“THE neo-colonialism of today represents imperialism in its final and perhaps its most dangerous stage. In the past it was possible to convert a country upon which a neo-colonial regime had been imposed — Egypt in the nineteenth century is an example — into a colonial territory. Today this process is no longer feasible. Old-fashioned colonialism is by no means entirely abolished. It still constitutes an African problem, but it is everywhere on the retreat. Once a territory has become nominally independent it is no longer possible, as it was in the last century, to reverse the process. Existing colonies may linger on, but no new colonies will be created. In place of colonialism as the main instrument of imperialism we have today neo-colonialism.”
Writes eminent African leader Kwame Nkrumah way back in the mid-1960s about the subservient situation economically in which the former colonies, predominantly if not only countries and nations of the South, had been finding themselves, and indeed still find themselves to this day vis-à-vis their former colonising powers, from the North or western countries if you wish. More than 60 years after most of the countries from the South have attained nominal independence, and/or flag independence, their inferior and subservient economic position has remained intact. Whereby their natural resources for all intents and purposes are not theirs but exploited, to a large extent, to the benefit of their former colonisers, their metropoles and their peoples. With the production relations, the nominal and/or flag independence, remaining essentially intact in effect and essence. Continuing to serve, independence notwithstanding, what the colonial economies of the countries of the South had all along were designed for, the c
ountries of the North and their metropoles and their peoples. Which was the essence of colonialism. For countries of the North to continue the exploitation of the natural resources and wealth of the South to own benefit and welfare. With the countries, nations and peoples of the South condemned to only crumbs falling paradoxically from the exploitation of their own resources. Resources which have practically and in reality have never been their own but of the people of the North.
During colonialism these resources had been taken over and directly controlled by the colonisers, and that was point blank the reason of colonialism. Then came independence, a period during which presumably the indigenes were supposed to have taken over the control of their resources, holding them in trust for the eventually benefit of the people. But this has not been the case because the relations of production have never changed in reality but has continued as they have been in colonial times. The only difference being that the indigenous political and economic elite have been co-opted by global capitalism and its relations of production in continuing the exploitation of the resources, and their continued export as raw materials to the North for their re-import as finished products by the South. Not as their products but which they now do not have any claim to as theirs but their origin being the North and for which the South has to buy at exorbitant prices.
A case in point with regard to Namibia, while the country is richly endowed in and with diamonds, diamonds are out of the reach of most Namibians, most of whom cannot afford a diamond while their country is the birthplace of such a natural resource. Normally, lucrative as the diamond industry is, it could and should be providing Namibia, and/or put Namibia in a strong balance of trade position. When Namibia could and be able, because of her strong balance of trade position, be able to afford many other products that she imports.
But this has not been the case and this has put her in a weaker position with her fellow trading partners internationally. Simply because most of her natural resources do not belong to her. The best she has been and could be satisfied with being the taxes and levies she has been and may continue to impose on those who are in control of her natural resources, if not owning them. Without any exception this situation has been applying to all the natural resources of Namibia, as indeed many other of her fellow countries of the South.
Namibia has and is on the verge of pumping crude oil, which like many other natural resources, because of the pertaining regimes of extraction and exploitation, by no means been imposed on Namibia, but to which she herself has been and continue to volunteer, and indeed which some which she herself has formulated and adopted, with the invisible hand of the so-called investors pulling the strings by remote controlling her in swinging the pendulum of extraction and exploitation to and fro to their own benefit.
Yours Truly Ideologically could not but with a heart bleeding been listening years in and years out to the chorus of leaders of the South, including the continent and Namibia, wailing and weeping about the yoke visited upon people of the South by the people of North. Which has been a chorus since time immemorial before and even after the presumed end of colonialism. A chorus which has been loudly repeated, even as recent as the memorial service of our late President. For where else with the African and the South African Development Community (SADC), having lost in late Geingob one its reputedly vociferous Pan Africanist and champion.
But more than echoes of crescendos of determination for African economic emancipation, the echoes at late Geingob’s memorial represented more voices of exasperation, desperation and hopelessness. Not strange in view of the loss of a never they die champion he may have been.
But the South’s, Africa’s and Namibia’s continued state of backwardness and economic deprivation, colonialism notwithstanding, as much are to be blamed on no one them some of her leaders, for the continued lack of courage, continuing instead to their Northern former colonial masters. Who have been continuing to impose their values on the South, same time continuing the siphoning off of the South’s natural resources. Th leaders of the South heavily complicit in the continued impoverishment of their people.
Yours Truly Ideologically cannot but lay bare the futility of the swansongs by most of the African leaders regarding development, which cannot be seen in their proper context other than the continued exploitation of the continent’s resources, and indeed the respective African country’s natural resources, as if anything fundamental has changed with respect to the world economic order, which is capitalism!
