The dilemma of Africa

History has shown that a large percentage of the problems that African societies are faced with today originated from Africans being unfortunate enough to be in the wrong place at the wrong time sitting on a land that was and still is replete with vast natural resources. It was the close proximity of these resources that drew the eye of the Europe during the expansionist period of the 15th, 16th and especially 17th and on through to the 19th century. The European explorers, who acted out the twin roles of ambassador and spy, formed the forefront of the British, Spanish, French and Portuguese empires bent on expansion and economic dominion, as you would expect any thriving nation to do.

At first, the inhospitality of Africa’s terrain – the desert and jungles, made for an unattractive prospect. Malaria also proved a formidable enemy. It struck down all non-indigenes with a brutality that gave pause to the enthusiasm of the explorers. This changed with the discovery of quinine by Livingstone. In the meantime, Africa provided a much sought after currency for Europe which needed cheap manual labour to drive the agricultural industry which was the time the primary determinant of economic might. Thus was born the slave trade.

The abolishment of slave trade in the 19th century did not in any way slow down the interest of Europe in Africa because by now Europe was in the grip of a manufacturing revolution. Manufacturing was the future and the powerful nations wisely saw that whoever controlled manufacturing could control global economy. Again, Africa was the perfect target by virtue of its proximity and natural resources – tin, gold, diamonds, copper, iron ore, etc. Thus, scramble for Africa began anew. The English, Spanish, Dutch, French and Portuguese nations vied with one another to establish stakes in territories. They achieved this with the use of vague promises, deception and eventually overwhelming military force. Africans of course had very little say in all this. They had inferior military capability. All resistance was brutally crushed. The enemy was here to stay and there was nothing they could do about it. In the end, Africa was carved up into colonies, states and countries, in line with the interests of the colonial powers. When power to self-govern was given back to Africa, it failed miserably for two reasons: Africa had grown up to quickly and were thus as children when it came to matching the developed nations in terms of economic and political nuance on a global scale. The second and perhaps the most compelling reason is that the developed nations, by virtue of their experience and economic nous, endeavoured to ensure that Africa stayed committed to acting out the role of supplier of cheap natural resources to the West in return for manufactured goods. Africa was sucked into committing itself into trying to sustain a lifestyle that it could neither afford nor reproduce.
This is the source of all the problems in Africa today. Insurmountable debt, poverty, and wars have contributed in decimating the region further.

What is the solution to this? It is simple. Africa cannot compete on the global stage because it is still unable to harness its resources to make the transition from simply exporting its resources to the highest and most friendly bidder to retaining these same resources and using them to drive its own manufacturing industry. Africa must harness her own resources and do all in her power to drive her own manufacturing industry. This is not a pipe dream because Africa has vast reserves of cheap labour and natural resources, vital ingredients to drive the manufacturing industry. This is the only way it can establish enough leverage to compete on the global stage.

The Middle East and Asia

The nations of the Middle East and Asia, just like Africa, have a distinguished history of empires that have contributed much to the Sciences, and the Arts. However, going back over the last three hundred years it is without doubt that the Middle East and Asia could so easily have faced the same problems Africa went through at the hands of Europe. The reason why this is not the case is simple. Asia was too far way and had a hostile terrain with no obvious abundance of natural resources, while the Middle East had a very hostile terrain – the dessert, and certainly had no natural resources to boast off.
And so by the time crude oil was discovered, the Arabic nations had learned from the African situation and had taken steps to counter any attempts by the West to dictate terms of trade. The remoteness of Asia had enabled it to escape in a large measure the domineering influence of the West. This gave each Asian nation the room to dictate the pace of its own growth, thus making it easy to join the ranks of the developed nations with a little help from the west, for example Japan and South Korea, or simply by brooking no interference whatsoever and utilising its own natural resources, for example China and North Korea.

What this tells us is that the world is a stage against the backdrop of which are the various clusters of nations, each vying for dominance in accordance with the dictates of the principle of evolution and in response to the phenomenon of demand. It has always been thus. It is the human nature. Some nations have the short end of the stick while others have the juicy end. From a global perspective, the issue then becomes not why this is so today, but how a balance can be found so that each nation has an equal bite at the stick.

Is this possible? In a random system, NO it is not. However, in a system where the elements that compose it are sentient beings with the power of choice that are capable of consciously interacting with and more importantly, CHANGING the self and environment through interaction, YES, it is definitely a possibility. How? One has to realise that each nation is an independent entity that is subject to two types of interference – internal and external. The idea would then be to keep the external interference to a minimum. The effect of this would be that from a global perspective, no one nation will be given the opportunity to define a personal yardstick with which to measure global economic progress and development. This makes sense because the evolution of any nation of people is a dynamic and organic process. Therefore, the perception of concepts like development, progression, wealth, and so on will vary from nation to nation depending on a variety of factors like geographic location, traditional and cultural values, etc. This being the case, it is obvious that the existence of so many differing cultures and belief systems will serve as an obstacle to the so-called peaceful and global equality propaganda that is touted by the G8 nations who have personalized the definition of the concepts of development and progression to the exclusion of the views of all other nations. This is the dilemma of the 21st century. Humanity need to come to terms with this quickly or risks self-destructing.