Africa Must Be Wary of Recolonization

Former African National Congress leader and first president of a non-racial, democratic South Africa, Nelson Mandela, with Libyan Leader of the Revolution Muammar Gaddafi. Libya is longtime supporter of Southern Africa., a photo by Pan-African News Wire File Photos on Flickr.

Africa must be wary of recolonisation

Tuesday, 24 January 2012 00:00
Professor Muchai Wa Muthatha

After the winds of change in the 1960s, Africa found itself fast gaining independence from colonialists, one country after another, until South Africa, became the last country to claim uhuru. Since then, there appeared to have been a surrender of the colonial ideology by the colonial masters but sooner rather than later, the colonial masters regrouped and came up with a more subtle manner of recolonising Africa through regime change disguised as "humanitarian military interventions, democracy, good governance and accountability."

The sad story is that all these high-sounding words were crafted and started being implemented largely from an American, British and French point of view and, generally from a Eurocentric point of view.

Democracy, good governance and accountability were never sought and implemented from an African perspective, not from an Africa eye and each African leader who has defied this has been a victim of regime change.

The Pseudo democrats, created and hoisted into power by the Americans, the British the Canadian and the French, have all turned out to be sellouts with no interest of Africa and the Africans, but giving all the resources top the master of regime change.

This has been the dilemma of Africa and an affront to African humanism.

The United States of America in particular has set up military commands for the absolute control of Africa's resources and is willing to deploy is soldiers to any portion of Africa, firstly disguised as helpers bringing peace and stability but behind the scenes, America will be milking that country's resources or effecting regime change.

All African in know, got worried late last year when America deployed 100 soldiers to Uganda, to hunt for the Lord's Resistance Army and save President Yoweri Museveni.

The question by all and sundry is saving Museveni from what? The other question is how is Museveni going to pay back the American? What with Museveni's involvement in the Democratic Republic of Congo? What has Museveni done to deserve special protection form the Americans, which Sudan's Al Bashir does not deserve? What special protection does Museveni deserve which Robert Mugabe of Zimbabwe does not deserve from the MDC onslaught?

The point is, while we should not support the rebels in Uganda, it is equally interesting to question the motive of the Americans yet there is the African Union, that should be expressly dealing with such problems.

Is it not correct for the African Union to come up with a military contingent to deal with such problems, since Sadc already has a standby Brigade?

The LRA is not silly and reports from its camp are that they have done a tactical withdrawal until they understand the American mission.

They have not disbanded but they have gone underground.

For a country as big as America to have a military intervention in yonder Uganda, there must be something special and Africans should smell a rat. Why America?

The UN, itself a later day mouthpiece of American foreign policy claims that it has noted a reduction on LRA presence, effectively giving credit to the American operation in the same manner it did in Libya until the violent overthrowing of Muammar Gaddafi.

What is needed in Uganda is an African solution not an American solution.

This fact is attributed to a gradual decrease in Joseph Kony's troops. According to the Ugandan government, their numbers do not exceed 350-400 fighters. But truth is that Kony now has more sympathisers in the Arab world than he had before as the anti-American sentiment is high in that section of society.

Taking this into account one can clearly see how flimsy the US' official excuse for sending 100 troops to the Great Lakes District is that there is need for stability in that region and that Kony has butchered ordinary people.

At the same time this move is completely in line with the US plan to penetrate African and consolidate its military, political, and economic grip on the continent.

The move has given US Africom command one step into the Africxan soil and it is fact not fiction that Museveni no longer has the power to withdraw the American soldiers and neither will he have the power to determine when the mission will end.

It is equally true that Museveni no longer has the power to defend his country's independence and that he will now dance the American tune to the fullest.

The first stage of the plan was implemented in Libya, with the Africom being brought into play there to deal with Gaddafi, disguised as America's contingent to help Nato. Now the Africom troops are deployed in the Great Lakes District and what is next for Africa?

The decision made by the government of Uganda, DRC, Central African Republic, and South Sudan to allow the Africom troops to their respective territories undermines the other AU member-countries' effort to establish their own peacekeeping forces.

African leaders must put on the agenda of the January 2012 AU summit, the issue of deploying a regiment of the Sadc Standby Forces in the Great Lakes as soon as possible, not Africom. This step would enable African countries to maintain control over the situation on the continent, keep any foreign players from meddling in African affairs and put an end to the new wave or colonisation.

The move is an affront to all effort for Africa to control and defend its independence in a manner it sees fit not in manner other countries and continents see fit.

Professor Muchai Wa Muthatha is a lecturer of History at Makerere University, Tanzania.

DayAfrica.com