6 reasons I think Africa can and will one day unite.

[eclipsenow]

1. SAME LANDMASS
Some compare the chances of all Africa uniting to say Australia and Indonesia uniting. Let's explore that. For starters, Australia has its own landmass. It is separated from Indonesia and the rest of the world by ocean, and ships and planes coming into Australia can go around or across Indonesia. Africa is one super-continent, and will be forced to get along with neighbours. The economy and geology demand it! It will more economically be able to freight cargo across vast areas by fast rail. Landlocked nations would enjoy modern rail and trucking freight infrastructure across the continent to get their products to the oceans. The sheer geopolitics of trade across such a vast continent, or even shipping around it, demands a closer economic and political union for the wealth of all.
2. A SHARED EXPERIENCE OF SUFFERING UNDER COLONIAL RULE
Australia has a history of being colonised by the one European empire — the English — and eventually those separate colonies joined together and Federated. Africa has different history of being colonised and pillaged by competing European powers. While delivering diverse outcomes and languages, it also gives — more or less across such a vast region — a shared feeling of having been violated in past generations. Imperialism, resource theft, slavery, racism have all left deep wounds on African development and history. Much like China after her “century of shame” Africa may want to unify on the rebound of all that historical abuse to make sure it never happens again.
3. AVOID NEO-COLONIALISM
Some argue that there are even risks of neo-colonialism doing the same thing today. This quote from The Independent in 2007 (page since taken down) illustrates what I’m saying:-
>>In a world of increasing globalisation, where the small guys often get drowned out by the bigger players, especially on issues such as trade, some African leaders believe the only way for the continent to prosper is to unite. They want to replace the current African Union (AU), a largely administrative group for the 53 countries from Egypt to South Africa, with a proper African government that would control a two million-strong continental army, direct the fight against Aids, and speak with one voice in international negotiations. “The battle for the United States of Africa is the only one worth fighting for our generation – the only one that can provide the answers to the thousand-and-one problems faced by the populations of Africa,” Alpha Oumar Konare, head of the AU, said before the meeting."<<
Various east African nations are benefiting from having cheaper salaries than some middle class areas in China. They are "China's China", offering cheap labour to the world’s factory. For more, spend 10 minutes with Visualpolitik.

But what will happen in coming decades as their wealth increases? Neighbouring African states will want some of that.
4. ECONOMIC BENEFITS OF UNITY
The 20th Century saw European imperial powers go to war with each other twice. As their various empires collapsed in on themselves, rather than just become individual ‘nation-states’ they immediately formed the European Steel and Coal Community which eventually grew into the European Union we have today. (An interesting side note of this is that British Brexiteer ‘Leavers’ believe in a myth that they were once a stable nation state out on their own, but they were in reality a collapsing global empire. Britain has not ever been an individual stable ‘nation-state’ in the modern state, and so an independent, lonely Britain may prove more fragile and economically vulnerable than many Brexiteers imagined!)
In terms of building African Economic integration, "greed is good". (But of course not in terms of political corruption!) If I trade my country's cheaper goods for some of your country's cheaper goods it makes us both richer. As trade breaks out across the continent, it gradually increases and demands things like the easier exchange of employees and labour and immigration. Gradually economic integration operates like this. 'Preferential trading areas' => 'Free trade areas' => 'Customs Unions' => 'Common Markets' => 'Economic Unions' => 'Customs unions' => 'Common market' => 'Economic union' => 'Economic and monetary union' => 'Complete economic integration'. Economic integration - Wikipedia
The first 4 goals of the African Union are (according to wikipedia):-
1. To achieve greater unity and solidarity between the African countries and Africans.
2. To defend the sovereignty, territorial integrity and independence of its Member States.
3. To accelerate the political and social-economic integration of the continent.
4. To promote and defend African common positions on issues of interest to the continent and its peoples.
African Union - Wikipedia
5. ENGLISH IS THE COMMON GLOBAL LANGUAGE
People raising objections that Africa has many languages forget that English is the language of business opportunity and international problem solving. For example India has 22 major languages and many hundreds of sub-dialects, but 2 official languages: Hindi and English. Indians from different linguistic groups have English road and shop signs. While their home language will be their language of the heart and home and passion, English will be the language of business and politics for a united Africa. See Jay Walker’s 4 minute TED talk on the MANIA for learning English! Over 4 minutes.

