Should colonialism be brought back to Sub-Saharan Africa?

Great Debates
1

At first thought the idea of bringing back colonialism to Africa leaves a sour taste in my mouth. However, if you look at the way locals have run things you can’t help but come the conclusion that Sub-Saharan Africans are totally incapable of running their own lives. The area is plagued by constant war, disease, famine, rape, crime, etc. The people in these countries seem to so completely ignorant of the steps they need to take to provide themselves with even the basics necessities of modern living (medicine, food, etc.) So should the West step in take over and begin to use Sub-Saharan Africa to West’s economic advantage? It is not like charity is doing any good. Things would in all likelihood be much better if the West would come in and rule Sub-Saharan Africa and slowly start to give power over to the locals if and when they ever start to show the ability to rule themselves.

This plan would have advantages for both the West and Sub-Saharan Africa. The West could take economic advantage of Sub-Saharan African and Sub-Saharan African could finally stop being the shit-hole of the world.

2

Worked in Iraq!

3

I’m curious: What legal and ethical rationales would we use for taking these countries away from the people that already live there? 100 years ago, “ignorance” and “arrogance” were our excuses. What would we use today, “ignorance” and “arrogance” being somewhat out of style?

“Because we can”? “Because we feel like it”? We teach our kids not to use that on the playground, bullying being also somewhat out of style–and you think we should collectively, and officially, use it on the world stage?

I see.

I’ve got five dollars that says the OP comes back and says protestingly, “Hey, guys, it was just a joke…” somewhere about the middle of page 2.

4

No, it is not a joke. Look at the situation over there. Millions of people hungry everyday. Millions dying of AIDS. Sub-Saharan African self-rule is not working. Charity is not working. Maybe we need to start giving those in the West an economic reason to be in Sub-Saharan Africa.

Tell do you think the situation for the average Sub-Saharan African is acceptable now? What else do you think has a chance to improve their situation?

5

The West’s interest in sub-Saharan Africa is diamonds and minerals.

They kill millions of people each year.

6

Maybe you watch too much TV. Or read too many newspapers. Or listen to too many first-hand accounts…

7

Please remember that African societies were not quite this dysfunctional in the ages before the Europeans colonized them. They were primitive societies, but they worked. If prolonged contact with the West has only taught them new ways of hating and fighting and oppressing each other, why should we think a new age of imperialism would make things any better?

8

Colonialism never really died, it’s just changed with time.

The truth is that, while blatant white-planters-and-black-servants colonialism has pretty much died out, there’s a whole lot of realpolitik-style meddling going on. The Cold War led to a lot of funding and arming of various insurgent groups (see Mozambique, for example), the installation and bakcing of friendly dictators, no matter what their human rights record (see the DR Congo / Zaire). Both the US and the USSR did a great deal of this through the years.

And we already take advantage of sub-Saharan Africa, just like we did back in the days of blatant colonialism.

9

Colonialism should not be brought back to Sub-Saharan Africa. And ideally it should never have been imposed in the first place. But that said, I can wish that colonialism in Sub-Saharan Africa hadn’t ended, or at least not when and how it did.

It was pretty much inevitable that once Europeans developed steamships, railroads and machined-tooled guns, that the interior of Africa would be penetrated, conquered and exploited.

But then you had a a roughly fifty-year period (1940-1990) that was anomolous in the overall 500 year expansion of European culture. First, the two primary colonial powers in Africa, Britain and France, suffered an irretrievable loss of power during World War 2. Then afterwards the USSR, an industrialized but anti-Western power, was willing and able to subsidize anti-colonial nationalist movements.

The United States, the premier world power after WW2, was itself a former British colony and so had a political and ideological stance against classic colonialism. (Excepting the Spanish-American War with regard to the Phillipines, Puerto Rica, etc.) It opted instead for a more informal hegemongy, promoting “free trade” in the assurance that it would always be the winner a global market.

In a sense, colonialism died a premature death. If somehow WW2 had never happened (or even more so, if WW1 had never happened), Britain and France would probably still control most of Africa, or at least exercise a veto over semi-autonomous client states. With the Soviet Union gone, and China being a regional power that needs the West for economic reasons, I have wondered if “neo-colonialism” is in the works. The main limitation is that the social and political culture of the Western powers would be against it. Unlike in the 19th century, it is no longer politic to suggest that dark-skinned peoples are inherently unable to maintain a civilized culture. On the other hand realpoltik conquers all; and if it paid militarily, economically or politically to reconquer Africa, who knows?

