Britain Must Get Out of Africa

Workers' Daily Internet Edition : Article Index :

Britain Must Get Out of Africa

Just Imagine

The Commonwealth Ministerial Action Group, meeting in London at Marlborough House, yesterday rejected demands from Britain and some other countries to suspend Zimbabwe from the Commonwealth. The decision is being seen a defeat for the British government, which failed to persuade the African and Asian countries in the Action Group to take measures against Zimbabwe, in the wake of continued political unrest in the country.

The Foreign Secretary, Jack Straw accused the government of Zimbabwe of "violent intimidation of the opposition and media" ahead of the upcoming presidential elections in the country in March. Earlier this week, the EU, led by the British government, announced that it would impose sanctions against the leaders of the government in Zimbabwe if the March elections are not "free and fair" and if Zimbabwe does not allow foreign "election observers" and the international media into the country. Late last year the US government also announced the possibility of so-called "smart sanctions" against Zimbabwe.

The British government has been spearheading the campaign against the government of Zimbabwe, bullying and threatening, openly intriguing with members of the opposition parties in that country, putting economic and other pressure on the governments of other southern African countries. This is all as part of building what it refers to as an "international consensus" against the government of Zimbabwe. At the same time the government is quick to distance itself from any accusation that Zimbabwe’s current economic and political problems are in any way a consequence of British colonial rule, with the plunder of the most fertile land by colonial settlers, many of them originating from Britain, the exploitation of the country’s human and material resources and the openly racist laws that operated in what was then Rhodesia, Britain’s last colony in Africa, before Zimbabweans finally liberated their country in 1980. Nor will the British government accept that under the internationally recognised Lancaster House Agreement it has a responsibility to financially assist the redistribution of land in Zimbabwe. Instead the British government wishes to make such assistance dependent on whether they agree with how the government of Zimbabwe runs its own country, or how it redistributes land, matters which are not its business. To express a view is one thing. To openly intervene in another country's political affairs is another.

Only recently during a debate in the House of Commons, the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ben Bradshaw, in answer to some members of parliament who were even demanding military intervention, expressed the opinion that "Zimbabwe is a sovereign country, it runs its own affairs". But if this is the case then why is Britain interfering in the internal affairs of a sovereign country, attempting to dictate how it should run its elections and conduct its political and economic affairs, and behaving as if Zimbabwe is still a British colony?

The fact is that Zimbabwe is only one of the countries in the African continent subject to British interference. Indeed the Foreign Secretary, Jack Straw, recently declared that Britain and France were the "two biggest countries involved in Africa", as if to suggest that because Britain is a big power it will continue to interfere in the affairs of African countries, and even has some right to do so. At the same time it no doubt wished to send a message to its rivals that it considers Britain should be a dominant force in the African continent. The British government justifies such interference on the basis of supporting "good governance", "democracy and the rule of law", or argues that it is involved in "conflict resolution" or a "humanitarian mission" or attempting to establish "sustainable development" in Africa.

But the British government’s commitment to make Africa a priority during the government’s second term, as announced in the Prime Minister’s speeches at the Labour Party Conference and at the Mansion House, has nothing to do with humanitarian concern. On the contrary, the government continues to scramble for the markets, raw materials and other resources of Africa, on behalf of the big monopolies and financial institutions, and in rivalry with the other big powers. It continues to promote neo-liberal globalisation and demands that the countries of Africa fully liberalise their economies. It demands that they become "stable democracies committed to privatisation and free market economies" and adopt the values demanded by Britain and the other big powers or be considered "failed states" and liable to sanctions, interference and bullying, and even the possibility of open military intervention and invasion as in Sierra Leone.

A major part of the British government’s strategy in the scramble for economic and strategic advantage in Africa has been to build on its colonial and neo-colonial ties both through bilateral arrangements and through the anachronistic Commonwealth. It is trying to strengthen its position in countries such as South Africa, Nigeria and Kenya and in several other countries in central and southern Africa. It has reached agreement with the French government in an effort to facilitate a move into those areas where it does not have strong historical connections, and has also established its own proxy states in various parts of the continent. It is now also playing a leading role in developing the G8 Action Plan for Africa and is busy attempting to subvert the so-called New African Initiative agreed by Africa’s leaders last year in an attempt to develop their own strategy for Africa’s development in opposition to globalisation.

In a recent speech Baroness Amos, the government’s "Minister for Africa" suggested that "Africa is not hostile to globalisation" and called for greater capital investment in Africa on the basis that the "dynamism" for African "development comes from private investment". The British government is attempting to justify the further penetration of Africa’s economies by the monopolies and financial institutions on the grounds that "private investment has a key role to play in reducing poverty". According to this logic, African countries should do everything to allow and even encourage such economic domination and just as in colonial times they are encouraged to build the infrastructure to facilitate their own exploitation. As in Britain, the government is promoting a "Third Way" programme throughout Africa of various "public/private partnership" initiatives designed to completely place Africa’s economies in the service of big business.

The British government continues to act as if Africa is still under colonial rule and much of the continent still part of the British empire. It acts on the basis of the 19th century values, using any justification to further the exploitation of the peoples and resources of Africa.

Baroness Amos is the "Minister for Africa", as the government styles her. Her speech to the Royal African Society and the Royal Commonwealth Society yesterday, January 30, was on "British Policy in Africa". She recalled that Tony Blair committed himself to making Africa a "major personal priority, and a priority for the government".

Just imagine if Robert Mugabe declared a commitment to make Europe a major personal priority and a priority for the Zimbabwe government. Just imagine if the Zimbabwe government appointed a Minister for Europe who elaborated the Zimbabwe policy in Europe.

Just imagine if the Zimbabwe government expressed concern over Britain's Anti-Terrorism, Crime and Security Act which allows internment without trial, over the declaration of an open-ended national state of emergency which justifies the suspension of provisions of the European Convention on Human Rights.

Just imagine if a Zimbabwean Minister for Europe were to lecture the British government on the need to take responsibility for the state of social programmes in this country and for the problem of governance in which the political party in power armed with the royal prerogative decides everything.

Just imagine if a Zimbabwean Foreign Office condemned the monopoly control of the media, the concentration of the moulding of public opinion in the hands of the rich and powerful, disinformation and character assassination used as a matter of course in these media.

Just imagine then if the Zimbabwean government attempted "constructive engagement" with Britain and Europe to try and change the Eurocentric values that these countries follow, to demand Zimbabwean observers at British general elections and declare on a government which can get elected with less than one in four of the electorate supporting it, to condemn a government which will put a teenager in jail for four years for the theft of a mobile phone, a government which presides over disturbances which it labels as "race riots". And then just imagine that the Zimbabwean government said its patience was at an end and it must ask civilised nations to adopt targeted sanctions against the New Labour government.

There are no black settlers in Britain which have maintained control of the land, no colonial legacy of African nations plundering Britain's resources.

What would the response of the British government be?