6. AFRICA THE WORLD’S RICHEST SUPERPOWER!
Finally, a vision of the world’s wealthiest most important super-power will take over. Full integration of Africa would make her an unstoppable military and economic force able to defend herself with ease. Bit by bit nations are forming economic communities, and gradually these are integrating and trading and forming their own amalgamated currencies. Within a few generations, the momentum should become unstoppable. A united Africa would eventually have 40% of the world’s population and be the greatest economic force on the planet. After centuries of suffering abuse, that’s a vision worth struggling for!

 

[Quid est Veritas?]

Preposterous. African nations cannot even control different groupings within themselves, now you want to exacerbate the problem continent-wide? Kikuyu and Luo in Kenya, Tutsi and Hutu in Rwanda and Burundi, Xhosa and Zulu in South Africa, etc. In these cases they already shared a common history and a common second language, yet could not unite for common interest in their respective countries. There is anyway a strong linguistic divide in place between Francophone and Anglophone Africa.

Then the religious divide: Islam in North Africa and Christianity in the Sub-Saharan portion. It already tore Sudan apart, as well as Nigeria.

If you force the various countries together, you'll mostly create strife. Power blocks would need to suppress the breakaway groups. Colonial borders already created barriers that have become real through historic process, though arbitrary initially, as Africa lacks nation-states based on communality - as in Europe. Even then, these things have become tangible: Rwanda and Burundi are both inhabited by Tutsis and Hutus, are neighbours, but reacted very differently to the killing of their presidents (Genocide vs not).

Geographically, the Continent is too vast and paradoxically too uniform for infrastructure. It lacks large rivers (Nile, Congo, Zambezi and Niger notwitstanding), being mostly dry Savannah or Sahel, broken by impassable Congolese jungles. This means that the fairly cheap river transport to the interior of Asia, Europe or North America can only occur on the few major rivers, requiring massive infrastructure for road and rail. The Colonial powers, in spite of incentive to do so, could never quite get this right. Rhodes' Cape to Cairo railway was never built. Without foreign capital, it cannot be done; without it, Africa as a union would fail economically (even if rampant corruption could be reigned in). Foreign capital investment entails some level of neo-Colonialism, or it simply would not be profitable to do so in the first place. For what Africa offers in compensation is raw goods or markets or influence. Regardless, look how Britain struggled to build the Mombasa to Nairobi line itself. Not to mention that even linking already constructed railways isn't very feasible, as British colonies mostly use Cape Guage, and others standard or even more idiosyncratic guages.

If you try and unite Africa, you'll either end with a tinpot dictatorship, a tyranny of a few against the many, or something akin to the Biafran Civil War.

Instead of chasing nonsensical pipedreams, African nations should get their own houses in order. Root out corruption, create firm legal and political structures, build Infrastructure and Education. A united continent would just retard this process for the whole, as areas are farther along than others - though much backsliding also occurs.

Remember, Africa is a Continent. An Egyptian, a Sotho, a Congolese or an Ethiopian have as little in common as a Israeli, a Chinese man, a Russian and a Sri Lankan. Just pointing to shared history of Colonialism and geographical proximity is not enough. Africa is anyway a foreign-ascribed concept, as no indigineous group had such a conception of itself. More ethno-linguistic pooling is perhaps more feasible; or combining regional groups with broad similarities, like resurrecting the Central African Federation or combining the original SADC countries maybe, but continent wide would be disasterous.

 

[eclipsenow]

Tutsi and Hutu in Rwanda​

Yes, and there was an awful genocide with some of the worst tribal conflict the world has ever witnessed. But Rwanda's truly barbaric recent history illustrates why I'm hopeful rather than backing why you're pessimistic! It's like you're stuck in the past. Indeed, before colonisation the Tutsi and Hutu got along famously. It was the Social Darwinian philosophy of the European colonisers that stirred up trouble, putting one group in charge of the others. Now that the troubles are over, the government has banned using the terms Tutsi and Hutu. Why? There's money to be made! It's too expensive to go back to artificially stirred up tribal hatreds.

Rwanda is a developing country with about 70% of the population engaged in agriculture.[5]However, Rwanda has undergone rapid industrialisation thanks to successful government policy. Since the early-2000s, Rwanda has witnessed an economic boom improving the living standards of many Rwandans. The Government’s progressive visions have been the catalyst for the fast transforming economy. The President of Rwanda, Paul Kagame, has noted his ambition to make Rwanda the "Singapore of Africa".[6]
Economy of Rwanda - Wikipedia
​

Rather than reading a boring wiki, try this.

