. Even as colonial administrators parted, they left behind supportive elites that, in effect, continued the siphoning of Africa's wealth. Thus has the colonialism had a major impact on the economies of the region today.
  An interview with former Tanzania President, Julius Nyerere captures some of this:

When I stepped down there was 91-per-cent literacy and nearly every child was in school. We trained thousands of engineers and doctors and teachers.

In 1988 Tanzania’s per-capita income was $280. Now, in 1998, it is $140. So I asked the World Bank people what went wrong. Because for the last ten years Tanzania has been signing on the dotted line and doing everything the IMF and the World Bank wanted. Enrolment in school has plummeted to 63 per cent and conditions in health and other social services have deteriorated. I asked them again: “what went wrong?” These people just sat there looking at me. Then they asked what could they do? I told them have some humility. Humility — they are so arrogant!

… It seems that independence of the former colonies has suited the interests of the industrial world for bigger profits at less cost. Independence made it cheaper for them to exploit us. We became neo-colonies."
~ Julius Nyerere interviewed by Ikaweba Bunting, The Heart of Africa, New Internationalist Magazine, Issue 309

International trade and economic arrangements have done little to benefit the African people and has further exacerbated the problem. IMF and Worldbank policies such as Structural Adjustment Programmes have aggressively opened up African nations with disastrous effects, including the requirements to cut back on health, education, public services and so on, while growing food and extracting resources for export primarily, etc, thus continuing the colonial era arrangement. The resulting increased poverty of Sub-Saharan Africa and the immense burden of debt has further crippled Africa's ability to develop.

"[The] theory of comparative advantage … says that a country produces that which it can produce cheaper than any other and sells it to others in exchange for that which they can produce cheaper than us. The invisible hand of the market will of itself sort out any inequities in this system allowing for the appropriately correct level of development to any particular producer. The [European] colonies distorted this view by deciding that Africa’s comparative advantage was its poverty, like we do today with our global brand footwear, clothing etc. As a result in Africa, existing patterns of farming were wiped away and huge plantations of single non-native crops were developed, always with the need of European processing industry in mind. There was a global transfer of foreign plants to facilitate this — tea, coffee, cocoa, rubber etc., The result was the erosion of the soil, forerunner of the desertification evident today. And with the erosion came steadily decreasing quantities of already scarce local food grown on marginal lands by labourers working for pitiful wages. This concentration on a few major cash crops or the extraction of an important mineral source left the countries on independence incredibly vulnerable to dramatic fluctuations in the prices of those commodities on the world market.

Adam Smith also suggested that the market was free within reason. It could never be laissez faire. Indeed he suggested infant economies be protected from the chill winds of the financial gales as we did in our development but prevented in others. The Navigation Acts the were wholly anticompetitive policies — which at that time prevented American colonists from making their own woollen or iron goods, and were like their equivalent today when we [the developed world] impose on a Third World producer of pineapples who wants to sell in the EU a tariff of 9% for fresh fruit, 32 % for tinned pineapples and 42% for pineapple juice — planting the seeds of today’s disparities between Northern and Southern economies."
~ Bob Geldof, Why Africa? speaking at St. Paul's cethedral, April 21 2004

• Throughout the Cold War, major powers such as the U.S. of A. and the Soviet Union supported various regimes and dictatorships. Some possibly promissing leaders in the early days of the independence movements throughout the so-called 'Third-World' were overthrown. US$1.5 billion worth of weapons to Africa has come from the U.S. alone, according to a report from the World Policy Institute, while Europe for example, was able to exploit Africa's resources to help rebuild after World War II.
  
• The proliferation of small arms in the region when the Cold War ended has helped fuel many conflicts. And who profits from selling small arms? Those countries that produce them.
  
• As mentioned previously corporate interests and activities in Africa have also contributed to exploitation, conflict and poverty for ordinary people while enriching African and foreign elites. Working to maintain easy access to natural resources by fueling rebellions makes a nasty combination. A lack of support for basic rights in the region, plus a lack of supporting institutions, as well as the international community's political will to do something about it and help towards building peace and stability has also been a factor.
  A report by the Worldbank mentions similar things, pointing out that "politics and poverty cause civil wars, not ethnic diversity." (Worldbank.Org) It also points out that in Africa, failed institutions are also a cause for civil wars, as long as there is not just a small number of very large ethnic groups, or ethnic polarization.
  By the way, outside the Middle East, major industrial powers and leading international oil companies are vying for access to oil in the West African countries of Nigeria, Angola, and Chad, as well as in the Caspian region. As the industrial powers increasingly rely on imported oil, the rivalry could lead to confrontations and interventions to ensure compliant regimes in exporting countries.
  In a number of developing countries, including Sudan and, until recently, Angola - the second-largest oil producer in sub-Saharan Africa, the revenues from oil production are fueling internal wars. Many of the world’s largest oil firms, including Chevron, Elf Aquitaine, BP, and ExxonMobil, operate in Angola. (SourceWatch.Org, SEEN.Org) In other countries, including Nigeria - the largest oil producer in Africa, oil and gas exploitations have led to disputes, protests, and repression, as domestic elites and foreign investors capture the bulk of the profits, while local communities are forced to shoulder the heavy social, economic, and environmental burdens associated with oil production. (see Oilwatch Alerts Nigeria 2004, OilWatch.Org - Energy integration in Africa, AfricaFocus.Org - Nigeria: Oil and Violence)

