The New Scramble for Africa

The Old Scramble for Africa

The Scramble for Africa (1833-1914) is a term used to refer to the period when the European powers conquered and divided Africa to gain control of  the continent’s natural resources which were crucial during the Second Industrial Revolution. The main participants in this scramble were the United Kingdom, France, Spain, Portugal, Belgium, Italy and Germany. In 1870, only 10% of the African continent was controlled by European powers. By 1914, the territory controlled by the Europeans had risen to 90%. The only countries which managed to maintain their sovereignty were Ethiopia and Liberia. In, 1884, the Europeans held the Berlin Conference with the aim of regulating European colonization and commerce in the continent. They also wanted to avoid conflicts and fights between European powers for the control of Africa. As such, this conference has always been the symbol associated with the scramble for Africa. In the late 19^th century, the process of European colonialism was formalized and transitioned from economic dominance and military influence (informal imperialism) to direct rule.

The scramble for Africa showed the disregard that the European powers had for the local populations because they never consulted them when dividing the countries. In addition, they did not consider the ethnic and tribal make up of the countries. As such, after the territories were divided, many African tribes found themselves divided and in different countries under different European powers even though they had lived together and coexisted for centuries. The European powers simply divided Africa into spheres of influence, free trade areas, colonies and protectorates . It noteworthy that the Europeans divided the Africa at a time when they had bared settled the continent and had poor knowledge of the geography as well as ethnic compositions of these places. The borders designed during the old scramble for Africa have endured after all countries achieved their independence in the 1960s meaning that multiple ethnic groups continued to be divided under the newly independent African states.

The scramble for Africa was often accompanied by horrific violence and brutality against the local populations especially those that resisted foreign rule. For example, King Leopold of Belgium was infamous for his brutality and would stop at nothing to achieve his objectives. He is famously quoted as having said ‘I do not want to miss a good chance of getting a slice of the magnificent African cake’. Beside the allocations from the Berlin Conference, King Leopold and his cronies forced some traditional rulers in Africa to sign away their territories under gun point to enable his relentless urge for accumulation of wealth in the resource rich Congo. In the end, he ended up controlling a territory 77 times the size of his kingdom in Europe. During his rule, King Leopold was also known for his brutality. For instance, men who did not meet their production quotas during the rubber rush often had their hands cut off and some were even executed.

Nonetheless, the scramble was resisted by the local populations in in most parts of the continent. The famous revolts against European colonialism include the Anglo-Zulu wars of 1879, the Mahdi War of Sudan (1881) and the Arab nationalist revolt of Egypt (1882). All these uprisings were aimed at opposing the European agenda of dividing the peoples of the continent who had coexisted for centuries. Although the Europeans used many pretenses to justify their colonialism, they mainly wanted to control and exploit the vast natural resource wealth in the continent. Once they succeeded, they used various tactics to benefit themselves including the the systematic internationalization and commercialization of the African economies, the organized exploitation of evangelism and the spread of Christianity among others. They would also sign treaties with collaborative African rulers who remained as symbolic leaders with no real power. Many European elites and companies also became incredibly wealthy as a result of the exploitation of Africa. These include the East Indian Company and the Royal Niger Company among others.

The New Scramble for Africa

            The new Scramble for African essentially began after most of the countries in the continent had gained their political independence. The major players in the new scramble are the Western nations. However, the new scramble has new actors including India, South Korea, China, Malaysia, Brazil and Japan have joined. According to Kimenyi and Lewis (2011), Brazil, China, India and Russia have literally invaded Africa but not with violence or firearms. Instead, they have used money, ideas, goods as well as mining and drilling equipment. In fact, today, countries in the BRICS grouping (Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa) are surely edging out Western nations in Africa in investment and trade. Some Arab actors such as Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, Bahrain, Qatar and Kuwait have also joined the scramble as they seek fertile land to ensure food security for their populations at home. The manner in which some of the Arab players are acting in the continent can only be described as multi-billion land grab ventures as they look to exploit the cheap labor and fertile land. In addition, some of the land is acquired through forceful means from under-represented minorities such as the people of the Oromia region in Ethiopia.

