Europe and Africa

[Anubisdk2]

This is something that I have been thinking about for a while and I would like some feedback or suggestions to why this is. Africa has many problems, many of them are based on ethnicity, religion, power and money. When looking at these problems at a glance, one would think that it is all the Africans fault for not being able to "get over" or solve their problems. However, when taking a closer look, one will notice that many of the problems in Africa can be traced back to European Colonization and the subsequent pullout of European nations so quickly after the African Nations declared independence (depending on the country declaring independence and the European country controlling it).

Why doesn't Europe take a more active role in trying to be peacekeepers and problem solvers in Africa? I do realize that France has troops in a few former colonies, but what about the rest of Europe? For instance, Nigeria and Sudan have a lot of problems. Both are countries that were at one time controlled by the UK. Their problems are ethnic and religious warfare (along with power and money struggles). When these countries were "politically" divided on a map, no thought was put into what tribes, clans or peoples would be living in what country. As a result, you have some tribes or peoples that have their historical enemy located in the same "country" today.

I am not saying this from an ignorant American perspective. I have always wondered why Europe never took an active role in Rwanda or Burundi during the mid-1990s. I also do not want to open up old wounds with Africa and colonization, however, I just have always felt that Europe made a mess in Africa (and other areas of the world) and just said "screw it" toward the end of colonization and have not done much in helping these countries "make it". I realize that there are not many resources in Africa. That is why you dont see American (or others) troops there, instead we have them in the oil rich areas. However, this question has been on my mind for some time and I have been trying to find answers to this for some time. Maybe someone out there can help me.

Btw, I am a world history teacher in Maryland and would like to be able to transmit this information to my students. Thanks!

 

[mrtn]

Well, the French was involved in Rwanda. The problem is that they were involved with the massmurderers (close ties to the Rwandan Catholics, who didn't preach peace, but rather the reverse), not trying to stop them.

I think it's a shame this genocide wasn't stopped, but then there's no oil there, just poor furriners...

And while the Europeans are to blame they're not the only ones; much of the problems are to do with freedom fighters (communist and otherwise) who were great at liberating their country, but then couldn't rule it worth squat after the liberation. Robert Mugabe comes to mind here...

 

[Terje]

Someone wise once said that war only spawns war.
Regimes established from fighting has a harder time controlling the population than a regime that came to power in other ways... I think this was Machiavelli...

 

[SeleucusNicator]

Yes, I do believe that the French were involved in several African nations during the 1990's. Out of all the major countries of the world, it is the only one to maintain a "sphere of influence" on the African continent.

Long story short, there are few interventions in Sub-Saharan Africa because the continent is mostly strategically unimportant and irrelevant. No nation really has any interests there, at least not to the extent that would justify spending in military forces.

 

[Cullyn]

well in many cases (especially the French) the former Colonial Powers are not welcome. the wounds of many bitter independance wars are still very fresh, but European humanitarian efforts, especially the NGO's are concentrated on Africa.

 

[Cullyn]

Long story short, there are few interventions in Sub-Saharan Africa because the continent is mostly strategically unimportant and irrelevant. No nation really has any interests there, at least not to the extent that would justify spending in military forces.

Not so true, Nigeria is vitally important for the world oil supplies, South Africa for Diamounds, Gold and Platinum. The untapped mineral wealth alone in africa means it is vey important to Europe. Plus, the EU sees particularly North Africa as a probable area of expasion.

 

[KingBishop]

That si the nature of Imperialism. Why would they go back? If there is no gain in it for them diplomatically, economically or socially. The only reason the US plays ppolice officer around the world is because there are often hidden agendas. Africa is pretty much screwed until the world finds a reason to care an intervene when necessary.

 

[bombshoo]

Really..I know its horrible to say, but honestly, with aids being so bad, aweful leadership (cannibal presidents?), warlords and terrorist, millions starving, and like you said there are a few countries with resources but they are almost always taken advantage of because they have so many other problems, I have to say Africa has no way to go but down...