"The eight-year conflict that has shattered this country and brutalized its 5 million people has been fueled by foreigners' hunger for diamonds. Rival mining companies, security firms and mercenaries – from Africa, Europe, Israel and the former Soviet Union – have poured weapons, trainers and fighters into Sierra Leone, backing the government or the rebels in a bid to win cheap access to diamond fields.

Across Africa, foreign firms are fueling wars for natural resources that in some ways recall the 19th-century "scramble for Africa" by European imperial powers. Since the end of the Cold War – when major countries pulled back from African conflicts – oil and mining companies, security firms and mercenaries have filled the void. They have provided arms and expertise for civil wars in Angola, Congo, Liberia and here."
~ WashingtonPost.Com, Diamond Hunters Fuel Africa's Brutal Wars, October 1999

During the G8 summit in June 2002 a briefing was prepared by Action for Southern Africa and the World Development Movement:

"It is undeniable that there has been poor governance, corruption and mismanagement in Africa. However, the briefing reveals the context — the legacy of colonialism, the support of the G8 for repressive regimes in the Cold War, the creation of the debt trap, the massive failure of Structural Adjustment Programmes imposed by the IMF and World Bank and the deeply unfair rules on international trade. The role of the G8 in creating the conditions for Africa’s crisis cannot be denied. Its overriding responsibility must be to put its own house in order, and to end the unjust policies that are inhibiting Africa’s development."
~ It's the 'Blame the Victim' Summit, Action for Southern Africa, June 2002

Hence, as well as looking into the urgent and critical issues of corruption, mismanaged leadership and governance in Africa, external factors resulting from geopolitical power play must also be considered!

 

A r m s   t r a d e

There are various things that can be done to stop the wars and conflicts. One of them is to end the promotion and the export of weapons and military equipment, especially to countries engaged in conflict.

After 1990 the former Warsaw Pact countries became the major source of weapons entering Africa. As these countries reduced their arsenals, and in some cases upgraded stocks for NATO membership, large supplies of surplus military equipment became available for sale to developing countries, including Africa.
President Bush's self-declared 'war on terror' has introduced a new dimension into weapons transfers to the region, with the US providing increasing levels of military assistance to countries in North, West and Eastern Africa. But here as well Europe is doing its part. The UK, for example, just last year licensed equipment for export to Angola, Cote d'Ivoire, Ghana, Namibia and Nigeria.
In many African countries today, conflict and the arms purchases that fuel them are closely linked to the exploitation of natural resources. Governments and 'rebel groups' can raise funds through the direct sale or looting of resources such as oil, diamonds, coltan and timber which often end up on the European market.

Let's take the UK for example. Contrary to the constant assurances from the government, the UK continues to export arms and military equipment to 20 countries engaged in serious conflicts around the world. (Campaign Against Arms Trade (CAAT) [pdf])
Within Europe the EU Code of Conduct on Arms Exports contains a number of loopholes. The G8 brings together the world's biggest arms exporting countries. The UK even has its own government agency to promote arms exports: the Defence Services Export Organisation (DESO) employing around 450 civil servants whose sole job is to help arms companies sell military equipment.

Recent detailed academic studies of arms transfers over a number of years shows that the arms trade is a significant element in the likelihood of a country sliding into war. In one study into arms transfers to sub-Saharan Africa, the authors concluded that "arms imports are one of the essential 'ingredients' in the recipe that produces and sustains political violence in sub-Sahara Africa (and elsewhere)." (Cassady Craft & Joseph Smaldone, 'Arms imports in Sub-Saharan Africa: Predicting Conflict Involvement' in Defence and Peace Economics, 2003, Vol 14, p37)

There has been something akin to hysteria about the number of refugees coming to western Europe, yet the vast majority of refugees are in Africa (75%), with only around 10% of the worlds refugees population in Europe. (World Report on Violence and Health, WHO, 2002, p225) Most asylum seekers come to Europe because of war and repression rather than to seek greater wealth as some would claim. The remaining 5% probably drown during their attempt to flee the continent or die at the barbwire of Fortress Europe.