            One of the countries which has been severely affected by the old and new scramble for African natural resources is the Democratic Republic of the Congo. Since its independence, foreign powers such as the United States, the United Kingdom, Canada and France have sought to control the vast natural wealth in the DRC. Immediately after independence, the popular democratically elected leader PLO Lumumba was assassinated under direct order from the President Eisenhower of the United States due to his alliance with the Soviet Union and communism. At the time, the United States feared that the vast natural resources in the DRC, including uranium, would fall under the control of the Soviet Union. As a result, the decided to change the regime in the country by supporting Mobutu Sesseko who went on to rule until 1996. During his rule, Mobutu was well known for supporting Western positions in places such as Angola where he supported Savimbi against the MPLA. In the 1990s, the United States wanted to open up the DRC for foreign investment because they were unhappy that Mobutu had basically nationalized all mines and industries in the country. As such, they supported the Kagame and Museveni regimes in Rwanda and Uganda respectively to overthrow Mobutu. After Mobutu was overthrown, foreign investors were able to invest in the country’s natural resources. However, the country continued to suffer for a long time because the Kagame regime used illegal and violent means to control the resources in eastern DRC. To this day, war and violence continue in the east as Rwanda and the DRC continue to fight to control the territory in the east.

Today, foreign powers are in a competition for access to African natural resources. The main actors in trying to get access to these resources include Russia, China, the USA, Japan, the European Union, India and South Korea. In most African countries, these powers do not use violence. Instead, the prefer to cultivate influence among the elites and the population through political, economic and military ties in exchange for mining licenses. In addition, the companies from these powers also pay taxes and royalties or form public private partnerships which ensure that the local populations can also benefit from their natural resource wealth. As such, like the old scramble, the new scramble for the continent has its own developmental implications. Some of the natural resources which are triggering the new scramble include oil in Angola, Sudan, Algeria, Nigeria etc; coal and gold in South Africa; coltan in the DRC; and diamonds in Botswana among others.

             These foreign powers also compete for African markets and big business. There are economists who believe that China is currently making deals and investments in Africa which are skewed in its favor. Since, the early 1990s, Chinese investments in Africa have grown at spectacular rates. In fact, today, China is the biggest trade partner for almost all countries in the continent. According to the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD),  direct Chinese investment in Africa since the 1990s has surpassed $200 billion. In addition, thousands of Chinese companies now invest and sell their products to the African markets. A good example is that China now dominates the smartphone markets in Africa with brands such as Oppo, Tecno, Xiaomi and Huawei among others. Chinese products in Africa are particularly attractive to the African markets because they are often cheaper than those of their western counterparts.

            The USA and the European nations continue to play dominant roles in the timber industry in Equatorial Guinea, Liberia, Gabon, Cameroon and Ghana. The gold and diamonds in South Africa are also controlled by foreign countries. That said, oil is undoubtedly one of the most important lures for foreign investors with the competition between foreign nations and corporations being so intense that it accounts for more than half of all foreign direct investments. Over the past few years, many Western and Eastern nations have also been in competition to secure oil and gas resources in countries such as Tanzania, the DRC, Angola and Equatorial Guinea. China uses different tactics to get access to these crucial resources. For example, China has entered into deals that allow it to get natural resources in exchange for loans or infrastructure development. This has happened in countries such as Nigeria, Angola and the DRC which have large deficits in infrastructure.

            It is noteworthy that although African countries do get some monetary  benefits from foreign investment deals by the East, the West and the Arabs, these investments can be described as an intense appropriation of African resources for the benefit of their foreign populations. Just like the first scramble, this is also the main reason for the new scramble. As such, the assertions by the Western media and countries that the new scramble for Africa is only limited to the Americans and the Chinese can only be described to as far fetched. The fact is that the new scramble involves actors from all corners of the world. The old Berlin Conference actors, the oil-rich Arab countries and the Asian tigers are all involved.

The Effects of the New Scramble for Africa

            The new scramble for Africa has both positive and negative implications for the African nations on all spheres and economic sectors of the countries involved. The new scramble is particularly driven by imperialistic greed and selfishness as well as a continued lack of regard for African sensibilities. Although most foreign actors claim that they are in African to improve local livelihoods, the fact is that they are in the continent for their monetary benefit and to ship resources for their troubled economies. For example, it is well known that most European countries do not have sufficient natural resources to run their economies. In fact, some of the European nations are completely dependent on the import of key resources such as oil, gas and minerals to support their economies. Similarly, oil-rich Arab countries face the problem of insufficient fertile lands meaning that they literally depend on imports and foreign countries to feed their populations and to survive. China faces similar problems in a more extreme manner because it has a very large population of over a billion people. Its domestic production of oil is insufficient for its ever-growing economy meaning that they also need Africa and other nations to survive.