If Rwanda can cook up an amazing economy bringing together a vastly divided and terribly wounded people, with a new generation hardly understanding the hatreds of the past, then anywhere can. Also, to your point on religious differences. If Saudi Arabia can start to modernise and gradually open up to outside pressures, then anywhere can. Coalitions are forming, new currencies stabilising and then being merged into other new currencies. Slowly, bit by bit, it is happening.

 

[Quid est Veritas?]

Tutsi and Hutu in Rwanda​

Yes, and there was an awful genocide with some of the worst tribal conflict the world has ever witnessed. But Rwanda's truly barbaric recent history illustrates why I'm hopeful rather than backing why you're pessimistic! It's like you're stuck in the past. Indeed, before colonisation the Tutsi and Hutu got along famously. It was the Social Darwinian philosophy of the European colonisers that stirred up trouble, putting one group in charge of the others. Now that the troubles are over, the government has banned using the terms Tutsi and Hutu. Why? There's money to be made! It's too expensive to go back to artificially stirred up tribal hatreds.

Rwanda is a developing country with about 70% of the population engaged in agriculture.[5]However, Rwanda has undergone rapid industrialisation thanks to successful government policy. Since the early-2000s, Rwanda has witnessed an economic boom improving the living standards of many Rwandans. The Government’s progressive visions have been the catalyst for the fast transforming economy. The President of Rwanda, Paul Kagame, has noted his ambition to make Rwanda the "Singapore of Africa".[6]
Economy of Rwanda - Wikipedia
​

Rather than reading a boring wiki, try this.

If Rwanda can cook up an amazing economy bringing together a vastly divided and terribly wounded people, with a new generation hardly understanding the hatreds of the past, then anywhere can. Also, to your point on religious differences. If Saudi Arabia can start to modernise and gradually open up to outside pressures, then anywhere can. Coalitions are forming, new currencies stabilising and then being merged into other new currencies. Slowly, bit by bit, it is happening.

What are you talking about? Rwanda was essentially a hereditary Tutsi fief under the complex, and warrior-based, system under the Mwami or tribal kingship. The Hutu were the suppressed peasantry. The Germans and Belgians merely found the system, and then gave it racial overtones by positing a Eugenics basis, instead of the tribalism it really represented. They hardly 'got on famously'. Colonialism merely cemented and exacerbated already existing tribal divisions and frictions.

As to their current position: Paul Kagame is a strongman, like Erdogan or Putin, who significantly limits freedoms. He is essentially running what amounts to a Tutsi oligarchy. The country is far from a paradise. Much of his economic growth is through judicious use of Chinese capital to build roads and such, which has bought much Chinese influence in Rwanda. Often he is called a Chinese stooge, and has been supporting rebel groups in the DRC.

If this is your example of a success story, then your united Africa is a dark and dire place indeed. Besides, this is an example of a small individual country, not trying to set to rights on a massive scale. Its ongoing ethnic tension and dependance on foreign capital and infrastructure investment, is exactly the things I mentioned that made your vision problematic.

 

[eclipsenow]

"Money talks". Stuff is happening. The country is vastly better off than just a few decades ago than during the troubles. A functioning modern democracy with anti-corruption departments etc etc etc is a bit of a journey away, but look how far they've come! One needs money before the more liberal aspects of a true democracy can work. It's fine for us to criticize, America was founded on slavery and my home of Australia founded on convicts, and was a part of the British Empire. Our wealth was dirty. I mean, look at America's constitution and how 'valuable' the votes of an African American were! For all the fine democratic principles being espoused, how 'equal' and 'liberal' was that? But look how far America has come. Is it perfect? Are there still neighbourhoods of terrible economic disparity based on what their great-great grandparents were? You bet. The journey continues... as it does in Rwanda. America is a lot further along, but remember the origins!

 

[Quid est Veritas?]

"Money talks". Stuff is happening. The country is vastly better off than just a few decades ago than during the troubles. A functioning modern democracy with anti-corruption departments etc etc etc is a bit of a journey away, but look how far they've come! One needs money before the more liberal aspects of a true democracy can work. It's fine for us to criticize, America was founded on slavery and my home of Australia founded on convicts, and was a part of the British Empire. Our wealth was dirty. I mean, look at America's constitution and how 'valuable' the votes of an African American were! For all the fine democratic principles being espoused, how 'equal' and 'liberal' was that? But look how far America has come. Is it perfect? Are there still neighbourhoods of terrible economic disparity based on what their great-great grandparents were? You bet. The journey continues... as it does in Rwanda. America is a lot further along, but remember the origins!