But don't blame us, we the morally superior West consist of so many great and lovely people... while all the evil and backwards people with no morals or ethics are in China, Iran, the middle east in general and most parts of Africa. Yep, I love this society where everybody believes they are so innocent, just because everyone around them does the same... blindly functioning in the system. But don't mind this little input of mine.

The CAAT concluded in 2003:

"The UK is one of the largest producers and exporters of arms and military equipment in the world. As such it has to take a large measure of responsibility for fanning the flames of conflict around the globe.
Despite promises to the contrary, the Labour government continues to support the proliferation of weaponry, even to countries actively engaged in armed conflict."

One of the profiteers and biggest exporters of weaponry is BAE Systems (a British defence and aerospace company). It is the world's second-largest defence exporter and largest in Europe.
While India and Pakistan were on the brink of nuclear war BAE tried to sell 66 Hawk Jets worth £1 billion to India. BAE supplied Hawk Jets to controversial Zimbabwean president Robert Mugabe. Among BAE's customers is the Tanzanian government.
More infos on this and other issues concerning BEA Systems can be found @ CorporateWatch.Org.UK & People & Planet Edinburgh.

And of course it's not just the UK arms industry making money by exporting destruction and death. Russia, China, U.S. of A., France, Germany and others also have their fair share:

In 2004 a movie was made touching on some of the issues I mentioned above called 'Darwin's Nightmare'. It is about 115mins long and is worth checking out. It was uploaded in two parts and can be watched here and here.

~inWorldWideSolidarity&Peace~

PS: 'How Europe contributes to Africas Misery' (part I) can be viewed here.

More stickers!! I also spent the time in Singapore creating new stickers and T-shirt designs. If you want to have any of the following stickers, then leave a comment and let me know how many of which ones you want. You just have to pay for the postage.

As you might know this is the second time (click here for the first set) I am attempting to create some stickers with a meaningful message.

(Please notice that the image quality of the stickers is better, than the one uploaded!)

(1)

6.5 x 4.7cm

(2)

5 x 4.7cm

(3)

4.7 x 4.6cm

(4)

2.9 x 5.8cm

Furthermore I tried to create some meaningful T-Shirt designs:

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

This is an older design I made in 2004.

If you want to use any of the graphics, then go ahead. I would still appreciate it, if you let me know when you do.

That's it for now.

As announced in my previous entry the next entry will be about how 'Europe profits from wars and unrest in Africa'.

~WorldWideSolidarity&Peace~

How Europe contributes to Africas misery
(part I)

The EU wants to replace the expiring trade accords with so-called Economic Partnership Agreements (EPAs), which anti-poverty groups have criticised for failing to provide protection for Africa's poor farmers and its fragile industry.
"It's clear that Africa rejects the EPAs," the Senegalese president, Abdoulaye Wade, said angrily. "We are not talking any more about EPAs, we've rejected them ... we're going to meet to see what we can put in place of the EPAs."

In contrast to that Namibia seems to support the idea of EPAs (allAfrica.com).

'How Europe Underdeveloped Africa' is a book written by Walter Rodney in which he portrays the view that Africa was deliberately exploited and underdeveloped by European colonial regimes.

Rodney argues that a combination of power politics and economic exploitation of Africa by Europeans led to the poor state of African political and economic development evident in the late 20th Century.

"The question as to who, and what, is responsible for African underdevelopment can be answered at two levels. Firstly, the answer is that the operation of the imperialist system bears major responsibility for African economic retardation by draining African wealth and by making it impossible to develop more rapidly the resources of the continent. Secondly, one has to deal with those who manipulated the system and those who are either agents or unwitting accomplices of the said system. The capitalists of Western Europe were the ones who actively extended their exploitation from inside Europe to cover the whole of Africa. In recent times, they were joined, and to some extent replaced, by the capitalists from the United States; and for many years now even the workers of those metropolitan countries have benefited from the exploitation and underdevelopment of Africa." (p.27-28)

"None of these remarks are intended to remove the ultimate responsibility for development from the shoulders of Africans. Not only are there African accomplices inside the imperialist system, but every African has a responsibility to understand the system and work for its overthrow." (p.28)

If Africa is to be freed from poverty, rich countries must stop giving with one hand and taking with the other. While world leaders are promising to give increased debt relief and aid to the continent, taxpayers in rich countries are bankrolling lavish subsidies which pay for its producers to compete with the same people who will benefit from the G8's 'generosity'. One of he most powerful commitments Europe could make is to abolish the Common Agricultural Policy.

