Globalization and re-colonization of Uganda

During the 2004 hearings by the World Commission on the Social Dimension of Globalization, many African participants equated globalization with the re-colonization of Africa. Many Ugandans believe that Uganda which was never fully de-colonized has already been re-colonized since entering into structural adjustment with the IMF in 1981.

In order to appreciate that re-colonization has actually occurred, one needs to understand what the objectives of colonialism were. They were to secure a strategic advantage, evangelize the natives and obtain tropical raw materials and food for British industries and population respectively and land for surplus British population; and finally markets for manufactured products.

Britain, France, Germany and Belgium conflicted over the control of areas that eventually became Uganda. The agreement between Germany and Britain involving Heligoland is well known as is the Fashoda incident between Britain and France. The interests of White settlers in Kenya and Egypt’s reliance on the waters of the Nile affected the final shape and size of Uganda. Ultimately Uganda lost big chunks of land in the east and the north to Kenya and Sudan respectively. In the south and west of Uganda land was also exchanged among Germany, Belgium and Uganda. Uganda remains a battleground for old and new colonizers as a gateway to the Great Lakes region and the Horn of Africa. During the cold war era, Uganda sat at the intersection between the ‘red’ and ‘blue’ belt states that contributed to the 1971 coup.

Whose idea is East African integration and federation?

East African economic integration and political federation is again very much in the air. This time it is neither the British nor Tanzanians pushing but Ugandans with Museveni as champion. Museveni has made it his top priority. He is not only pushing very hard but he has reversed the order putting political federation ahead of economic integration. It is like building a house starting with the roof! Some commentators are beginning to wonder what has triggered this rush in Uganda’s state house. Before examining Museveni’s rush, let us briefly examine the background to East African economic integration and political federation.

The idea originated in London. Since the Second World War, one of long-term ambitions of London had been the achievement of closer integration of its East African territories in a federal arrangement or political union probably under the leadership of Kenya (Butler 2002). To this end the three colonial territories developed common economic structures, a common market and a common currency. Britain hoped that by creating East African High Commission and the East African Common Services Organization the three territories would unify or federate into one larger nation (Grenville 1994). In the early 1950s, the colonial office intimated that it might consider an East African federation (Diamond and Burke 1966).

“A new colonialism: Europe must go back into Africa”

There have been suggestions that Europe must go back into Africa to put the continent back on track. Despite independence Europe never left Africa. It’s like governors went on indefinite vacation leaving behind Africans acting as Officers-in-Charge (oic). Through these oics, Europe has continued to exert tremendous influence (perhaps more than if Europeans were in direct control) in many ways that have contributed to the many political economy challenges Africa faces.

For some African countries, their relationship with Europe after so-called independence can be compared to relations between a department chief who before going on mission or vacation instructs his/her designated officer-in- charge (oic) to implement the chief’s decisions, and have the chief clear all outgoing correspondence before they go out under the signature of the oic. There are many instances when correspondence is drafted by the chief and signed by the oic. Many are deceived that the oic is in full control of the department and acts independently in the absence of the chief. Similarly in some African countries policies come from Europe or the international institutions they control although they bear the signature of the African head of state or head of department concerned. This has been particularly the case since the 1980s when stabilization and structural adjustment programs (SAPs) or the Washington Consensus were launched.

Globalization and re-colonization of Uganda

During the 2004 hearings by the World Commission on the Social Dimension of Globalization, many African participants equated globalization with the re-colonization of Africa. Many Ugandans believe that Uganda which was never fully de-colonized has already been re-colonized since entering into structural adjustment with the IMF in 1981.

In order to appreciate that re-colonization has actually occurred, one needs to understand what the objectives of colonialism were. They were to secure a strategic advantage, evangelize the natives and obtain tropical raw materials and food for British industries and population respectively and land for surplus British population; and finally markets for manufactured products.

Britain, France, Germany and Belgium conflicted over the control of areas that eventually became Uganda. The agreement between Germany and Britain involving Heligoland is well known as is the Fashoda incident between Britain and France. The interests of White settlers in Kenya and Egypt’s reliance on the waters of the Nile affected the final shape and size of Uganda. Ultimately Uganda lost big chunks of land in the east and the north to Kenya and Sudan respectively. In the south and west of Uganda land was also exchanged among Germany, Belgium and Uganda. Uganda remains a battleground for old and new colonizers as a gateway to the Great Lakes region and the Horn of Africa. During the cold war era, Uganda sat at the intersection between the ‘red’ and ‘blue’ belt states that contributed to the 1971 coup.

Globalization and re-colonization of Uganda

During the 2004 hearings by the World Commission on the Social Dimension of Globalization, many African participants equated globalization with the re-colonization of Africa. Many Ugandans believe that Uganda which was never fully de-colonized has already been re-colonized since entering into structural adjustment with the IMF in 1981.

In order to appreciate that re-colonization has actually occurred, one needs to understand what the objectives of colonialism were. They were to secure a strategic advantage, evangelize the natives and obtain tropical raw materials and food for British industries and population respectively and land for surplus British population; and finally markets for manufactured products.

