
In 1884, at the request of Portugal, German chancellor Bismark called together the major western powers for a talk on a negotiated solution to the questions over the control of Africa which 80% of territory was still under traditional and local control. Bismark wanted to expand Germany’s sphere of influence over Africa but have seen dangerous the fact that western powers were struggling with one another for territory.
Fourteen countries (Denmark, Austria-Hungary, Belgium, France, Germany, Great Britain, Italy, the Netherlands,Russia, Portugal, Spain, Sweden-Norway, Turkey, and the United States of America) participated to that conference and four of them (France, Germany, Great Britain, and Portugal) were the major players in the conference, already controlling about 20% of Africa at the time.
The conference obtained the neutrality of Congo and Niger Rivers mouths and basins and they were opened to trade for all the Colons. However, despite its neutrality, part of the Congo Basin became a personal kingdom for Belgium’s King Leopold II ( and was named Leopoldville : meaning Leopold’s Town) and under his rule, over half of the region’s African population died.
Even after the conference, the same give and take continued depending on the influence a country was gaining or losing. The map above is 30 years after the Berlin conference European powers claims, they had fully divided Africa among themselves into fifty countries
- Great Britain desired a Cape-to-Cairo collection of colonies and almost succeeded though their control of Egypt, Sudan (Anglo-Egyptian Sudan), Uganda, Kenya (British East Africa), South Africa, and Zambia, Zimbabwe (Rhodesia), and Botswana. The British also controlled Nigeria and Ghana (Gold Coast).
- France took much of western Africa, from Mauritania to Chad (French West Africa) and Gabon and the Republic of Congo (French Equatorial Africa).
- Belgium and King Leopold II controlled the Democratic Republic of Congo (Belgian Congo).
- Portugal took Mozambique in the east and Angola in the west.
- Italy’s holdings were Somalia (Italian Somaliland) and a portion of Ethiopia.
- Germany took Namibia (German Southwest Africa) and Tanzania (German East Africa).
- Spain claimed the smallest territory - Equatorial Guinea (Rio Muni).
You can see that some of the participants such as USA don’t have any claims in Africa, at least that what the map tells us. I wonder what their part was or if they wanted just to waste their time ( 3 months of negotiations) negotiating something they didn’t want.
More than 100 hundred years after the Bismark conference more super powers have emerged and of course want exactly what the former wanted and Africa is on the Agenda.
Africa is now meant to be independent, and more than 50 African countries are members of the UN. Their masters are now called partners. They didn’t easily give up their title of masters but have lost it after long fights. They are now called partners and not masters but you don’t need to be a politician expert to notice than they don’t act differently. Even a software engineer like me knows that Africa is not yet independent.
With China and India economies booming, Africa, the continent which have been fueling all the economies: USA and Europe from the slave trade era to the modern era, is for sure still needed for help and ready than ever. However, Africa is already divided and the traditional super powers have already traced their borders.
The world economy is exactly in the situation of 1884 when emerging industries were in luck of enough raw materials. China and India are in need of the food of their machines and Africa had got plenty of them.
China, which has been seeking relationship with Africa since the Mao’s era, has recently boosted it’s cooperation with Africa. It’s worth mentioning that Chinese cooperation with Africa is not matter of yesterday as one would think when reading news around internet. It’s just recently that we are being told all the time about the “disastrous China-Africa cooperation” by western media.
Even though China-Africa cooperation is not a matter of yesterday as I said previously, it’s just recently that we are being told frequently that : China is invading Africa, China is devouring African resources, Congolese kids are dying mining for Chinese companies, China is giving weapons to Mugabe and Sudan to kill Africans and many more. China have been in Africa a long time ago but was not a treat to the masters’ interest in any how. However now days, building on the long time relationship it had already with Africa, China has aggressively and quickly used it’s friendship with Africa to get economic interests and many deals are being signed despite the cries from West.
In the modern worlds, every country is meant to have right to choose its partners and West have lost the title of Master. They are supposed to be and are called Partners and not masters even tough they play the later.
The West now have two choices:
- Give up Africa and leave it with China and concentrate to their own economies. They have had enough time ( more than 100 years) to steal Africa and it would not be surprising that Belgium has now more gold than it’s colony : Congo. In terms of raw materials, I don’t doubt that Europe has enough stock for their industries for decades to come.
The consequences would arise if China managed to help Africa develop itself without the West: I don’t want this to happen just for the sake of international security. Imagine Africa as a world power without any help from Europe with the history of slave trade and colonization and all the killings of African nationalists that followed and all the made in Europe civil wars . I don’t want to have an image of a bad, criminal, bandit, … white man because really it’s not true. I’ve got very good white friends and I can say they wouldn’t be unhappy to hear Africa is developing. Even though I fearlessly can affirm that the Evil of Africa is white, I have not doubt that the White is not the Evil of Africa.
-A second choice is to really engage Europe in the development of Africa : that would be very good. Africans would easily forget their history and treat the West as a Partner not as an enemy. The current generations of Europe would have reason to reject the responsibility of their ancestors actions arguing that they would have acted differently if they’ve born before the slave trade like we do when blaming those criminal who killed Jesus. Who would not benefit from that ? None.
The consequences of the ideal solution are two:
* That would mean investing money, I mean money and not the aid, not financing unproductive made in Europe projects. That would come to a cost but there is no doubt that the West is able to handle it.They have got enough to invest and much of the benefits would still go to them.