I am South African. Our economy was humming along, until State Capture and the corruption of Jacob Zuma, Land Reform without Compensation, and ongoing racial and ethnic strife scuppered it. Just two days ago a group calling to 'reclaim our beaches' sacrificed a sheep to the spirits of their ancestors at Clifton, an upmarket beach in Cape Town - Specifically to Mxele, a warrior that threatened to destroy Grahamstown and kill all white people. Money wasn't talking here.

Or the dissolution of the Central African Federation. Its economy was golden, it was doing very well. But two of its constituents decided to secede to become the impoverished Zambia and Malawi, for political reasons; and the remainder became the basket case Zimbabwe, after a long period as the pariah Rhodesia.

People don't always accept economic growth if other factors they desire are lacking. The ghosts of the past are hard to exorcise. The problems in African states run much deeper than the economic, requiring rule of law, respect for law and precedent, the formation of middle classes, etc., if not the flawed reckoning with the past and ethnic strife doesn't scupper everything. The US was a far different animal than the states of Africa. As South American states show too, there is no reason to think they'll necessarily escape the cycles of destabilisation that follow independance. The US itself almost didn't make it, having multiple uprisings like the Whiskey Jar rebellion, threats to secede from Federalist New England, culminating in a US civil war. It could easily have ended up very differently.

 

[eclipsenow]

I am South African. Our economy was humming along, until State Capture and the corruption of Jacob Zuma, Land Reform without Compensation, and ongoing racial and ethnic strife scuppered it.​

It's so sad, and quite scary! If I lived in South Africa I might be quite freaked out by now. I'm not undermining the difficulty of the struggle, or that there will be set backs. I understand the Zuma nepotism reaches all the way down to getting jobs for maths teachers who cannot do high school maths, maybe even primary maths? Is any of this being addressed by the new mob?

Just two days ago a group calling to 'reclaim our beaches' sacrificed a sheep to the spirits of their ancestors at Clifton, an upmarket beach in Cape Town - Specifically to Mxele, a warrior that threatened to destroy Grahamstown and kill all white people. Money wasn't talking here.​

Yes, that even made it to the BBC world news. (Although they put some kind of romanticism spin on it, finding it quite cute which I found incredibly patronising and domesticating.) I hear you — the ignorance and superstition and fear of modern immunisation etc across Africa is horrific. The needs are so vast it is hard to understand where to start. But bit by bit, various forms of Christianity are spreading across Africa as well, bringing with it the Protestant work ethic, respect for authorities and respect for your fellow citizen. African Christianity seems to be a "mile wide but an inch deep", but our current Anglican Rector taught in an evangelical - reformed bible college in West Nairobi, and our former link missionary headed up a similar bible college in Tanzania. This is encouraging as it spreads reformed, conservative Christianity among the future Christian leaders in Africa.

Or the dissolution of the Central African Federation. Its economy was golden, it was doing very well. But two of its constituents decided to secede to become the impoverished Zambia and Malawi, for political reasons; and the remainder became the basket case Zimbabwe, after a long period as the pariah Rhodesia. ​

Yes, but the CAF was imperial, stained by the roots of colonialism. Then of course with no experience in running things themselves, African tinpot dictators rose up to replace them with promises of a golden independence — only to find themselves completely ill equipped to develop democratic mechanisms that can overcome the lures of power. It's post-colonialism, 101. I get that.

But new economic allegiances are slowly spreading to replace the old post-colonial tinpot dictators. And the crucial difference is lots of these are African-grown from the ground up — and they understand good governance is required for the prosperity of the people. Also, China has basically said "If you just stabilise things in your country and respect the rule of law and don't suddenly muck things up, we'll trade with you."

The economic growth has been amazing! Compare it to the poverty of Asia in the 1950's and see where Africa could be in 50 years!

People don't always accept economic growth if other factors they desire are lacking. The ghosts of the past are hard to exorcise. ​

But their is profound economic growth in many African countries which has lowered poverty across the continent by 40%, raised life expectancy 10 years, and lowered infant mortality by 50%. That's phenomenal! Many African countries are in the top countries for growth in the world. Their starting base is very poor, but the growth has been phenomenal.

