It’s a long story that began shortly after World War II. As
Africa began to end its colonial ties, the Eisenhower
Administration along with some of the former colonial powers sought
to address the needs of the newly independent states. A rivalry of
aid givers soon developed. The Cold War spurred the competition for
generosity and soon Africa became the fashionable target of foreign
assistance that would set the tone for the later decades.
Along with this economic and political attention came articles
and books that repeatedly emphasized the “mystery” of the continent
and the expected rewards that would come from its “vast untapped
resources.” This had been the story line ever since Henry Morton
Stanley was sent in 1871 by the New York Herald to
“rescue” the missionary David Livingstone, who was far from needing
rescue at that time. Joseph Conrad, thirty years later, drew from
the mystique of the continent in writing Heart of
Darkness.
That Conradian image of unfathomable opaqueness, along with all
the other commentary later on, carried the theme of an impoverished
population exploited by waves of individuals, corporations and
governments. The problem is that as long as Africans, themselves,
are included among those exploiters, it’s quite true.
It is amazing that even today the same characterizations of
“mystery” and “untapped resources” are sounded to encourage
American, European and Asian interest and investment in Africa. In
most instances the reference is to the verdant tropical areas best
known to Hollywood moviegoers. The drought-stricken Sahel on the
borders of the Sahara often attracts far less interest even as its
population drifts southward in search of water and new living
space.
The so-called “mystery” of Africa is often referred to in
explanation of why the Western world for so many years has found it
difficult to comprehend the socio-economic structure that dictates
life in this giant continent. It is interesting to note that in the
early 1960s when the Chinese began to take an interest in the
mineral wealth of Africa, they did not focus on the existing
political organization of the countries in which they were
interested. They did not try to change the post-colonial
administrations. They did little or nothing to introduce their
Maoist brand of communism. They centered their efforts strictly on
the economic interests at hand.
To the Chinese of the sixties and seventies Africa was not
“mysterious,” and it isn’t today. For Beijing each African nation
is judged by the availability of economic projects to develop and
exploit. The Chinese do not think in terms of “vast untapped
resources.” They think and plan in development terms relative to
the PRC’s own needs and how a given country’s capabilities and
capacity can be exploited for profit. Altruism isn’t even paid lip
service.
In the meantime African students and political leaders travel to
China to learn whatever Beijing wishes to teach them. The Western
countries and their aid programs complain that the Chinese do not
wish to educate Africans, but rather to indoctrinate them. Many
years ago confronted with this charge a veteran Kenyan politician
said, “What’s wrong with that? The African goes there, takes what
he likes, and comes home having gained all around.” That politician
was Oginga Odinga, his country’s first vice-president, and a chief
of the Luo tribe.
There is a primal instinct in Africa borne of centuries of
survival from invaders, internal and external. There is nothing
mysterious about it, but to the European-cultured perception, the
African social contract is considered as at a “lesser” level. This
belief in greater European sophistication makes it difficult at
best to comprehend the African thought process.
A practical example is perhaps the best way to show the chasm of
understanding: There remains a traditional social security system
extant throughout Africa. Africans tend to maintain a continuing
relationship with their extended family and through them their home
village. Sometimes this home village has been subsumed in a broader
urban complex, but it still exists. The tin-sided shacks of tribal
“townships” constructed outside of sub-Saharan African urban areas
attest to this. It is to this “home” that every African is able to
retreat when under personal, political or economic stress. The
African does not think his social security system is less
supportive than the Western government-aided system. In fact, for
the most part, the African deems himself the better protected. And
to the European this is a mystery.
It is not that the Chinese better understand how to work with
Africans, but rather that they do not carry along with their
commercial desires any commitment to socio-economic improvement.
Concerts are not held in Shanghai to aid the starving people of
Darfur. Guilt does not exist in the Chinese mindset over past
colonial exploitation and the ravages of slavery. In turn Africa
does not expect special advantages from their oriental cousin. (As
the Chinese have characterized themselves.) In reality immigrants
and traders from South Asia have lived and worked side-by-side with
Africans for hundreds of years.
Africa’s resources will be developed as long as it is
commercially viable to do so. It certainly is not unknown that
there remains potential for further extractive industries and even
manufacturing in some cases. But it all remains to be judged as to
profitability. There’s nothing any more mysterious about Africa
than there is about South America, Southeast Asia, or any other
less developed region of the world. Africa’s economic development
potential remains competitive with virtually any other area of the
world. How to bring that potential to fruition is not a mystery —
it’s just very hard to do!
