If one catches a thief inside ones residence, the right thing to do is to arrest the thief and get him prosecuted and jailed. One does not sit down with the thief to negotiate when the thief will vacate ones residence and surrender the keys. If the thief is heavily armed and, perhaps, has taken hostages inside the house, it might be sensible to negotiate the withdrawal of the thief so as to prevent bloodletting. After such negotiated withdrawal, immediate measures should be taken to prevent future intrusion of the thief, namely, changing the keys and locks to the house. If we contend that African leaders were compelled to negotiate independence from the intruding colonialists (thieves), why have they not changed the keys and locks to our homes? When the USA wanted to be independent of Britain, she did not negotiate, rather with weapon in hands, US drove away Britain who understood that any attempt to encroach on the independence of the USA might cause Britain her independence. So it is everywhere in the world, independence is never given to any country, countries retain their independence by force and not by negotiation.
World War II began among European tribes fighting over disagreements on how to share the land of Africa and its mineral resources among themselves. Already in 1940, when the war raged on in Europe and France was militarily occupied by Germany, the United States of America had begun to draw up post-war world plans whereby she would replace the European colonialists in their colonies. Speaking at the Investment Bankers' Association on 10 December 1940, the President of the National Industrial Conference Board of the U.S.A., Vergil Jordan said, "Whatever the outcome of the war, America has embarked on a career of imperialism in the world affairs and in every aspect of her life… At best, England will become a junior partner in a new Anglo-Saxon imperialism, in which the economic resources and the military and naval strength of the United States will be the centre of gravity… The sceptre passes to the United States (p. 117, Crises of Britain and the British Empire, by Palme Dutt)." At the Atlantic Charter meeting of 1941, the British Prime Minister, Winstons Churchill, addressed the American President, Franklin D. Roosevelt thus, "Mr. President, I believe you are trying to do away with our Empire (Colonies). Every idea you entertain about the post-war world demonstrates it. You know that we know that without America the Empire won't stand.'' President Roosevelt responded, "When we've won the war, I will work with all my might and main to see to it that the United States is not wheedled into the position of accepting any plan that will further France's imperialistic ambitions or that will aid or abet the British Empire in its imperial ambitions (p.120, The Crisis of Britain and The British Empire, by Palme Dutt).'' In October 1942, The American magazine, Life, published an article which advised that Great Britain should better decide to part with her Empire because the United States was not prepared to fight to enable her to keep it. Responding to the article on November 10, 1942, the Prime Minister of Britain, Winstons Churchill said, "I have not become the King's First Minister in order to preside over the liquidation of the British Empire (Colonies)." In the London Daily Telegraph of 23 October 1943, the British Dominion Secretary, Lord Cranborne was reported to have said, "Those who would not look beyond their personal interests should remember that their employment and standard of living (in Britain) depended mainly on the existence of the Empire (Colonies)." Three months after the trial of Nazists began in Nuremberg, the British Foreign Minister in the Labour party controlled government, Ernest Bevin, declared in the House of Commons on February 21, 1946 thus, "I am not prepared to sacrifice the British Empire because I know that if the British Empire fell … it would mean the standard of life of our constituents (Brittons) would fall considerably." What the USA was demanding was not total independence for the colonies but the right to have lion shares of the resources of the world while Britain, France and other countries of Western Europe should have Tiger's share.
The biggest owners of colonies, especially in Africa, Britain and France, did not want to either share the resources of their colonies or part away with them. France that was occupied by Germany but was liberated by the US and British forces was in far away Indochina to fight colonial war against the Vietnamese people. France, expected military support from the USA for its colonial war against the Vietnamese but USA declined. Thus, the Vietnamese people defeated French troops at Dien-Bien-Phu in 1954 which resulted into temporary partition of the country into North and South Vietnam pending general elections, in 1956, to unify the country. USA intervened and installed a puppet regime in the South with its capital in the then Saigon, nowadays Ho Chi Min city. The puppet, Ngo Dinh Diem, stopped the 1956 election and guerilla war broke out through out South Vietnam which eventually led to the unification of the country under a single government. Yet, colonialists, Britain and France, refused to accept that World War II had eroded their powers. Therefore, following the nationalisation of Suez Canal by the government of Egypt under Gamal Abdel Nasser in 1956, Britain, France and Israel invaded Egypt on October 29, 1956. USA declared itself neutral and the Soviet Union under the leadership of Nikta Khrushchev gave the invaders of Egypt twenty-four hours ultimatum to withdraw their forces from Egypt's territory or face full-scale war. Britain, France and Israel withdrew their forces from occupied Egyptian territories casting doom on British and French as colonial powers. The Prime Minister of Britain, Sir Anthony Eden, was forced to resign. Thereafter, the colonialists (Britain and France reached accord with the new Western imperialist, the USA, to grant fake independence to their colonies, mostly in Africa. In practice, indigenous officials approved by the new imperialists are made to preside over the economic exploitation of their respective countries and people on behalf of Western Europe and the USA. R.E. Robinson and J. Gallagher expressed it succinctly in New Cambridge Modern History Volume XI that nationalism, as encouraged in the leaders of the decolonised countries by the colonialists, is a continuation of imperialism by other means (p.640). Henry A. Kissinger must have had African leaders (public officials) in mind when he asserted that after independence, many leaders of the newly independent countries have had to realize, at least subconsciously, that they were inwardly a good deal closer to their former rulers (colonial masters) than to their own countrymen (p. 215, Nuclear Weapons and Foreign Policy By Henry A. Kissinger).