The problems in African states run much deeper than the economic, requiring rule of law, respect for law and precedent, the formation of middle classes, etc., if not the flawed reckoning with the past and ethnic strife doesn't scupper everything. ​

Agreed and they need education, fresh water, good nutrition, basic roads and railways to trade with their neighbours, anti-corruption agencies, etc etc etc. But it's slowly spreading. Yes, there are wars, AIDS epidemics, religious and tribal strife, etc. But it's spreading. Indeed, the AU wants to accelerate this. The unification process has taken a step forward with 44 countries signing AFCTA, the African Continental Free Trade Area (AfCFTA). Considering that the EU started with just 6 countries in the European Coal and Steel Community, this is a giant leap forward for Africa. Europe has internal trade worth 70% of their trade, and Asia 51%. Africa only trades 17% within the continent. Some call just 44 signing a ‘shaky start’, but these people don't understand how utterly enormous and disparate Africa is, as you have correctly pointed out! But the fact that 44 signed on is a fantastic achievement. I would have been encouraged if just 20 had signed. A Free Trade Agreement is a few rungs up on the economic integration ladder. Again, the EU started with 6, Africa is starting with 44!

Remember, the AU wants to go from the current utterly messy system of smaller economic zones to a fully integrated African economy with one currency!

The US was a far different animal than the states of Africa. As South American states show too, there is no reason to think they'll necessarily escape the cycles of destabilisation that follow independance. The US itself almost didn't make it, having multiple uprisings like the Whiskey Jar rebellion, threats to secede from Federalist New England, culminating in a US civil war. It could easily have ended up very differently.​

True. But the AU exists, and it has certain goals. The tinpot dictator countries are very poor, as corruption doesn't work. China is investing heavily and there's a competition for influence between France and China in Africa. Trade with the USA has increased dramatically, but China has eclipsed that dramatically. A functioning economy means money for education and then the next generation escapes the ignorance of the past.
China China China!

 

[Quid est Veritas?]

I am South African. Our economy was humming along, until State Capture and the corruption of Jacob Zuma, Land Reform without Compensation, and ongoing racial and ethnic strife scuppered it.​

It's so sad, and quite scary! If I lived in South Africa I might be quite freaked out by now. I'm not undermining the difficulty of the struggle, or that there will be set backs. I understand the Zuma nepotism reaches all the way down to getting jobs for maths teachers who cannot do high school maths, maybe even primary maths? Is any of this being addressed by the new mob?

Mobs seldom address anything except inciting violence. They are destructive, not constructive.

Just two days ago a group calling to 'reclaim our beaches' sacrificed a sheep to the spirits of their ancestors at Clifton, an upmarket beach in Cape Town - Specifically to Mxele, a warrior that threatened to destroy Grahamstown and kill all white people. Money wasn't talking here.​

Yes, that even made it to the BBC world news. (Although they put some kind of romanticism spin on it, finding it quite cute which I found incredibly patronising and domesticating.) I hear you — the ignorance and superstition and fear of modern immunisation etc across Africa is horrific. The needs are so vast it is hard to understand where to start. But bit by bit, various forms of Christianity are spreading across Africa as well, bringing with it the Protestant work ethic, respect for authorities and respect for your fellow citizen. African Christianity seems to be a "mile wide but an inch deep", but our current Anglican Rector taught in an evangelical - reformed bible college in West Nairobi, and our former link missionary headed up a similar bible college in Tanzania. This is encouraging as it spreads reformed, conservative Christianity among the future Christian leaders in Africa.

Or the dissolution of the Central African Federation. Its economy was golden, it was doing very well. But two of its constituents decided to secede to become the impoverished Zambia and Malawi, for political reasons; and the remainder became the basket case Zimbabwe, after a long period as the pariah Rhodesia. ​

Yes, but the CAF was imperial, stained by the roots of colonialism. Then of course with no experience in running things themselves, African tinpot dictators rose up to replace them with promises of a golden independence — only to find themselves completely ill equipped to develop democratic mechanisms that can overcome the lures of power. It's post-colonialism, 101. I get that.

But new economic allegiances are slowly spreading to replace the old post-colonial tinpot dictators. And the crucial difference is lots of these are African-grown from the ground up — and they understand good governance is required for the prosperity of the people. Also, China has basically said "If you just stabilise things in your country and respect the rule of law and don't suddenly muck things up, we'll trade with you."

The economic growth has been amazing! Compare it to the poverty of Asia in the 1950's and see where Africa could be in 50 years!