Europe probaly should have helped out more, but many were still resentful to lose their colonies, even though it was stupid...Most colonies were actually a drain, not an extra source of income...Espeically some of the crap the Italians and French had..

Maybe if a true cure for aids is found, the countries in the south stand a chance at perking up, as they seem to have some more stable goverments..

North Africa is also not as bad....Terrorism and anti-western feelings are hurting tourism, which is vital for them though...

Nigeria's split between Islam and Christianity is horrible. If the northen Muslims could get their own country, the southern part could use some of its oil money to stable out..But it would still leave the Muslims with nothing but desert.

East and Central Africa, seem to be totally screwed...Starvation in some countries, I don't think one country in the area has a stable goverment which controls more then the capital city, and not nearly as many resources as some parts in the West or South...It would take alot of work to get them back on track.

 

[Knight-Dragon]

Moderator Action: Moved to OT. More of a modern issue.

 

[Anubisdk2]

XIII, I know this is modern...but it deals with 300 years of history, but hey you are the moderator. My fault for posting in wrong area.

Anyway, I agree that Strategicly, there is not much in Africa and for the time being, the resources cannot be used or easily excavated for numerous reason. I did not know that NGO's were helping out from Europe. I figured that the former colonial "mother countries" were not allowed back in, but I am surprised that they just sometimes shrug their shoulders and that is that.

Obviously, countries rarely do things that are not in their own self interest. Europe will be no different. I just feel that Americans get critized for going into areas (like Somalia) or not going into areas (Rwanda, Burundi) and I never read anything about Europeans.

Africa seems like such a mess with no end in sight...

 

[Stapel]

Stating that the current problems in Africa are largely caused by the European colonisation, is a political correct crap story. Though decolonisation could have been done better, we should realise colonization generally did leave infrastructure and a decent start of an economy. Most African countries screwed up themselves.

 

[Marla_Singer]

Yes, I do believe that the French were involved in several African nations during the 1990's. Out of all the major countries of the world, it is the only one to maintain a "sphere of influence" on the African continent.

This is completely wrong. There's another major country of the world which has maintained a "sphere of influence" on the African continent : the United States of America.

Why French troops hadn't been allowed to cross the border from Chad to Sudan in order to intervene in Darfur ? Well simply because Washington has said no. Chad is in the french "sphere of influence", Sudan is in the US "sphere of influence".


About all the accusation of the French government supporting the Rwandese genocide, this is simply unbelievable. How can anyone could decently believe France has supported a genocide ? Anyway I know that libelling France is "cool" in the US, but this is getting really too far. :shakehead

The problem about Rwanda is that there were UN Forces maintaining Peace between Utus and Tutsis. 80% of those troops were made of Belgians and 10% of French people (Belgium being the former colonialist). Unfortunately, the awful thing both of those countries did is that they've finally decided to leave the UN peacekeeping forces, reducing those to irrelevance. It's only then that the massacre had started.

This is already enough. Belgium and France haven't prevented the genocide even if they could have if they've maintained their UN troops in Rwanda. However, saying that both countries supported the genocide is totally insane. After all, the USA supported the genocide even more than France and Belgium then since they've NEVER sent any troops in Rwanda.

By the way, I would like also to say that after that genocide, Belgium has decided to make their famous law of Universal competencies saying that any World Leaders breaking the Human Rights could be prosecuted in Belgium. George W. Bush has pressured to move the seat of the NATO from Brussels to Prague if Belgium didn't remove that law because he was affraid to be prosecuted because of Iraq.

Belgium wanted it to never happen anymore, and the US has forbidden Belgium to do so. As such, we can consider the US is responsible of upcoming genocides. Especially once we know the US doens't want of the International Criminal Court of the Hague, which had been created exactly for this.

Message edited : Offensive part removed. I apologize for this, it was undeserved and unnecessary.

 

[Stapel]

The attitude of the USoA regarding Africa is indeed highly questionable. I never really got my finger behind their reasons.

