 |
Al-Ahram Weekly 20 - 26 April 2000 Issue No. 478 
|
||
Published in Cairo by AL-AHRAM established in 1875 |
| ||
|
Al-Ahram Weekly 20 - 26 April 2000 Issue No. 478
|
||
| Published in Cairo by AL-AHRAM established in 1875 |
| ||
Egypt Region International Economy Opinion Culture Heritage Features Travel Living Sports Profile People Time Out Chronicles Cartoons Letters What changes not
By Gamil Mattar
The world's first Africa-Europe conference, held recently in Cairo, ended as it began -- without great fanfare -- thus confirming what had been suspected beforehand: that enthusiasm was lacking both before and during the conference. There are many reasons for this; but the most important is that, in general, the participating countries have come to prefer pursuing their individual objectives through bilateral channels rather than lumping their concerns together with those of others in a collective assembly.
Many governments, and heads of state in particular, have concerns they would rather keep confidential or low-key, which is something that can be guaranteed more satisfactorily through a bilateral format than in an open and heavily publicised conference. Discussions about deficiencies in democratic practice, for example, are more likely to arise in a collective forum and can even be more provocative. But it is easier to conduct frank and extensive talks about corruption, human rights and, more importantly, third parties in bilateral meetings.
Given these concerns, this month's Africa-Europe conference passed without stirring any great media sensations and without giving rise to any unexpected political or economic developments. It was well organised and arrangements proceeded smoothly, which was no small accomplishment in view of the fact that more than 60 senior officials, among whom were dozens of heads of state, arrived in Cairo for the meeting. The Cairo summit offered the unprecedented opportunity to see the Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi take part in a regional or international conference. Most European leaders had never had this fortune, nor have most foreign journalists. This leader does not practice the etiquette of diplomacy, specifically conference diplomacy, as it has developed over the past four centuries -- or, for that matter, as it is practised by new arrivals to such forums.
However you might agree or disagree with that African leader, you cannot ignore him. In his own inimitable way he expresses the feelings of many African and non-African leaders, even though they try to silence him. When he declared that Western colonialism still prevails, you could see the glints of laughter in the eyes of the European participants, and even more so in the eyes of those representing countries located in Africa. Yet, on the sidelines of the conference, I heard Arab officials admit that there is no way to describe the relationship between Africans and Europeans more succinctly than to label it a colonialist relationship.
Not a single European participant asked for a revision of the distribution of land ownership in Zimbabwe, or, for that matter, in South Africa or Namibia, where the situation has potentially graver consequences. In South Africa, blacks make up approximately 75 per cent of the inhabitants and own less than 15 per cent of the land. In Namibia, the white population, representing only 7 per cent of the inhabitants, owns more than 44 per cent of the cultivatable land. As for Zimbabwe, the focus of European and particularly British anger, political and economic power is controlled by 70,000 whites who own 70 per cent of the total land area in a country whose black population exceeds 12 million.
Complaints by Africans that Europeans ignore an issue of such political and economic importance were described by one conference participant during a social event as overreacting, hypocritical and backwards. This is the age of globalisation, said this urbane and modern man. Globalisation means many things. Among these things is that land, like any form of wealth, belongs to those who own it. This applies just as much to Africa as it does to Asia and Europe, and considerations of colour, race, ethnicity or national affiliation have no great significance whatsoever. Then, without much pause for reflection, this worldly pundit added that globalisation means reconciliation, openness, peace, tolerance and transparency -- all qualities of which Africa is in short supply, because Africa wants to settle accounts and claim its dues from the period before globalisation so that it can then decide what it wants and does not want from this unstoppable force.
Many Europeans, Americans and Mediterranean people are ignorant of the fact that among the phenomena spread by European colonialists in Africa was the blight of racial or ethnic superiority. There had never been dividing lines between the Hutu and the Tutsi. If rulers in the pre-colonial kingdoms of Rwanda and Burundi were Tutsi, the business of jurisprudence, legislation, arbitration and conflict management fell in the hands of the Hutu. Moreover, intermarriage between the two was common and desirable. It was colonialism that reformulated this longstanding relationship, casting it in a racist mould that placed the Tutsi as masters and the Hutu as permanent slaves.
The Cairo summit offered an opportunity that, I believe, was wasted -- or at least postponed until 2003. This was the opportunity for the Africans to tell the Europeans to pay the debts they owe to Africa, to reimburse the price for all the copper, gold, diamonds, oil, wood and other natural wealth they plundered by force and theft, and for the lives of the human beings they conscripted to fight in their wars; wars that were far more brutal and atrocious than all the tribal wars that have been fought in Africa throughout history.
I know that there is no value to an apology that issues from an unrepentant conscience. But in Cairo, Africa still wanted Europeans to say, "We have raped you, disfigured you, forced you into starvation, taken away your diamonds and given you guns so that you can kill one another off." Needless to say, no such demand or apology was forthcoming. Instead, the conference concluded with a statement about which the least that can be said: a statement reminiscent of 19th-century European attitudes toward Africa and the statement of the 1883 Berlin Conference. If the substance of the two statements differed, their spirit was the same. Both were replete with recommendations tendered by mature, civilised Europeans to the backward children of Africa, and the counsel is clear: "You may die of poverty, but under a democracy."
