The History of Recolonization of Africa Essay

Introduction

The history of the development of the African continent is inextricably linked with its colonial past, which influenced the current state of African countries. In his 2017 article, Bruce Gilley notes that Western colonialism can be considered “the civilizing mission without scare quotes – that led to improvements in living conditions for most Third World peoples.”[1] The author argues that Western governance provides the African continent with social, economic, and political advantages that contribute to the development of the countries. Gilley advocates that modern recolonization will be able to end “continued chaos and displacement caused by a century of anti-colonial policies.”[2] Moreover, the author proposes a model for creating a new colonial system, which would not be an act of suppression and restriction of the freedom of Africans. Even though Gilley provided a detailed explanation of overcoming possible difficulties, recolonization will only lead to stagnation of the continent, not its development.

The Case of Rwanda

For a historical analysis of the view that Gilley supports, it is necessary to consider the cases of several countries in sub-Saharan Africa, which will help assess the prospects for recolonization. The civil war in Rwanda, which lasted from 1990 to 1994 and led to the mass extermination of the Tutsi people, is a significant episode in this debate. Despite the genocide in the country, the US government did not take sufficient measures to stop it. The EU peacekeeping mission and the activities of Belgian soldiers in Rwanda also failed to prevent hundreds of thousands of deaths among the local population. Samantha Power calls the muteness of the American public to the problems of Africa as one of the main reasons for the inaction of the world community regarding the events taking place in the country. [3] The position of preventing actions by the US, in this case, can be considered a policy of non-interference in the independent affairs of Rwanda, which seems morally and ethically fair.

A fundamental aspect is the reluctance of the US government to intervene in a conflict that only remotely affects the interests of the state. Despite creating the illusion of concern for Rwanda, US officials did not consider the possibility of real action[4]. Thus, the situation is controversial, as the world community must be concerned about the safety of human lives, but, at the same time, they must support the African right to independence. In connection with this case, Gilley’s arguments do not seem unmotivated.

If Western countries had their interests in Rwanda, as it was under colonial rule, they would not have allowed the genocide. The author proposes the colonization of certain territories exclusively with the consent of the population living on them. [5] The constant patronage of the Tutsi as a weaker local group and the presence of Western forces in Rwanda could have prevented the rise of Hutu. The genocide could have been prevented since it is unlikely that Rwandan forces would want to create a conflict with the European military forces. Thus, the colonial rule could be a source of protection for African ethnic minorities from extermination. This assumption is especially relevant currently, as the international community advocates for the preservation of diversity.

The immediate economic interest of Western countries in Africa could prevent bloody civil wars on the continent. Nevertheless, the control of different states in different territories could also serve as a reason for the conflict since “the colonial fantasies soon became engraved on the consciousness of the colonized, as well.”[6] The humanitarian intervention of France helped save the lives of many Tutsi people, although it did not eliminate the roots of confrontation due to the inability to negotiate with local political forces. Thus, the direct control of the colonial states over the territories of African countries is not justified since it leads not only to uprisings for independence but also to internal disagreements.

The Case of Congo

Colonialism must be modified since often African countries were economically exploited, which led to the decline and impoverishment of the population. The Rwandan genocide catalyzed the later Congo civil war, which continues to this day. Stearns notes that Belgian colonialists “created a draconian system of forced labor during which they killed or mutilated hundreds of thousands and pushed millions of others to starvation or death from disease.”[7] The merciless exploitation of the country’s resources and the labor of the local population led to a slowdown in the country’s development. Although after the overthrow of the reign of King Leopold in 1908, the country came under the control of the Belgians, the situation has changed little. [8] Europeans hindered the enrichment of the local population and the transition of its members to higher social classes. This policy inevitably led to an uprising, as well as the rise of Joseph Mobutu, which would later become the cause of protracted wars in the Congo and neighboring states.

In the case of the Congo, the colonialists oppressed the local population for decades, preventing them from fully participating in the social and economic life of the country. The result of this long process was the internal contradictions that arose after the liberation of the country from the control of the Europeans. Congo, after gaining independence, does not have its capital and channels of income. Currently, there are many European and North American companies operating in the Congo that do not provide the country with income opportunities. Moreover, the ongoing war in the Congo has hindered the development of large mining organizations for many years, allowing smaller ones to gain a favorable position. [9] Thus, colonialism and it’s legacy still negatively affect the Congo economy, as the population became impoverished under Belgian rule. After gaining independence, local authorities took over, but the social structure did not change. Western countries exploit the country instead of supporting its economy through their organizations, which further depresses it and generates more internal contradictions.