 

[Riesstiu IV]

If anything Africa benefited from European colonization. European powers created roads, infrastructure, medicine, stable food production, and state governments. Africa needs to solve its own problems and stop relying on handouts from the UN. It's sickening... like watching beggars on the side of the road who constantly fight each other but refuse to work. China, India, Singapore, Pakistan, etc all suffered at the hands European colonization but they have managed to work most of their problems out and move into the future. Why can't Africa do it?

 

[Gelion]

This is something that I have been thinking ..... European country controlling it).

Don;t mean to be rude or anything, but I'm glad that you realize all this. I mean some history teachers don't. I never blamed the Africans for thier problems. For escalation - yes, but never for the roots. Maybe countires will learn how to clear up after themselves after all. And that applies to most in the world.

 

[bombshoo]

If anything Africa benefited from European colonization. European powers created roads, infrastructure, medicine, stable food production, and state governments. Africa needs to solve its own problems and stop relying on handouts from the UN. It's sickening... like watching beggars on the side of the road who constantly fight each other but refuse to work. China, India, Singapore, Pakistan, etc all suffered at the hands European colonization but they have managed to work most of their problems out and move into the future. Why can't Africa do it?

What your saying is horrible! Just because some moronic dictator takes power and embazzles all the money all the people in the country should suffer and "solve their own problems"....and refusing to work? Would you like to work in a dangerous mine or trying to farm a bunch of desert? For less than a dollar a day, with no insurence if you get hurt? Probaly not...Yes they need to work themselves out some, but the majority of the continent really can't just decide they want to be stable....They have medicine, and food and stuff, but they need the UN to distribute it to all the rural communities...Villagers and farmers cant just drive up to the Kroger and get some supplies....

And as for China it still suffers from a horrible oppressive goverment, while India and Pakistan are overcrowded...Singapore is small enough it can stay relativly stable, and keep a good econemy from its ports...

 

[De Lorimier]

Marla I totally agree with you on France bashing: there's too much of it and it sucks.
But your generalization about the US and your lack of differentiation between the administration and the citizens are also very frustrating from time to time.
I think everyone is guilty of nation bashing and generalization sometimes.
Vomiting on the US flag isn't constructive at all.

 

[Squonk]

Well, the French was involved in Rwanda. The problem is that they were involved with the massmurderers (close ties to the Rwandan Catholics, who didn't preach peace, but rather the reverse), not trying to stop them.

Some did not act right. But some of the clergy actually died trying to protect people.
blaming entire local church organisation for the fault of some of their members, especially when some acted completely different, is simply unfair.

 

[luiz]

China, India, Singapore, Pakistan, etc all suffered at the hands European colonization but they have managed to work most of their problems out and move into the future. Why can't Africa do it?

Firstly I would like to dispute the notion that Pakistan, China and India managed to work most of their problems out. The three are still miserable countries, very poor among the poor nations.
Singapore is another case entirely, it was a major british trade-post and they indeed benefited from colonization.

As for Africa, the thing is Europe screwed it much more then it screwed the rest of the world. Colonization was awful enough, but Decolonization ought to be the single most terrible exemple of nation-building in human history. The guys who drawed the borders were either complete imbeciles or positevely evil.
While certainly I agree that african leaderships are crap, I can't blame the sorry situation of the country on the average african Kisaka.

 

[Double Barrel]

USA disgusts me.

Marla, I usually have much respect for your pov, even if I agree / disagree.

But this quote pretty much sums up a feeling that you have put forth ever so subtly in your opinions, and I suppose you should be praised for finally cutting to the chase of your true feelings.

It is a shame, though, because I'll have a hard time taking anything you say from this point on with a grain of salt. It is kind of disappointing, really.

You hate the U.S.A., and that is that.

But on topic, I think it is a tough stance to blame one particular nation for the mess that is present day Africa. However, it is quite naive to exclude anyone that has been involved with Africa the past few hundred years from the blood on everyone's hands.

The world stands by and does nothing for the mess it left behind, and the unfortunate circumstance of this inaction is mass genocide and starvation of millions of people.