* An other alternative that I think would not be with less consequences, is the independence of Africa. Africa would then seek economic and political independence. Imagine an Africa with nothing to report to the World Bank or the IMF and a decision maker in World Trade organization. Europe would find itself in situation of one of African partners like China and India. Africa would cease being just a natural resources provider but a hub of heavy industries. The cost of natural resources would rise and the European industries face the treat of cheap African goods on their market in application of their own rules of World Trade Organization. With the experience they have with China I don’t think they are ready to accept that.
Unable to stop China “Invading” Africa, they have lost their mind as you can see in this video, and they are now fighting on two fronts:
- Demonizing China however and whenever they can: we are now being told whatever about how Chinese actions in Africa is disastrous. We are told of a China “devouring” Africa and sponsoring dictatorship in Africa, undermining the “good efforts” of promoting good governance and democracy from the West. A Congolese kid mining is mining for Chinese companies, a gun which shoots innocents is made is China, …. the very very very very … bad China. However we all know that China is not the first supplier of Africa in any thing but infrastructures. I don’t say and even doubt that Chinese sell weapons in Africa. But unless those made in West are made in way they recognize innocents and only kill bad guys, they should not be the first to criticize it.
However this is doomed to fail: Chinese don’t care of the cries from the West and are on their way to Congo, Angola to name two, building roads and all kind of infrastructures quickly and silently. You see a bad Chinese enemy of Africa and a good European friend of Africa on the net and TV and you see in the street a Chinese building road and Europeans working in many so-called humanitarian aid organizations driving Mercedes and BMW in the Chinese made road. What to believe ? What you see or what you heard or read ? “Blessed are those who believe without seeing ” the Bible says but here we can both see and hear.
-Westerners are not stupid, they play all the cards but know which ones can win. They know they are not going to succeed telling to Congolese that Chinese are stealing their minerals if they can see made-by-Chinese roads, rail ways, hospitals,universities and schools. They have heard from long time that their country has got plenty of gold and diamonds and have got nothing from them but their people dying in mines for the past 100 years. Building a hospital and taking tons and tons of gold doesn’t matter for them because they have mined to death for someone else and didn’t see the hospital. What Westerners media haven’t understood is that Africans don’t know the price of natural resources because they have never seen salvation from them. Telling them: “hey look at Chinese they are devouring your diamonds”, doesn’t really produce expected results.
They know that they are doomed to fail and are now seeking for a 1884 Berlin like negotiated solution over the sharing of African resources. They have now to allocate some parts to China and India otherwise they risk loosing all. The “good” idea of not fighting but sharing Africa is again from Germany but not at Berlin but Bonn.
Bellow is a communique for the conferences
**********************
EU-Africa-China: Building PartnershipsBonn, 29th September to 1st October 2008
The EU has announced a “strategic partnership” with China, including issues of global development. Within the EU, Germany is particularly interested in global cooperation with China. The Heiligendamm process determines joint responsibilities for development, especially for Africa, both for G8 and important emerging countries as China.
The EU is still the largest cooperation partner to Sub-Sahara Africa. But China – even though not a new partner to African states – has geared up its presence in Africa with booming direct investments and an active official cooperation policy.
But the crucial factor for Africa’s successful development is African commitment itself.
-
- How do African actors perceive the cooperation partners?
- What are the strengths and weaknesses of European and Chinese development strategies?
Yet, uncertainties remain also with regard to the Chinese and European agenda:
-
- What are the principles of the respective cooperation with Africa?
- What are the players’ practices in specific sectors?
- Where are the points of entry for trilateral cooperation between Europe, Africa and China?
The workshop invites all participants to an open and constructive debate on their engagement for Africa’s development, on their experiences and perceptions. It is continuing a dialogue between Chinese and German/European officials and academics that has taken place in Beijing in December 2007. The second discussion round in Bonn will include African research partners and policy-makers.
Participation is by invitation only.
***************************
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
India’s development cooperation: Opportunities and challenges for international development cooperation Deutsches Institut für Entwicklungspolitik (DIE), Bonn
Tulpenfeld 6, 53113 Bonn
27. August 2008
During this workshop, which is part of an Indian-German research project, initiated by the German Ministry for Cooperation and Development (BMZ), the results of this project carried out in cooperation between DIE and the Indian Institute of Foreign Trade (IIFT), New Delhi, India will be presented and discussed.
In particular the study will analyse the following aspects:
-
- Experience/foundations of Indian development cooperation
- India’s role in ensuring regional and cross-regional economic integration
- India’s assistance to Africa’s development
- India’s contribution to the future international development agenda
Participation is by invitation only.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
However if negotiations are not yet finished, the new Bismark is going to have many challenges. China have got good reputation in Africa and Africans are willing more than ever not the right to choose their partners because that’s too demanding maybe, but the right to choose their master is seen as a must have one. They West will need to impose their practices to China what it’s impossible because Chinese will not be welcomed in Africa unless they show themselves different from Westerners. Would you hide from a river in the lake ?
China then is in a good position and has high needs and may ask a big part and why not even asking for the whole thing ? The 1884 Berlin participants didn’t get equal portions. India comes also with not a small appetite and they should wait also Russia because it hasn’t said the last word. How if our Brazilian brothers and Sisters join the game ? Maybe it’s not like football, otherwise they should also think twice.
I would like to attend that meeting because it’s not going to be the 1884 Berlin way for sure.Nothing shocking at all will be said. Partnership in helping Africa will be the main topic for sure and it sounds nice and sweet. There is no doubt that the black continent will be invited to attend. I m afraid the true negotiations will have been somewhere else. Wait and see.
Time will tell.
Daniel