How
imperialism condemns millions to poverty
THE RUN-UP to the G8
summit in Gleneagles has seen repeated attempts by
Blair, and his would-be successor Brown, to jump onto
the various “make poverty history” campaigns. They
portray themselves as fighters against world poverty and
dealing with climate change, while simultaneously trying
to boost British capitalism’s position in the continent
vis-à-vis its rivals.
Robert Bechert,
Committee for a
Workers’International (CWI)
Of course Blair’s
anti-poverty campaign did not quite extend to himself.
Last year he personally spent £3.6 million on buying a new
London home and so far his wife has not donated to charity
any of the £30,000 she “earned” for speaking in Washington
on 6 June. But this has not stopped Blair once again
seizing upon the plight of the African masses in order to
give himself a “humanitarian” makeover after the invasion
of Iraq.
Simultaneously the British
government (which, in the words of Gordon Brown, says that
it is time to “stop apologising” for seizing much of
Africa and south Asia for the British Empire), wants to
divert attention away from imperialism’s responsibility
for the poverty that affects hundreds of millions around
the world.
The G8 leaders fear the
impact of the continuing crisis in Africa both on their
own immediate interests in the continent, the
international effect of increased destabilisation, and in
further strengthening the growing opposition they face at
home to the super-exploitation of the African masses.
Earlier this year Blair’s
“Commission for Africa” published its report and argued
that something needed to be done to help support
pro-Western African leaders, especially those implementing
‘neo-liberal’ policies. The Commission warned that:
“Inaction brings danger. Those new African leaders who are
committed to change have put in place reforms – on the
economy and on combating corruption – that have been
politically difficult. Those leaders could be evicted from
office if their people do not see returns.”
Starting from the point of
view of defending both capitalism and local rulers rather
than the mass of the people, this Commission advocated
concessions from the International Monetary Fund (IMF),
World Bank, etc, to try to prevent more revolts from
below.
“Structural adjustment”
Officially Africa owes $300
billion in debt but out of this “some $235 billion was
acquired between 1985 and 1995, as governments followed
structural adjustment programmes … $270 billion of the
$300 billion borrowed by sub-Saharan Africa over the past
30 years has already been paid back.” (Kamran Kousari and
Richard Kozul-Wright, staff workers on UNCTAD’s programme
for Africa, Guardian 20/12/04).
These “structural
adjustment programmes” or SAPs, were vicious neo-liberal
austerity policies that cut living standards at the same
time as increasing the debt burden. A Nigerian senator,
Farouk Lawan, said earlier this year: “It is
unconscionable that Nigeria has paid £3.5 billion in debt
service over the past two years but our debt burden has
risen by £3.9 billlion – without any new borrowing. We
cannot continue. We must repudiate this debt.” (Guardian,
26/4/05)
But, refusing to cancel the
debt, the G7 finance ministers agreed a $40 billion debt
deal, with strings, that actually translates only into an
extra $1.2 billion a year for the 18 countries involved
that can used for other things. The Commission for Africa
argued that the whole of Africa needed an extra $25
billion a year.
Although this deal will
cost the US up to $1.75 billion over the next decade, this
is almost nothing in comparison with the cost of Bush and
Blair’s Iraq war. By the end of September 2005 the attack
on and occupation of Iraq will have cost the US alone
$207.5 billion.
Generally Blair’s
Commission’s report is filled with meaningless phrases
like “Africa, at last, looks set to deliver” and avoids
making serious criticism of the major imperialist powers.
Thus, while criticising the
fact that the imperialist countries spend almost $1
billion a day on “subsidising the unnecessary production
of unwanted food,” it makes no mention whatsoever of the
fact that in 2004 worldwide military spending was far
more, reaching $1,000 billion, nearly $3 billion a day.
Similarly, it avoids the
issue of the SAPs making only the mildest, indirect,
criticism and asks that the IMF “should avoid creating
ill-judged limits on what countries can spend”, a very
minor slap on the wrist.
Corrupt system
Often in the Western media
there is an attempt to simply blame Africa and Africans as
a whole for this crisis. Of course, each country and
continent has its own history. However, Africa is not
unique in facing wars and crisis, Europe’s history is
filled with wars and crises.