People don't always accept economic growth if other factors they desire are lacking. The ghosts of the past are hard to exorcise. ​

But their is profound economic growth in many African countries which has lowered poverty across the continent by 40%, raised life expectancy 10 years, and lowered infant mortality by 50%. That's phenomenal! Many African countries are in the top countries for growth in the world. Their starting base is very poor, but the growth has been phenomenal.

The problems in African states run much deeper than the economic, requiring rule of law, respect for law and precedent, the formation of middle classes, etc., if not the flawed reckoning with the past and ethnic strife doesn't scupper everything. ​

Agreed and they need education, fresh water, good nutrition, basic roads and railways to trade with their neighbours, anti-corruption agencies, etc etc etc. But it's slowly spreading. Yes, there are wars, AIDS epidemics, religious and tribal strife, etc. But it's spreading. Indeed, the AU wants to accelerate this. The unification process has taken a step forward with 44 countries signing AFCTA, the African Continental Free Trade Area (AfCFTA). Considering that the EU started with just 6 countries in the European Coal and Steel Community, this is a giant leap forward for Africa. Europe has internal trade worth 70% of their trade, and Asia 51%. Africa only trades 17% within the continent. Some call just 44 signing a ‘shaky start’, but these people don't understand how utterly enormous and disparate Africa is, as you have correctly pointed out! But the fact that 44 signed on is a fantastic achievement. I would have been encouraged if just 20 had signed. A Free Trade Agreement is a few rungs up on the economic integration ladder. Again, the EU started with 6, Africa is starting with 44!

Remember, the AU wants to go from the current utterly messy system of smaller economic zones to a fully integrated African economy with one currency!

The US was a far different animal than the states of Africa. As South American states show too, there is no reason to think they'll necessarily escape the cycles of destabilisation that follow independance. The US itself almost didn't make it, having multiple uprisings like the Whiskey Jar rebellion, threats to secede from Federalist New England, culminating in a US civil war. It could easily have ended up very differently.​

True. But the AU exists, and it has certain goals. The tinpot dictator countries are very poor, as corruption doesn't work. China is investing heavily and there's a competition for influence between France and China in Africa. Trade with the USA has increased dramatically, but China has eclipsed that dramatically. A functioning economy means money for education and then the next generation escapes the ignorance of the past.
China China China!

The EU is very different from Africa. That followed years of economic development, and on the back of a continent-wide war, so they had strong incentive to reach accomodation. Such things aren't going to work in Africa, where each country is poor and struggling, and out for itself.

Nor do I see why you would sing paeans to China? I thought the whole point was to avoid Neo-Colonialism? China threatens the countries of Africa to toe its international line, as to the Dalai Lama and such, and is interested in getting cheap resources to hungry Chinese factories and getting preferential markets for the resulting goods. This is no different from old-style Colonial relations. China has been buying influence, so in South Africa for instance, they have been bank-rolling the ANC, and resulted in preferential treatment. South Africa at the UN has mostly acted in Chinese interest, and we buy prodigious amounts of low quality junk from China - especially medical supplies. To such an extent, I've noticed an idiomatic usage of calling something 'chinese' if it is ineffective or broken, amongst the Cape Coloured population I work with. Replacing old-style post-Colonial relations with Chinese Neo-Colonialism is not the answer, and the only one to really gain much benefit in the long-run will be China. Transforming Africa into Chinese economic dependencies will merely leave it vulnerable to the whims of Beijing and Chinese economic necessities. They'll drop out the floor beneath them, if they anger China or it is expedient to Chinese interest to do so. It is the same relation of the USSR to its former poor satellites, like Cuba, that largely crumbled when Russian support evaporated - in spite of great advances in education and public health.

 

[eclipsenow]

The EU is very different from Africa. That followed years of economic development, and on the back of a continent-wide war, so they had strong incentive to reach accomodation. Such things aren't going to work in Africa, where each country is poor and struggling, and out for itself.​

It followed WW2 and precipitated the complete rebuilding of the continent, so 'years of economic development' might be pushing it a bit! The ECS was formed just over a decade on from the end of hostilities.

But I agree that the African continent is very different from the culture of Europe, but think of the megalomaniac dictators and civil wars Europe had in the 20th Century and how eventually, out of sheer frustration with the status quo, the various nations and peoples of Europe moved towards democracy, diplomacy and trade.

