Cameron Duodu
LETTER FROM THE NORTH
Last week I faced a dilemma. I was invited to go on the radio to discuss an article in the London Daily Telegraph entitled “Sooner or later, Africa must face some form of recolonisation”.
I told the BBC that the idea of recolonising Africa was so preposterous that I saw no point in discussing it. To be confronted in front of a live microphone, with a man who, whether consciously or sub-consciously, denies my humanity to the extent that he would wish he could enslave me and other Africans (by which he means the black ones!) would produce electrical sparks that could fry the ear drums of innocent listeners.
For much the same reason, I once refused to go and discuss with Ian Smith a book he had come to London to promote.
Having read some of the comments made in the Mail & Guardian of May 26 to June 1, in reply to my article, “Phooey! Africa’s detractors”, I am convinced I was right not to go. What is the point of talking to a wall?
Ray Zabala, for instance, wrote: “Likening the situation in Sierra Leone or … the Democratic Republic of Congo with what has been going on for 30 years in Northern Island or the Basque country shows utter ignorance of the relative scale of the conflicts in Ulster and Spain”.
But my thesis was that all humans engage in conflict, and these are capable of producing great cruelty and enormous slaughter. There were many wars between “civilised” (according to them) European powers even long before they descended into the abyss of the abattoir in what they loftily called World War I and World War II. Yet they thought themselves entitled to colonise Africa.
It is often forgotten that they followed these barbaric wars with a Cold War, during which they very nearly destroyed the entire globe. Even now, the world is not safe. Suppose someone in the conflict-ridden Balkans, or Iraq, or Iran, manages to acquire tactical nuclear weapons?
In short, unless you are racist, it must be obvious to you that what we are dealing with is a very dangerous world in which the easy availability of weapons of all types can turn conflicts into incredibly brutal bloodbaths. Picking on “Africa” alone – and the conflicts in some of its component parts at that – is a very dangerous ploy that lulls the “rest of the world” into assuming that it is OK, and that only “Africa” is in bad shape.
What all people should be concentrating on is how to ensure that humankind as a whole stops its propensity to engage in stupid bloodshed.
We need to strengthen the United Nations in its peacekeeping around the globe. UN peacekeeping must be made 100% effective so that it may not be usurped either by a self-appointed Nato force (as in Kosovo); a self-invited British army (as in Sierra Leone) a vengeful Russian army (as in Chechnya) or even by a legitimate regional force like Ecomog (Economic Community of West African States Monitoring Group).
Another reader, Rob Guy, in his letter, noted that I contradicted myself by complaining about how Africa is lumped together, but then ended up with a pep talk in which I used “we” and “our” in every sentence.
Well, I plead guilty. You see, one of the pernicious effects of intellectual aggression is that it can produce an unwanted defensive stance among the intended victims. If when I said “we”, he did not identify with the sentiments expressed – in that context – then, of course, he is on the opposite side of the argument, and I apologise for including him by saying “we”. His resignation from “our” concerns – if that is the import of his letter – is hereby accepted.
Finally, I would like to comment on another issue that has earned me a lot of flack. Mr S Moyo claims in a letter that “it’s a Mugabe problem, not a land problem”.
The following quotation from Professor Sam Moyo, Director of the Southern African Regional Institute for Policy Studies, Harare, shows he is wrong: “The majority of Zimbabweans will continue to depend on land for their survival, because the slow industrialisation process and the incessantly growing poverty and unemployment cannot be overcome in the next two decades.”
I have criticised President Robert Mugabe in these pages for tying the land issue to his desire for more power, by way of the referendum. I have also expressed support for the opposition’s right to seek to replace Mugabe’s government in the next election. But the Movement for Democratic Change, led by Morgan Tsvangirai, has been adopted by, according to the London Observer of May 21 2000, “a prominent group of British and American politicians and businessmen – many with energy and mining interests in Zimbabwe.”
The paper adds: “The Zimbabwe Democracy Trust, whose patrons include former Tory Foreign Secretaries Malcolm Rifkind, Douglas Hurd and Geoffrey Howe, has been accused of using the organisation as a cover for promoting the interests of Western multi-nationals … In April, ZDT organised the visit to London and Washington of Morgan Tsvangirai, the leader of the Movement for Democratic Change, the main opposition group in Zimbabwe. .The visits followed a visit to South Africa … which included meetings with prominent figures in the business community, [such as] the mining giant Anglo-American, which has interests in Zimbabwe.
“The driving force behind ZDT is Sir John Collins, the Zimbabwean chairman of National Power, Britain’s largest energy company, who organised a letter to [The London] Times, published in April … He did not say his company had substantial interests in Zimbabwe; in 1998 National Power won a $1,5-billion contract to develop a power station in the country …
“Sir Malcolm Rifkind … worked [in Zimbabwe] as a lecturer prior to independence. He works for the Australian mining company, Broken Hill Proprietary, which has been involved in a wrangle with the Mugabe government over a mine … Former [United States] assistant secretary of state for African affairs Dr Chester Crocker is another patron – a director of Ashanti Gold Fields, which owns Zimbabwe’s largest gold mine.”
So, there, Mr Moyo!