Last years (2007) 'debt forgiveness deal', which could write off the debts of more than 30 poor countries to the World Bank and International Monetary Fund, will be worth up to €40 billion, spread over the next 25 to 30 years. Europe spends more than that (€44 billion) every single year, subsidising its farmers.

Europe is not alone - the farm lobby in the US is also powerful, and Washington subsidises a range of products, from cotton to maize.

When all Europe's leaders pay lip-service to the principles of free trade - and of making poverty history - it is hard to justify giving this one business a €44billion-a-year helping hand.

With this I don't want to deny that subsidies can be a good thing. For example when they support small farmers that promote higher eco- and animal-welfare standards. Furthermore it is important to notice that many farmers in Europe would be unprofitable if EU subsidies were withdrawn. And it is totally understandable and better for the environment if a country doesn't want to depend on food imports but the population is always able to sustain a basic food supply itself.
An economic system where either the European farmers cease to exist or African farmers can't compete with the subsidised cheap food from overseas is not acceptable!

Handouts are only part of the problem. In order to protect the European market, the EU imposes hefty tariffs on certain kinds of foreign agricultural goods, helping to push up prices at Europe's checkouts.

Europe also pays export subsidies to farmers when they sell into global markets, which, when combined with direct handouts, allows them to 'dump' excess goods on world markets, sometimes at below-cost prices. Europe exports milk to Brazil, sugar to South Africa, and dried milk powder to Jamaica.

While agriculture constitutes less than 3 per cent of Europe's GDP, it is more than 90 per cent of many African economies; and when cheap European farm goods flood in, it's hard for African producers to compete, even in their own home markets.

There has been some progress since the 1980s and 1990s, when farmers produced far more than Europe's consumers wanted to eat or drink, and the EU built up notorious 'wine lakes' and 'butter mountains' to prevent prices from plummeting. Under the latest, and most radical, round of reforms, subsidies have been 'decoupled' from levels of production, to use Brussels jargon.

But there is much more that needs to change. Import tariffs are applied to specified goods imported into the EU. These are set at a level to raise the World market price up to the EU target price.
Import quotas are used as a means of restricting the amount of food being imported into the EU. Some non member countries have negotiated quotas which allow them to sell particular goods within the EU without tariffs.

Direct subsidies are paid to farmers. This was originally intended to encourage farmers to choose to grow those crops attracting subsidies and maintain home-grown supplies. Subsidies were generally paid on the area of land growing a particular crop, rather than on the total amount of crop produced. Reforms implemented from 2005 are phasing out specific subsidies in favour of flat-rate payments based only on the area of land in cultivation, and for adopting environmentally beneficial farming methods.

Wealthy companies and estates are among the ten highest recepients in the list of payouts.
Germany, which has large collective farms still in operation in what was East Germany also vigorously oppose changes which were marketed as "reforms".
In May of 2007, Sweden became the first EU country to take the position that all EU farm subsidies should be abolished (except those related to environmental protection).

The subsidies mentioned above, add to the problem of what is sometimes called Fortress Europe; the West spends high amounts on agricultural subsidies every year, which amounts to unfair competition. The OECD countries' total agricultural subsidies amount to more than the GDP of the whole of Africa (WorldBank.Org).

Moreover, it is argued that in creating an oversupply of agricultural products which are then sold in the so-called Third World and simultaneously preventing the Third World from exporting its agricultural goods to the West, the CAP increases Third World poverty by putting Third World farmers out of business. According to the Human Development Report 2003 in 2000 the average dairy cow in the EU received $913 in subsidies, compared with an average of $8 per person in Sub-Saharan Africa.

With food prices dropping over the past thirty years in real terms, many products have been making less than their cost of production when sold at the farm gate.
On the other hand, high import tariffs (estimated at 18-28%) have the effect of keeping prices high by restricting competition by non-EU producers.

If things on the African continent are really to be changed for the better, than changes initiated by the Africans themselves are also needed. But since I am part of the so-called West, I concentrate in my criticism on what ultimately the West can do. In the end the 'West' with its imperial tendencies and capitalist economic system, with its own tendencies to expant continuously, is responsible for many of the world's problems. But it is us - those living in 'western countries' - who tolerate this system and usually just engange in our role as a passive consumer or legitimate the political elite by casting our vote every four or five years.

You tell me - do we really care?

~GlobalPeace&Solidarity~

Coming up next: How Europe contributes to Africas misery (part II) - Europe profiting from wars and unrest in Africa. -- Oki, done. It can be viewed here.