The economic apartheid which Western Europe and the USA impose on African leaders to operate is premised on their ideological belief that the Black man is inferior to the White man. The enslavement of the Black man, the progenitors of political and economic apartheid contend, is due to the fact that we have been cursed by God. The reaping of the labour of Black man and the exploitation of mineral and forest resources of Africa by the Western imperialists are attributed to the Black pigment which they claim is the symbol of the curse which we have received as the descendant of the Biblical Ham. Of Ham, St. Louis - American Book and Bible House published a Book authored by Chas Carroll in 1900 and titled, The Negro a Beast. In the last chapter of the book (p.339), it was argued that the Negro (Black man) is neither the son of Ham nor even the descendant of Adam and Eve, but simply a beast without soul. God, it was explained in the book, had intended that the Black man should be servants of the white man and that he would always hew wood and draw water for the white man. 85 years after the American Book and Bible House published, Negro a Beast, David G. Mailu reported in the South African Sunday Times of 18 August 1985 a speech delivered by President Pieter Willem Botha to his cabinet titled, I am Not Ashamed Being Racist. He was reported to have said among others, "We do not pretend like other Whites that we like Blacks. The fact that Blacks look like human beings and act like human beings do not necessarily make them sensible human beings. Hedgehogs are not porcupines and lizards are not crocodiles simply because they look alike. If God wanted us to be equal to the Blacks, he would have created us all of a uniform colour and intellect, but he created us differently: Whites, Blacks, Yellow, Rulers and the ruled. Intellectually, we are superior to the Blacks; that has been proven beyond any reasonable doubt over the years. …//… Nevertheless, it is comforting to know that behind the scenes, Europe, America, Canada, Australia - and all others are behind us, in spite of what they say. …//… To prove my point, comrades, does anyone of you know a White country without an investment or interest in South Africa? Who buys our gold? Who buys our diamond? Who trades with us? Who is helping us develop our nuclear weapons? The very true is that we are their people and they are our people. It's a big secret. The strength of our economy is backed by America, Britain and Germany. It is our strong conviction, therefore, that the Black is the raw material for the White man. …. I appeal to all Afrikaners (Dutch settlers in South Africa) to come out with any creative means of fighting this war. …//… Give them (the Blacks) guns and they will kill each other. …//… Let us all accept that the BLACK MAN IS THE SYMBOL OF POVERTY, MENTAL INFERIORITY, LAZINESS AND EMOTIONAL INCOMPETENCE. ISN'T IT PLAUSIBLE, THEREFORE, THAT THE WHITE MAN IS CREATED TO RULE THE BLACK MAN? That is what economic apartheid is all about regardless of if its operation through political apartheid is operated by the Whites or Blacks. There were , off course, African leaders who thought that their countries are independent and therefore decided not to operate economic apartheid against their citizens, but such leaders were violently overthrown or subtly removed, and in some cases murdered, by those who have made slaves of Black Africans from the second half of 15th Century. After Black majority rule in South Africa was introduced in 1994, economic apartheid continued as it were in all previously 'independent' African nations, including Nigeria. Unlike Nigeria where the British officials left the country after conceding the administration of political and economic apartheid to Nigerians, the Dutch settlers in South Africa remained after the Black majority rule was introduced in 1994. Therefore, the emerging South African Black officials had no direct opportunity to move into areas reserved for the whites, as their counterparts in Nigeria did in 1960 when they took over the administration of the country. How the accommodation of few Black South Africans into the economic apartheid system gave birth to xenophobia will be the theme of part IV.
S. Kadiri
No comments:
Post a Comment