Nor do I see why you would sing paeans to China? I thought the whole point was to avoid Neo-Colonialism? China threatens the countries of Africa to toe its international line, as to the Dalai Lama and such, and is interested in getting cheap resources to hungry Chinese factories and getting preferential markets for the resulting goods. This is no different from old-style Colonial relations. ​

You didn't watch the video's above, did you? Rather than just pure resource extraction as European powers have been notorious for, China is building infrastructure like thousands of kilometres of roads and rail and factories and local jobs. It is creating incentives for diplomacy and trade rather than just propping up some tinpot dictator or banana republic. This is kick-starting all manner of other societal benefits, like having the tax revenue to educate kids.

China has been buying influence, so in South Africa for instance, they have been bank-rolling the ANC, and resulted in preferential treatment. South Africa at the UN has mostly acted in Chinese interest, and we buy prodigious amounts of low quality junk from China - especially medical supplies. ​

Yes China has been buying influence. Agreed. Which is why eventually Africa will need to unite to sort out their own sovereignty issues. And while there's probably a bunch of cheap junk being sold, the cheap Chinese phones are bringing new means of money exchange that avoid corrupt or expensive or inconvenient banks so that African phone-banking is becoming famous worldwide. They can also educate people about life in the outside world and raise expectations and facilitate social media campaigns and even revolutions if necessary.

Transforming Africa into Chinese economic dependencies will merely leave it vulnerable to the whims of Beijing and Chinese economic necessities. ​

Yes and no. An economically prosperous country can educate its people and create higher expectations than just being a vassal state. A growing economy can diversify and eventually, when there are enough other industries, Africa can renegotiate what they are trading and who they are trading with. The whole point of the ACTFA is that Africa needs to vastly increase internal trade across the continent, and the 44 countries that signed onto that should see the benefits over the coming decades.

 

[Quid est Veritas?]

The EU is very different from Africa. That followed years of economic development, and on the back of a continent-wide war, so they had strong incentive to reach accomodation. Such things aren't going to work in Africa, where each country is poor and struggling, and out for itself.​

It followed WW2 and precipitated the complete rebuilding of the continent, so 'years of economic development' might be pushing it a bit! The ECS was formed just over a decade on from the end of hostilities.

But I agree that the African continent is very different from the culture of Europe, but think of the megalomaniac dictators and civil wars Europe had in the 20th Century and how eventually, out of sheer frustration with the status quo, the various nations and peoples of Europe moved towards democracy, diplomacy and trade.

Nor do I see why you would sing paeans to China? I thought the whole point was to avoid Neo-Colonialism? China threatens the countries of Africa to toe its international line, as to the Dalai Lama and such, and is interested in getting cheap resources to hungry Chinese factories and getting preferential markets for the resulting goods. This is no different from old-style Colonial relations. ​

You didn't watch the video's above, did you? Rather than just pure resource extraction as European powers have been notorious for, China is building infrastructure like thousands of kilometres of roads and rail and factories and local jobs. It is creating incentives for diplomacy and trade rather than just propping up some tinpot dictator or banana republic. This is kick-starting all manner of other societal benefits, like having the tax revenue to educate kids.

China has been buying influence, so in South Africa for instance, they have been bank-rolling the ANC, and resulted in preferential treatment. South Africa at the UN has mostly acted in Chinese interest, and we buy prodigious amounts of low quality junk from China - especially medical supplies. ​

Yes China has been buying influence. Agreed. Which is why eventually Africa will need to unite to sort out their own sovereignty issues. And while there's probably a bunch of cheap junk being sold, the cheap Chinese phones are bringing new means of money exchange that avoid corrupt or expensive or inconvenient banks so that African phone-banking is becoming famous worldwide. They can also educate people about life in the outside world and raise expectations and facilitate social media campaigns and even revolutions if necessary.

Transforming Africa into Chinese economic dependencies will merely leave it vulnerable to the whims of Beijing and Chinese economic necessities. ​

Yes and no. An economically prosperous country can educate its people and create higher expectations than just being a vassal state. A growing economy can diversify and eventually, when there are enough other industries, Africa can renegotiate what they are trading and who they are trading with. The whole point of the ACTFA is that Africa needs to vastly increase internal trade across the continent, and the 44 countries that signed onto that should see the benefits over the coming decades.

The old Colonial regimes did exactly what China is doing. They were just building railways, not roads, along with ports and dams. The British ran a railway from the Cape all the way up to Zambia. To think China is acting differently in some way is merely historically untenable, and is just wishful thinking. China builds dependant economies, creating industry or markets dependant on Chinese products. There is very little difference to colonial mercantilism - they also 'brought jobs' by running plantations, mines, porters and encouraging supportive industry. Make no mistake, China is not altruistic here.