10

You’re definitely going to have to provide a credible cite for that one.

11

What does Sub-Saharan Africa have to offer the world’s rapers, pillagers and looters? Not much.

The economic world of the 19th century is long gone. Capital is more mobile than ever, and technology of every sort; manufacturing, information, agriculture, transportation has changed the economic landscape.

The continent has very little to offer, and is a net debtor to the rest of the world. The scarce minerals are hardly worth fighting over. (Lest you mention diamonds, economic colonialism never left, even if national colonialism did)

In the ladder of economic self suffeciency the first ladder has historically been a source of cheap labor. That’s pretty much where China is now, and countries like Viet Nam or Malaysia. But it wasn’t that long ago that Japan assumed that role or South Korea. As their economies grew, and wealth spread to the lower classes (creating middle classes) those countries improved educational systems and were able to add manufacturing prowesses and started moving up the economic ladder by adding “value added” systems. (and began outsourcing labor to even cheaper countries)

But Africa lacks the necessary ingredients to get on that track; pandemic diseases, political instablity, almost unbelieveably poor roads and infrastructure (water, electrical grids, etc), educational systems & literacy----the list goes on and on.

the problem, IMO, is that the world has progressed to the point that the few resources that Africa has to offer, or exploit, can found in alternative sources cheaper and with less cost and grief. It’s as if the develped world has picked up their jacks and gone home.

In short, I don’t colonialism will work because there’s nothing to colonize any longer.

I think if the major players, the G8, and other developed nations got togther, with cooperation through the IMF or World Bank,and put together a “Marshall Plan” for Africa there might be some **long term **hope. But until there is some long term plan and focus Africa will persist in being the world’s beggars. The “core” issues that plague the southern continent must be addressed if there is to be long term change.

12

If this was the Pit, I’d tell the OP exactly what this “sub-saharan african” thinks of being colonized again. I mean, I’ve lived through one anti-colonial struggle, right, another one won’t make much of an impact? :rolleyes:
Africa’s problems today are largely a result of colonialism in the first place, and its continued Western support, in the form of aid, oil money and diamond money, that continue to fund the strife.

For instance, if Zimbabwe did not recieve food aid, Bob Mugabe could not use food as a weapon to ensure loyalty in his oppressed people, and his corrupt regime would have fallen a couple years ago. Similarly, if no-one bought conflict diamonds (most of which end up in the West or Asia), the Congo, Angola, etc. conflicts would fizzle out for lack of funding for the various rebel groups (You want a cite? try here , or google the phrase “conflict diamonds” - some sites even link al-Qaeda funding to conflict diamonds).

Lastly, I’d like to add that it seems people have a very one-sided view of Africa. Africa’s also got a country that came out of years of oppression and conflict without degenerating into open war. Countries like Israel, N.Ireland, the Balkan states could all take a good look at South Africa for a model of how reconciliation and peace can be achieved despite the odds.

So, Kel Varnsen , as an African, I’d tell you the idea is ill-concieved, and we don’t need more colonialism, we need less of it than we already still have.

13

Errrrr…isn’t America also a net debtor?

Really?

14

The OP contains invective and crass generalizations, not a single cite, figure, or fact. In sum, GD trash.

Here are some questions for the OP to ponder, however?

  1. What are the success stories in the region you name? Hint: there are some.
  2. How are the dysfunctional countries of the region fundamentally different than those in South America and Asia?
  3. How has the term “Sub-Saharan” continued to lose relevance over the past 50 years?

Please give some thought to these matters before posting something equally ignorant and insulting in the future.

15

Unfortunately, I do not see things getting better in Africa, and there are many reasons. First, Africa is a non-entity in international trade: currently, it accounts for 2% of international trade. Second, the african countries are beset by corrupt governemnts. You can argue whether this is the result of colonialism or not, but it is a fact…rich countries like Nigeria seem unable to elect competent governments. Third, there seems to be a lack of will on the part of africans to change things. I know several immigrants from Africa (Nigeria, Sierra Leone, Mozambique).They all express relief that they have escaped the continent and its problems.
Could some kind of international “Marshall Plan” work? Yes, but ONLY if the africans can get rid of corruption.