Britain, France, Germany and Belgium conflicted over the control of areas that eventually became Uganda. The agreement between Germany and Britain involving Heligoland is well known as is the Fashoda incident between Britain and France. The interests of White settlers in Kenya and Egypt’s reliance on the waters of the Nile affected the final shape and size of Uganda. Ultimately Uganda lost big chunks of land in the east and the north to Kenya and Sudan respectively. In the south and west of Uganda land was also exchanged among Germany, Belgium and Uganda. Uganda remains a battleground for old and new colonizers as a gateway to the Great Lakes region and the Horn of Africa. During the cold war era, Uganda sat at the intersection between the ‘red’ and ‘blue’ belt states that contributed to the 1971 coup.

The population scare has raised its ugly head again

Since the 1950s when Third World people began to over-breed their European counterparts, the latter got scared. Europeans feared among other things that competition for developing countries raw materials would lower their standard of living. To avert this threat they recommended that Third World countries practice birth control through contraception. Researchers, commentators and policy makers at state and non-state levels painted a very bleak picture that needed to be addressed on an urgent basis. Statements likening population growth to a bomb by Paul Ehrlich and nuclear war by Robert McNamara occupied center stage in the development discourse. “Robert McNamara, president of the World Bank in the 1970s, compared the threat of unmanageable population pressures with the danger of nuclear war [McNamara had been secretary of defense before joining the World Bank]”(The Economist 2006). International conferences including those at the UN were held, expert reports were produced and institutions such as the Population Council and the United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA) were set up. Developing country governments were advised or forced to undertake urgent measures of birth control or they would not get international assistance. In the rush to prevent this ‘catastrophe’, inappropriate or wrong assumptions, omissions and commissions were made and the prevailing circumstances particularly in Africa that was decolonizing were not properly assessed much less understood.

The scramble for Africa is being repeated in DRC

Just as Ethiopia participated in the scramble for and colonization of Africa with European nations, Rwanda is participating in the scramble for and re-colonization of DRC with Western nations. During the scramble for Africa European nations were particularly interested in raw materials. Ethiopia which was originally a small territory (Abyssinia) wanted in particular to expand its territory. Western nations are interested in DRC for its raw materials. Rwanda which is a small country is interested in DRC in particular to expand its territory like Ethiopia did during the first scramble of the 19th century.

Western arguments for breaking up DRC and steps being taken

During a mission to DRC in January/February 2010, meetings were held with representatives of some European embassies, United Nations and International NGO organizations and Congolese from all walks of life. All foreigners contacted complained that DRC is ungovernable because it is too big. If one goes by that criterion alone, then the order of breaking up large African states should start with Sudan, the largest (2,505, 813 sq. km) followed by Algeria, the second largest (2,381,741 sq. km) and then DRC the third (2,344,885 sq. km). Right now there are some voices in favor of keeping Sudan together. I have not heard talk about breaking up Algeria.

Revisiting Tutsi Empire in the Great Lakes Region

In her response to my article titled ‘Why Bahima men will not marry Bairu women’ in which I inserted a paragraph on the Tutsi Empire in the Great Lakes Region of Africa which came up during my mission to Burundi, DRC and Rwanda in January/February 2010, Ms Kesaasi dismissed that paragraph in large part because there was no substantiated evidence. In other words I did not provide sources confirming that such a project existed. It would not have been possible to do so in an article limited to seven hundred words.

In the following paragraphs, I shall provide the sources at my disposal right now and will update the article as more information becomes available.

In order to understand how the Tutsi Empire project evolved and who has been the champion, one has to be familiar with some background information albeit not related to the project directly. Yoweri Museveni’s rise to power had external backing. The external powers were interested in the wealth of DRC and wanted some one in the Great Lakes Region to serve as their surrogate. At the beginning of the 1980s, there was no leader in the region that could be entrusted with that responsibility. Obote was not trusted because of his so-called socialist ideas (Vijay Gupta 1983).

A new revolution for Africa

Countries that have developed into mature societies characterized by economic and social progress and exercise their human rights including the right to elect their representatives freely and hold them accountable went though difficult times: recall the Glorious, the American and the French Revolutions. The people in these countries made huge sacrifices in human lives and property. They were laying a solid foundation for their future generations. They faced many obstacles but worked hard to overcome them – and they did overcome them.

In Africa, the political struggle for independence was hardest in countries with settler communities. Recall the experiences of Algeria, Angola, Kenya, Mozambique, Namibia, South Africa and Zimbabwe. One of the reasons that Belgium – which never thought Congolese would become independent – granted independence so readily in the wake of the 1959 bloody riots in Leopoldville is because it did not want to get dragged into the Algerian-type situation. Those of us who witnessed the struggle at close range in some of these countries, it was very tough but worth it.

Colonization, pauperization and neo-colonization of Africa began in DRC

It has been said and written and subsequently confirmed during a recent mission to the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC) in January and February 2010 that the colonization, impoverishment and neo-colonization of Africa began in DRC initially through instability, disruption of economic systems, trade networks, social, cultural and political institutions, ruthless and massive exploitation of human and natural resources. Ipso facto, Africa will not stabilize and develop peacefully and sustainably while DRC remain mired in neo-colonial conditions of exploitation and destabilization by foreign interests and their neighboring and Congolese surrogates.

Before the arrival of Europeans and Arabs in the 16th and 19th centuries respectively, the Congo basin was occupied by Bantu people who had developed strong kingdoms that were engaged in production of a wide variety of agricultural, pastoral and industrial products the surplus of which were exchanged in local and regional markets. They had also as noted above developed strong and viable cultural and social systems that together with adequate and balanced diets promoted rapid and healthy population growth.