![Sample our Social Sciences journals, sign in here to start your FREE access for 14 days]({"type":"image" , "src" : "/sda/110822/TOC-Subject-Sample-2021-Social-Sciences.jpg"})
Abstract
This paper has five elements. The first is a brief overview of the wars in Africa. The second connects Africa and its wars to social injustices which were historically constructed and fostered by exploitative external and internal factors. The third examines the implication of increasing injustices in Africa (intensified by wars and civil conflicts) and connects colonialism, postcolonialism, neocolonialism, or eternal colonialism to internal/external political and economic manipulation, poverty, degenerating social conditions, and conflicts that result in wars. The fourth deals with the specific standard that has become the modus operandi favored by the West and other parts of the world who behave like the West when dealing with Africa; and the fifth attempts a number of suggestions useful in approaching the possibility of a transformative response toward constructing justice and peace in that continent.
Notes
[1] In his book Looting Africa (2006), Patrick Bond insists that no amount of rhetoric is going to save Africa from the real agenda of the West which is to defoliate or empty that continent for their own advantages. Much of Africa is simply getting poorer because the West has no plans to ease up on looting that continent. This, of course, is massive economic exploitation. Worse, the West has no real and substantive development plans for the continent. The United Nation’s Millennium Goal, the G8 Summit at Gleneagles in 2005, and World Bank (WB) and World Trade Organization (WTO) meetings are all Western face‐saving activities. This is truly tragic for Africa because Bond’s position suggests that the continent may never emerge from its poverty and impoverishment which has been caused and sustained by the tactical and total lack of external support. One can also see from here that the simplistic views circulated about the West’s intention and engagement with Africa as sufficient assistance is inconsistent with real circumstances, and the traditional arguments that the continent’s problems are too complex and thus hamper Western ability to contribute any sustainable and meaningful solution to problems in that continent are seriously problematic.
[2] This statement is attributed to Gabel Medard on the following site retrieved August 31, 2006, from, http://www.bigpicturesmallworld.com/movies/winningpeace.html
[3] David Wearing assembles information that posits the tragic corruptive behavior of Western corporations. He points out that United Kingdom corporations, the eight largest bribers in the world, still bribe vehemently in Africa despite concern from several groups.
[4] Much like the situation in Afghanistan where President Hamid Khazai only really has control over Kabul and not the rest of the country (see http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/3087615.stm), it has been argued that the president of Liberia Ellen Johnson‐Sirleaf only has control over Monrovia. In other parts of that nation, lawlessness and injustices still prevail.
[5] This aggression has been called genocide by several groups including the United Nations and the United States. For a more detailed overview of the conflict in Darfur, see Flint and de Waal (Citation2005).
[6] See Andrew Niccol’s (Citation2005) motion picture Lord of War. Here is the quintessential role played by the West in the weaponization of poor nations. The process destroys their well‐being and any hope for advancement.
[7] See, for instance, the diminution of Africans in Hegel’s “order of things” and Rudolph Otto’s theology, positions which have endured and still dominate in Westerners’ perceptions of Africans.
[8] For instance, the Boar War 1899–1902, the Armenia Genocide 1915, the Second World War, the Cambodian Genocide, the Rwandan Genocide, the current genocide in Sudan, etc.
[9] Baah insists that human dignity, at least in the African context, is a precursor to human rights. Because The Universal Declaration of Human Rights is Western in nature, Westerners tend to promote human rights over human dignity. For the African context, therefore, it follows that all discussions about human rights must be anchored in the fundamentality of human dignity. This would take into consideration the various cultural, social, and political differences in Africa.
[10] This does not mean that there are not discussions that focus on the preexisting conflicts among African ethnic and religious groups. This may be especially true in Sudan. For this discussion, see the work of Douglass Johnson (Citation2003), but it is important to emphasize that the colonial British exacerbated the situation. Others have argued that the postcolonial discourse may no longer be the appropriate basis for engaging Africa/West issues, probably because the wars in Africa have redefined much of national, political, and social arrangements. The 1990s may have introduced an end to this label. See Young (Citation2004).
[11] See, for instance, Adar and Munyae (Citation2001). Several articles have also documented the human‐rights violations sponsored by several military regimes culminating with Sani Abacha in Nigeria.
[12] To get a feel of the tremendous misery created by the LRA conflict in Northern Uganda, see Women’s Commission for Refugee Women and Children (Citation2005).
[13] The end of hostility agreement was first signed May 24, 2004, and then the final peace agreement was signed January 9, 2005.
[14] The conflict in Chad is linked to the Darfur conflict, an indication that conflicts do spread from region to region. See Wittschorek (Citation2006).