16

MrDibble said:

Are you saying that, all things considered, it would be better if foreign aid stopped? I am mildly confused with this statement. Please clarify.

[/quote]
For instance, if Zimbabwe did not recieve food aid, Bob Mugabe could not use food as a weapon to ensure loyalty in his oppressed people, and his corrupt regime would have fallen a couple years ago.
[/quote]

Did Zimbabwe receive food aid before Mugabe, and what was the economic track record prior to Mugabe? Was Zimbabwe self suffecient and able to feed it’s own people? Do you believe that an end to food aid would end Mugabe’s reign? If so, how long would it take and how many lives lost? I am sincerely interested (given you’re an African) in your opinion. It appears to me that economic sanctions almost never work; Cuba is probably the best example, but Libya and even Iraq show that despots have an uncanny ability to stay in power even though sanctions (or lack of aid) ravage their countries and their populations suffer immeasurably.

Good point. Westerners largely see corruption, starvation and conflicts like Burundi. Memories of Idi Amin are freah when deposts like Mugabe are allowed to rise up. I would be interested in knowing what your opinion is in terms of what Africa needs to do as a long term plan to alleviate the problems that exist there.

17

Certainly South Africa is a success story. But what can be done for Zimbabwe and Nigeria? The nearly total corruption and lawlessness in these countries effectively eliminates foreign investment. Their economies will never take off as long as they have despotic governments. What chance do these countries have in ever having a responsible government and a growing economy? I don’t believe re-colonialism is the answer. But what is?

18

I don’t know why this is so bad. In 1998, Africa’s population was only 761M. Cite. (Uh, Latex, this is called a cite.) The world population was 5.8B, making Africa’s percentage about 13%. Two percent in trade vs. 13% percent of population is not such a mind-boggling discrepency.

But what percent of that is from sub-Saharan Africa as opposed to the Arab part? What percent of trade? We don’t have the figures, although thumbing through a recent almanac might be able to reveal some answers.

The fact of the matter is that sub-Saharan Africa has a pretty small population.

19

Clearly Africa got f***ed in the 19th and 20th centuries by greedy Europeans. Although grumbling about this past is justified, it will nevertheless not produce good things for Africans in the future.

Africa will eventually find its place in the world. It already is making progress. I think patience, time, and kind help from outside are the keys to progress. Not colonialism, duh.

20

That’s exactly what I’m saying. Aid largely lines the pockets of already-wealthy elites, and is used as political blackmail. Africa can do without it.

Zimbabwe was largely self-sufficient until the last few years. A recent drought, coupled with the forced removals of the white farmers who actually kept the country fed, has led to famine conditions. Food aid goes through Mugabe, and he only doles it out to those who belong to the ruling junta’s party. I believe ending all aid would have brought the regime down in two years max, and with less loss of life than the already-oppressive regime will inflict in the future. I also believe its too late for this policy to work now. The population is too weakened, and the junta has had long enough to efficiently repress opposition.

Sanctions worked pretty well in overthrowing the apartheid regime here in South Africa. It was, of course, coupled with an effective resistance movement and internal rebellion by the white’s own liberals, but sanctions were very effective at reversing the support from big business that the Afrikaner regime used to enjoy. So if China, for instance, was not selling weapons to Zimbabwe, the regime would have less tools with which to
a) oppress its own people
b) take part in wars in the Congo, the spoils of which are those conflict diamonds I mentioned, which go back to fund the regime. Money is lifeblood to corrupt regimes, and without it, they are less able to exist. IMHO, of course.

also, forget what you see in Live Aid videos. People die in numbers you can’t really begin to grok. Their governments let them. Or actively engage in killing them (e.g. Sudan). Most aid doesn’t go to help the people it should, or is intended to. This is almost entirely due to corruption, but I believe the current policy is to give so much aid that some of it must get through. This is crazy, as it does nothing to wean the baksheesh-dependent minor officials from their bribery, and it lines the pockets of the higher officials so they have no motivation to stamp it out.

Support NEPAD and the SADC “mini EU” in Southern Africa. Stop supporting corrupt regimes like Zimbabwe.
For the rest of the world, the same goes, as well as:
Don’t buy conflict diamonds. Don’t support oil companies that deal with corrupt regimes. End Western farm subsidies that penalise African farmers. Buy Fair Trade products. Come and visit South Africa :cool: