NEWSPAPER COLUMNS
 ¶ Most Recent
¶ Miscellany
|
COMMENTARY
July 9, 2011
South Sudan
The map of Africa must be withdrawn again this morning, independence day for "South Sudan." I would use a pencil for this. The frontiers are not yet secure, and the ultimate shape of this new country depends on the resolution of the conflict with (northern) Sudan, over possession of the large district of Abyel, which is a melding zone between the Muslim north and Christian-Animist south, both geographically and demographically.A standard complaint, against European imperialism, all the time I've been alive, has been the way they drew borders in Africa: arbitrarily, and with disregard to cultural, linguistic, and tribal realities. The charge is irresistible at one level, for there were several European powers. British, French, Portuguese, Spanish, Belgian (yes, Belgian), Italian, and German imperialists divided the continent between themselves - remarkably peacefully. That statement will be contested, so let me add their wars were mostly scattered affairs, with the African powers they met along the way. And let me further discourage my reader from buying the old leftist simplification, that reduces everything to blacks versus whites, and likes to wave the word "racist" about. In almost every case, those imperialists found themselves interceding in tribal wars of long (and mostly oral) history. They were often more than welcomed for the protection they offered to the weaker parties; and for a time, they brought some degree of peace and order to large territories traditionally inflamed. Among themselves, the Europeans preferred to settle African frontiers by diplomatic convention, moving in to occupy one another's tracts only in the upshot of conflicts in Europe itself. They could afford to be gentlemanly over Africa partly because there was so much continent to divide - "plenty for everyone" - and partly because the focus of most imperial efforts lay elsewhere. Africa was nearly impenetrable, through the early stages of European expansion; only a seemingly endless string of poor, shallow harbours to the Cape of Good Hope, and then the race to Asia on the other side. To each of these little trading emporia came, mostly through African tribal enterprise, quantities of gold, slaves, and so forth. The Europeans bought at the ports, and took it from there. Only in the 19th century did European adventurers become fully aware of regions like southern Sudan, thanks more to private missionary efforts than to imperial ambitions. It was an afterthought to the Anglo-Egyptian authorities, extending their rule into the swampland of the White Nile, a very long way from Cairo; and also to British East African officials, curious to find what lay beyond Uganda. History, and in this case the imperial histories that underlie so many contemporary world issues, is unfortunately no longer taught except to ideological specialists, which is how I excuse this very general briefing. The British in fact saw the problem coming, of putting millions of tropical rainforest-dwelling black Africans under the rule of desert-dwelling Arabized Muslims, at least a century ago. Their intention to make the region an extension of Uganda, instead of Sudan, was defeated by "events." So much of today's sprawling political and economic catastrophe through sub-Saharan Africa can be traced not to imperialism, per se, but to the imperial authorities' eagerness to leave around the signal year of 1960. It was an appalling cat's cradle of quick fixes they left behind. The rest could be attributed to the people they put in power, or dangerously near power, during this evacuation: a generation of African statesmen educated in places like the London School of Economics, or the École Nationale de la France d'Outre-Mer, on what were then the latest Fabian and socialist principles. Add nascent African nationalisms - also encouraged by the chic, departing Europeans - and stir. In retrospect, the reduction of sub-Saharan Africa, with its extraordinary natural resources and diversity of alert and capable peoples, to desperate poverty and a violent hash, was just what we should have expected. Those who actually oppose racism, as opposed to using it as a convenient ideological bludgeon, should fully immerse themselves in this history. Africa is not a mess because it is black. Africa is a mess because it was made into an immense Petri dish for asinine Utopian experiments, by people who walked when they started going wrong. Contemporary journalism has given us a passing flavour of just how likely South Sudan is to become a failed state. It contains halfa-dozen extended ethnic groups or tribal formations which, with independence, will now recall that they do not like each other. The struggle for power within the new state will be, guaranteed, unedifying. Our guilt-strewn offerings of foreign aid will congeal layers of corruption. I have, however, one reason to hope. And that is founded in the current wildfire spread of the same Christianity that raised European tribes, in similar condition, to the civilizational heights. That is a longterm operation, however. David Warren
© Ottawa Citizen
|
Top