[15] Manahl’s argument clearly posits that the West shows minimal interest in the conflicts in Africa. This agrees with the work of Dennis C. Jett (Citation2001) wherein he explains that the West and the United Nations are reluctant in reaching conclusions that would make interventions in conflict regions extensive.
[16] Sampie Terreblanch points out that in the case of South Africa, the transition of power was messy. The White South African owners of corporations did not relinquish economic power. They understood clearly that political power can be in name and office only. In 2007, 5 years after Terreblanche’s monumental work, they still control much of the corporation from within and from outside of South Africa.
[17] International Monetary Fund (IMF) structural adjustment programs, World Trade Organization (WTO), and the World Bank (WB) all connive to sink these weakened nations into further oblivion. The tactic is to force them to borrow more, until their only way to pay back is to relinquish control of their natural resources.
[18] Several scholars have intensely documented Africa’s wars. Wars are not simply weapons and death but the experiencing of every imaginable misery. The following documents take you through much of it. See for instance, Gourevich (Citation1998), Peterson (Citation2000), and Voeten (Citation2002).
[19] Although a few scholars have punctured holes in the work of Richard J. Hernstein and Charles Murray (Citation1994), the mentality of the nation seems unshaken from the discord of racism. One wonders if it is not doublespeak when people talk openly about their desire to do something about discriminatory practices, but behind closed doors, the marginalization and the diminution of access to health care and important critical resources for Blacks and many underrepresented groups in the United States are augmented.
[20] In “Implementation of the Recommendation Contained in the Report of the Secretary General on the Causes of Conflict and Promotion of Durable Peace and Sustainable Development in Africa” (2004), Kofi Annan, the Secretary General of the United Nations, recognizes that it is not enough to point to the sources of conflict and make recommendations. Concerted efforts must be made to sustain such development. Even though he does not comment on it here, it is important to mention that Annan is aware that the West is strongly embedded in some of the continuing conflicts wrought by struggle over mineral resources in Africa. Moreover, Annan’s report positively mentions the New Partnership for Africa’s Development (NEPAD) several times in the report, but it is equally important to point out that several critical opponents disagree with its positive role in Africa. They suggest that NEPAD is once again a tool used by the West to force Africa into conformity with Western standards of measurements. Notable among several opponents are Oduor Ongwen and Maria Nzomo of Kenya, and Yashpal Tandon of Uganda/Zimbabwe, who all view the West, IMF, NEPAD, and so on, with suspicion. See their comments in http://www.wfn.org/2003/04/msg00005.html retrieved September 16, 2006.
[21] This is mostly why opponents of Western interference (IMF, WTO, WB, USAID, etc.) in African affairs are worried stiff. There is no known partnership between Africa and the West which has been auspicious for Africa. Instead, the continent is tested and monitored with various face‐saving programs while it continues to lose its resources and simultaneously spiral into more misery. NEPAD’s opponent, for instance, sees no hope for Africa through this program.
[22] The World Conference against Racism, Racial Discrimination, Xenophobia, and Related Intolerance took place in Durban, South Africa, August 31 to September 8, 2001. The United States pulled out of the conference even after the Africans compromised to minimize certain discussions. Israel, which should be a beacon of light, shining and guiding all those who fall victim of marginalization anywhere on earth, blindly followed the U.S. and pulled out of a historic discourse that may have created the most amazing bridge building and healing. Israel’s response to bridge building and healing follows that of the U.S. and is froth with forceful land appropriation and a readiness to resolve conflict with military violence. One has to wonder how a population once so vulnerable becomes so poised for conflict. This is amazing considering that these two nations, but especially the U.S., insist on being the beacon of liberty and justice for the world, indiscriminately entering into sovereign nations with wars because they claim to be on a crusade for democracy and liberty.
[23] Michel Foucault has contributed tremendous knowledge in his evaluation of political and power arrangements in social discourse. See Foucault (Citation2003). Confer also Foucault (Citation1984) to get a general taste of his view on justice and our political engagement.
[24] Even the United Nations, muscled and dominated by the West, views global conflict in terms of a materialistic problem and tends to devalue the role played by internal and international political leaders. Jett (Citation2001) simply argues that the United Nations’ Security Council members stay clear of aggressive actions that may actually lead to sustained peace in war‐ridden contexts.
[25] See Bill Moyer’s (Citation2003) documentary on globalization. The segment “Rich World, Poor Women” deals with the impact of globalization on Thailand, India, and Senegal. In our case, Senegal, which was once self‐sufficient, has been socially and economically fragmented by the West’s imposition of structural adjustment and lending practices, and forced into unfavorable deals that allow the West to privatize their water and fishing resources.
[26] See, for instance, the G8 focus on Africa in Gleneagles in 2005.
[27] There are some groups working to find ways to eradicate poverty in Africa with different but small effective approaches. See the collection edited by Havnevik and Sandström (Citation2000).