The EU followed the Marshall Plan with large scale reconstruction well underway, with highly educated populations. None of this holds in Africa.

But to get back on topic, Uniting the continent would be disasterous. Limited local integration and domestic development are better and more achievable goals. Foreign investment will remain a problem as long as Africa remains chronically unstable and uneducated, but turning to neo-colonialism of China is really just denouncing Peter to call on Paul. Continent wide integration is too soon and probably detrimental today.

Not to be too harsh, things can get better. It just needs concerted effort from all involved. I am not overly optimistic, but its possible. One can but hope and pray.

 

[eclipsenow]

The old Colonial regimes did exactly what China is doing. They were just building railways, not roads, along with ports and dams. The British ran a railway from the Cape all the way up to Zambia. To think China is acting differently in some way is merely historically untenable, and is just wishful thinking. China builds dependant economies, creating industry or markets dependant on Chinese products. There is very little difference to colonial mercantilism - they also 'brought jobs' by running plantations, mines, porters and encouraging supportive industry. Make no mistake, China is not altruistic here.

The EU followed the Marshall Plan with large scale reconstruction well underway, with highly educated populations. None of this holds in Africa.

But to get back on topic, Uniting the continent would be disasterous. Limited local integration and domestic development are better and more achievable goals. Foreign investment will remain a problem as long as Africa remains chronically unstable and uneducated, but turning to neo-colonialism of China is really just denouncing Peter to call on Paul. Continent wide integration is too soon and probably detrimental today.

Not to be too harsh, things can get better. It just needs concerted effort from all involved. I am not overly optimistic, but its possible. One can but hope and pray.

But also on the flipside of colonialism, Canada, Australia, and many other former colonies are now thriving modern independent economies gradually increasing in interdependence with global free trade agreements, economic integration into ASEAN and other deals, etc. It seems the main thing Africa needs is hope, investment, and trade. With China supplying some of this and France some more and the 44 signing on to an FTA, yes, let us hope and pray!

 

[Bob Crowley]

Australia has a history of being colonised by the one European empire — the English — and eventually those separate colonies joined together and Federated.

You can't compare the African experience with the Australian. The Australian "colonies" were all of British descent, with the exception of the indigenous people, and they weren't given much say by the British rulers or the colonists.

By and large the Australian "colonies" (now mainly separate states) spoke one language, had one over riding culture, and were to all intents and purposes, primarily British (English, Scottish, Welsh and Irish - although the Irish had no reason to love the English), with a smattering of other Europeans. They also shared in a "Christian" heritage, although the Catholic Church was banned for a while, since the English overlords were Anglican.

We even had a "White Australia" policy for quite some time, with Asian and non-European migration being very much discouraged.

Africa on the other hand is often riven by tribal conflicts, with Moslems in the North and Christians in the South (a somewhat simplified view), the nations being drawn up using artificial boundaries by the European colonists. They were also forced to adopt the different languages of their colonial lords.

I think it will be a very long time before anything like a real African hegemony takes place, if ever.

 

[eclipsenow]

You can't compare the African experience with the Australian. ​

I can if I also contrast the differences fairly as well.

The Australian "colonies" were all of British descent, with the exception of the indigenous people, and they weren't given much say by the British rulers or the colonists. By and large the Australian "colonies" (now mainly separate states) spoke one language, had one over riding culture, and were to all intents and purposes, primarily British (English, Scottish, Welsh and Irish - although the Irish had no reason to love the English), with a smattering of other Europeans. They also shared in a "Christian" heritage, although the Catholic Church was banned for a while, since the English overlords were Anglican....​

Agreed.

Africa on the other hand is often riven by tribal conflicts, with Moslems in the North and Christians in the South (a somewhat simplified view), the nations being drawn up using artificial boundaries by the European colonists. They were also forced to adopt the different languages of their colonial lords. ​

Of course. I may as well be discussing the Middle East Federating into one nation. But on the other hand, Rwanda banned the use of the term "Hutu" and "Tutsi", the African Union has a mission statement all about closer integration, and eventually one currency, and 44 nations signed on to the ACFTA whereas the EU only had 6 sign onto their coal and steel community. Money finds a way.

 

[Red Gold]

I do not think that there will ever be a united Africa.

 

[eclipsenow]

That's an opinion.
The AU disagrees.