Luc Brunet – 5 August 2023
This article is further developing a number of points I wrote 6 months ago in my article “2022: Masks have fallen”
At that time I made the remark, that the world geo-political structure we see collapsing now is not only the structure that was put in place after WW2, with a fully domination of the US over the world economy, military and political arenas. Indeed, what we see is the end of a much longer period that started in the 15th century, when Europeans started to develop powerful navies, that could transport large quantities of products and people, in a relatively safe manner, and on very long distances.
Such a ship-building capacity allowed sea-oriented countries like Britain, Spain, Portugal and France to project their power across seas and oceans, something that was impossible before, when such projection was limited to navigation along coasts like around the Mediterranean sea or the Indian ocean.
It gave such countries a new and formidable power, and a formidable wealth, making them the undisputed masters of the world, and this for several centuries.
Colonization 1.0
I shall not discuss the virtues or vices of colonization in itself. Colonization of populations by invaders existed long before the 15th century and is only a form of fight for survival where the strongest enslaves the weakest. Discussing the good or evil side of humans is not my goal in this article.
Just looking at facts, we can see that two types of colonization developed in the 15th century and later. One type, mostly the fact of British colonizers, included the almost total annihilation of the existing local populations. This was of course the case in North America, in Australia and somehow in New-Zealand. Those regions therefore cannot be considered as ex-colonies, but simply as new countries, with history and demographics starting from scratch a few centuries ago. The British Crown did not follow such policy in India or Africa, and I did not do research on the reasons for that, but I think the main reasons where a too large population in India, and a too peaceful population in Africa, that could easily by “exploited” as workers, as proven later with the massive forced migration of slaves to America in order to build a new country from scratch.
Latin countries like France had a more moderate approach and did not (or could not if you are pessimistic about human nature) exterminate the locals and instead created pure colonies, with the locals living next to the settlers, sometimes in good harmony. We see today tendencies to condemn colonialism as the worst sin on earth, with semi-hysterical calls to apologize, put a knee down and spit on the dominant white man. This is ridiculous a few centuries later, and it ignores the fact that slavery was not, and by far, invented by white men. On top of it, black slavery in America was already big when the US got independent, meaning that Britain and somehow France initiated it, thus should be the first to pay compensations. UK and French wokes advocating the knee down fashion should not forget that detail.
Some facets of colonialism are by the way relatively positive, with local population getting a better education, health-care and new growth possibilities. This of course does not apply to the above mentioned British style of colonialism, and survivors of Amerindians and Aborigines can confirm that.
French managed North Africa or Spanish/Portuguese managed Latin America are good examples of such positive sides of 19th century colonialism, with entire modern cities built, new production and agriculture methods introduced etc. Of course the result was some type of exploitation of the resources of colonized countries, but the exchange was not one-way only for many countries.
Let’s remember that Argentina, an ex-Spanish colony developed well and had a revenue per head in 1910 higher than the one of France. After WW2, it fall under the influence of the US and of international bodies like the IMF. Its economy was destroyed. Some countries today should by the way not only dream about “start-up” economy, but also take lessons from Argentina on how a country can lose its position and become poor in a few decades.
Colonization 2.0
After the end of the actual colonization that I called 1.0, all countries became independent in the second half of the 20th century, but indeed never got really independent economically, and this is what I call Colonization 2.0.
The previous colonial powers continued to exploit their ex-colonies, no longer as dominant states, but through their business sector. States continued to be present military in many cases, officially to ensure peace (and security for private investors), but also to avoid changes in governance towards a more independent and autonomous economic development. The status-quo and the dominance of the western businesses had to be preserved, if necessary using force. In a few words, the Gunboat diplomacy was replaced by the Secret Services diplomacy.
Many examples can be listed of political leaders who got to power in ex-colonies, preaching for a sovereign governance and refusing the ruling and the exploitation of their resources by foreign companies. Just to name a few:
- Mosaddegh in Iran
- Lumumba in Congo
- Sankara in Burkina Faso
- Saddam Hussein in Iraq
- Gaddafi in Libya
- Allende in Chili
All of the above were assassinated, often under the accusation of being “communists” or too close to Soviet interests, an easy alibi during the cold war.
All of them planned to get really independent and keep profits from their natural resources inside their country. Unacceptable!
The outcome of decades of independence for African countries is appalling. Poverty has not regressed, corruption was accepted by western leaders (sometimes not for free, remember Giscard d’Estaing’s diamonds!…), infrastructures were not developed. The result of Colonialism 2.0 is indeed much worst that Colonialism 1.0!
If you read my article “the Russia of their Dreams”, it is clear that the US and Europe planned to turn Russia into something similar to Africa: a large space divided in many, often artificial countries, with western businesses exploiting natural ressources, moving the vast majority of the profits outside of Russia.
Interestingly, some expats I met in the 90’s called Russia the “White Africa”.
The February 2022 reset
For most of ex-colonies, and more precisely in Africa, the neo-colonial exploitation system was not really challenged except by some of the people in the list above. Fear was stopping them to change policies.
But fear dissipated in February 2022, when many leaders in the world realized that Russia was simply saying no to western dominance, and was ready to respond to force by force, and rather successfully as demonstrated over the past year and a half.
Fear is gone and support from Russia and China is real, not a bluff. Both China and Russia are respected and trusted by Africans, who often do not consider Russians as white people. China itself is by the way a country that was partially colonized and suffered a lot under European rules. Read again about the Opium War.
Russia and China are the rising stars in Africa. Europe cannot fight economically because of China and cannot fight militarily because of Russia (or the White Africa), and even less now that a big part of weapon stocks have been sent to help Kiev.
Yes, a period of 500 years is in terminal phase. Unfortunately military action if highly probable in west Africa.
Russia has a historical issue, which is the one it never needed foreign trade with other countries but its satellite countries.
All those ending by “an” (Uzbekistan and the likes, but Belarus and other neighbours) are all trade proxies Russia could engage with, knowing perfectly its economy is by far the most self-sufficient within such friendly ecosystem. Russia does not need Africa as trade partners, but more for political influence (Kenya, Ethiopia, Angola, Mozambique and Egypt then, now Niger, Burkina and Mali).
Africa is a different animal all together and Russia has made zero investment in the continent (unlike China), apart a Kalashnikov factory in Ethiopia (they also educated today’s Ethiopian military leadership in their Russian military academies) and an utopist oil refinery in Uganda that a 78-years-old autocrat of unpredictable behaviour accepted three years back as an offer he probably could not refuse (that Total could not match) for unforeseen oil reserves in Lake Albert (more in DRC than Uganda by the way).
Apart that, I see little to nothing: playing alpha male with the Africans is a difficult game to play, they need to show Russia can splash money for addressing the current supply chain, counterfeit, external dependence of any country in the Continent and make it happen, unlike the Euro/US/China tried hard and at times succeeded in.
The sole independentist rhetoric is a short-lived option, and will die in less than three years.
Let us see what Russia has to propose. There is plenty to do, but all depends on the terms.
With decades of experience in Africa, Michele is certainly one of our readers to listen to! Thx Michele for the input!!