            Foreign investment in African natural resources has proven to have some very negative impacts on the environment especially because some of the Asian actors have no regard to the delicate and mostly virgin ecology in the continent. Most of the Indian, Korean and Chinese companies operating in Africa only care about their profits and make little or no effort to protect the fragile ecology of their host nations. The reserve forests are not spared. One of the best example of environmental degradation as a result of foreign investment is in the Niger Delta which has become one of the most polluted areas in the entire world. In addition, some of the companies prefer to use their own expertise instead of training and hiring African talent. As such, some foreign investments in Africa do not contribute to solving the unemployment problems that affect most African nations leading to discontent among the local populations.

The new scramble for Africa has made some of the economies in the continent to be export driven thus systematically destroying local small and medium sized businesses in an extraordinary manner. It is sad to note that some oil-rich countries such as Nigeria which import large amounts of crude oil are dependent on imports of petroleum products such as petrol, diesel and jet fuel due to a lack of local refining capacities. Free trade agreements with the large economies also hurt the businesses of small producers and can potentially drive them into poverty due to unfair competition. Some countries also prefer to sell fertile land to foreign actors even when their own populations live in slums and informal settlements.

Moreover, the new scramble has led to the antagonism and polarization of the social classes in African countries. Besides the large number or poor people in Africa, it has led to a division among the people in the continent between the rebellious and extreme have-nots and the often arrogant super-rich. A good example is Nigeria where 80% of the crude oil is controlled by only 1% of the population. Such a dynamic is bound to have a very negative impact in the development of a democratic culture in such countries because democracy cannot thrive in the midst of misery and poverty. This is one of the reasons why the vote buying phenomenon is very widely spread in Africa and other underdeveloped countries across the world.

On the other hand, some neoliberal scholars and other commentators argue that the new scramble for Africa has brought and continues to bring a lot of positive contributions to the continent. For example, the engagement between China and African countries has created the environment necessary for massive Chinese investment in African economies. In Nigeria, China has been responsible for the revival and improvement of the railway sector has it has constructed new railway lines and improved the existing ones. The new railway infrastructure in Nigeria is wholly built by China. Similarly, China helped in building the Mombasa-Nairobi-Suswa standard gauge railway line which has greatly reduced the amount of time needed to transport goods and people between those destinations. During the construction of such projects, the young people in Africa get the benefit of learning new skills which can be useful for their countries in the future. The good relations between Chinese and African countries also provides opportunities for African businesses to access the vast market in China and if well utilized, this can lead to the improvement of living standards among the people in the continent.

The reason why the enormous natural resources in Africa have failed to benefit the local population is that first, the real worth of the resources does not end up in the hands of the governments in these countries. The main beneficiaries tend to the transnational companies which end up getting over 60% of all profits through spurious contracts. The lopsided global North-South engagement also contributes to this because global capital is mostly controlled by the Western and global North countries.  In addition, the fact that a lot of the leaders in African countries are the products of electoral fraud supported by the scramblers means that they end up working for their foreign masters instead of caring about the interests of their voters and local populations. Independent leaders such as Gaddafi in Libya and PLO Lumumba often find themselves at the cross-hairs of mighty western powers who eliminate them when the opportunity arises.

Implications for African Development

The scramble for Africa can have good impacts if well leveraged to benefit the local populations. For example, resource-rich countries can leverage their resource wealth to get access to key technologies through the transfer of technology from foreign investors. The stiff competition for resources around the world gives such countries a variety of choices which allow African countries to choose those who are willing to transfer technologies. It is sad that most of the technologies used in the extraction and processing of natural resources have to be imported meaning that African countries always find themselves dependent on foreign powers even for basic maintenance services. Africa should follow the example of China which forced foreign investors to share technologies and sign local partnerships to access the vast Chinese markets. Countries such as the DRC have enormous amount of leverage which can be utilized to increase their self-sufficiency just like China.

            In addition, African countries should work to end their dependence on international aid. Although international aid may seem attractive, history shows that it always comes with strings attached. Foreign powers such as the USA use the aid they provide to countries across the global south to force them to toe their ideological and economic lines. The USA is well known for cutting off aid to governments which it considers hostile or ‘non-democratic’ in their standards. As such, instead of being helpful, international aid can end up being a crippling factor which keeps the nations at the mercy of foreign powers. Instead, countries should seek self-sufficiency and develop their human resources regardless of the costs. In the long term, such a strategy can help African countries to become immune to foreign pressure from the scramblers.

            In conclusion, it is noteworthy that foreign direct investment can have positive impacts on the local populations if well managed. A good example is that China has managed to grow its economy by providing a suitable environment for foreign investors to invest and provide high income jobs to its population. However, it is important to ensure that the addition of value to the natural resources is done in Africa to provide jobs instead of relying on the export of raw materials. As such, African countries should think strategically and have long-term strategies which can help them weather the storm of the new scramble for Africa and even benefit from it.