There are specifically
African elements in the crisis such as the continuing
legacy of the direct imperialist rule it suffered during
the nineteenth and twentieth centuries and the indirect
imperialist control that continues to this day. But the
continent’s crisis is also the result of poverty and local
rulers seeking to enrich themselves through looting.
Neither of these two last
factors are uniquely African. Corruption is rife
throughout the capitalist world. George Bush has just
appointed as his new ambassador in Rome, a banker who was
also a university classmate and, more importantly, one of
his election fundraisers. In fact, 20% of Bush’s elite
“pioneer” fundraisers from the 2000 and 2004 elections
have been given presidential appointments.
The African elites’ rampant
corruption and looting is an illustration that the vast
majority see no prospect of stable development taking
place in their respective countries and have a ‘take the
money and run’ mentality.
This extends right to the
very top. Nigeria’s current Finance Minister, Ngozi
Okonjo-Iweala, has been widely praised in the
international media for her drive to cut public spending
and her public opposition to corruption but she only
become a Minister on condition that she was paid in US
dollars not in Nigerian naira. Now she ‘earns’ the modest
sum of $247,000 a year.
Blair’s Commission
correctly pointed out that one of the causes of Africa’s
crisis is the fact that raw materials have remained as its
major exports and that it “simply does not produce enough
goods to trade”. However, it does not explain why this is
the case.
Africa has huge resources
in the talents of its people, its natural resources and
its agriculture, but why are they not used in the
interests of the African people?
The fundamental answer is
because the world economy has long been dominated by the
ruling classes of the rich countries and their companies.
Currently, the 500 biggest international companies now
control 70% of world trade, while the 50 largest banks and
financial companies control 60% of all global capital.
Today, just 300 multinationals and big banks account for
70% of all foreign direct investment.
This domination effectively
blocks off the growth of independent rivals to these
monopolies. Where new technologies or products develop,
they are quickly dominated by the imperialist powers.
Exceptions to this general rule, such as South Korea, were
helped by the West to develop during the cold war for
strategic reasons or, in the unique case of China, where
the basic economic foundations of its recent growth were
built by the state.
This modern day imperialist
control and drive for profit distorts the world’s entire
development. Even the Blair Commission partially
recognised this: “Developed nations… trade policies are
skewed to benefit the rich without consideration for the
poor”. This is the key barrier that has to be overcome if
world living standards are to be raised.
But, of course, Blair and
Co. do not challenge capitalism at all. The Commission
claimed that: “Economically, since growth is driven
principally by the private sector, that requires
governments to provide a climate in which ordinary people
– whether they be small farmers or managers of larger
firms – can get on with their daily tasks untroubled, and
feel that it is worthwhile investing in their future”.
Capitalism is not
developing Africa. Indeed, the continent is going
backwards. But even if one looks at European or US
capitalism’s history, it has never been one of
uninterrupted progress. This needs to be remembered today
when the basis of world economy’s current growth is
extremely fragile and there are growing fears of what the
next economic crisis will bring.
Class struggle
But, despite its continual
crises, there is another side to Africa; namely the
repeated struggles, led by the working class and youth, to
defend living standards and democratic rights. In Nigeria
alone the Obasanjo government’s policy of cutting fuel
subsidies has faced seven general strikes or periods of
mass protests since June 2000.
Again and again repressive
regimes have been toppled, but because no break was made
with capitalism and imperialism a fundamental and lasting
change did not occur. Only when production for private
profit is ended and resources are public owned and
democratically controlled would it be possible to begin to
plan their use to meet human needs.
The necessity of this break
is part of the alternative that socialists in Africa (see
article, right), are arguing for as they work to build
fighting socialist organisations in Africa as part of a
worldwide movement.
A socialist break with
capitalism in an African country, particularly an
important one, and an appeal for this example to be
followed in other countries, could begin the real
transformation of the planet.
Globalisation has shown how
individual companies can plan production around the world.
Imagine what would be possible if a democratic plan was
able to utilise all of the world’s resources, human and
material, to meet humanity’s needs while protecting the
environment.