The Case of Zambia

Western countries, the former colonialists, are currently doing little for the development of the African continent. Despite peacekeeping missions, Europe and North America do not provide African countries with the tools to grow independently. Moreover, they do not help in solving important problems when Africans themselves cannot deal with them. An illustrative example of this assumption is the large-scale HIV epidemic on the continent from 1980-to 1990. Whereas having the rapid development of medicine in the colonial era, after gaining independence, many African countries faced the problems of impoverishment and technological stagnation. When the HIV epidemic occurred, European countries were unable to provide Africans with adequate assistance. At the same time, local authorities “were slow to grasp the scale of the crisis, because many were weak and faced with more immediate problems.”[10] Thus, the colonial states left Africa alone with serious difficulties, without providing an opportunity to adapt to them.

China is currently playing a significant role in the development of the continent and provides financial investments to many projects in several countries of sub-Saharan Africa. However, despite massive economic injections, Zambian workers receive low wages, and few of them “have been lifted into the middle class.”[11] Moreover, killed in the explosion at the mine, as well as injured during the shooting by Chinese manager at local workers, became a reason for the discontent of one of the political leaders. Zambia currently considers foreign aid as a problem that results in ineffective local government. Chinese projects are aimed exclusively at the benefit of Eastern investors, while the population is still being exploited. African countries cannot develop strong local governance since the support of the Western and Eastern countries leads to the prosperity of corruption and the drain of national resources and money.

Conclusion

From a historical perspective, the countries of the African continent were used by the colonialists as sources of resources and labor, which became the reason for the desire for independence. Western states, not having a direct interest, are not ready to act on the economic, political, and social development of African countries. Gilley emphasizes that colonization was extremely costly for the Europeans, which forced them to abandon it. [12] However, the modern model in which different countries invest in their own companies on the continent is more attractive.

Thus, there is no benefit to Western countries in recolonization, and for Africa, this policy will further hinder development. The most controversial aspect of Gilley’s proposal is colonialism for hire when “colonial states would be paid for their services, an important motivator to be successful.”[13] This measure will put African countries in an even more disadvantageous position when they will constantly resort to the help of foreigners to solve internal problems. As illustrated by the cases of different countries of sub-Saharan Africa, the continent needs independence from an economic, political, and social point of view. Recolonization will prevent Africans from using their resources, eradicating corruption, and developing appropriate governance. This proposal will at best prevent civil wars and epidemics but will not create a free strong Africa.

References

Gilley, Bruce. “The Case for Colonialism,” Third World Quarterly, (2017): 1-17. Web.

Power, Samantha. “Bystanders to Genocide: Why the United States Let the Rwanda Tragedy Happen,”The Atlantic Monthly, 2001. Web.

Stearns, Jason. Dancing in the Glory of Monsters: The Collapse of the Congo and the Great War of Africa. New York: PublicAffairs, 2011.

Iliffe, John. The African AIDS Epidemic: A History. Athens: Ohio University Press, 2005.

French, Howard W. “The Next Empire,”The Atlantic, 2010. Web.

Footnotes

1. Bruce Gilley, “The Case for Colonialism,” Third World Quarterly, (2017): 1.
2. Gilley, “The Case for Colonialism,” 11.
3. Samantha Power, “Bystanders to Genocide: Why the United States Let the Rwanda Tragedy Happen,” The Atlantic Monthly, September 2001, 103.
4. Power, “Bystanders to Genocide,” 106.
5. Gilley, “The Case for Colonialism,” 9.
6. Jason Stearns, Dancing in the Glory of Monsters: The Collapse of the Congo and the Great War of Africa (New York: PublicAffairs, 2011).
7. Stearns, Dancing in the Glory.
8. Stearns, Dancing in the Glory.
9. Stearns, Dancing in the Glory.
10. John Iliffe, The African AIDS Epidemic: A History (Athens: Ohio University Press, 2005), 65.
11. Howard W. French, “The Next Empire,” The Atlantic, 2010, 16.
12. Gilley, “The Case for Colonialism,” 10.
13. Gilley, “The Case for Colonialism,” 10.