Most African leaders are packaged to suit donor countries' market demands

In this two part series, Wonder Guchu looks at how the African leaders are defined by the west. During the early years of independence, the west, Europe and the British spearheaded and sponsored coups that rocked Togo, Belgian Congo, Ghana and Uganda as they seek to impose leaders of their choice. In all these coups, the word democracy or dictator does not appear. It was purely in protection of interests.

 

Patrice Lumumba

KwameNkrumah

Sylvanus Olympio

Ever since March 5 1957 when the Gold Coast attained independence and Kwame Nkrumah became the first prime minister declaring that his country’s independence was incomplete as long as the rest of Africa remained colonised, the west sought ways of packaging African leaders.

Packaging meant that a leader had to adhere to the norms, descriptions and definition according to the west and former colonial masters. 

In the early years before civic organisations became snipers in the name of democracy, the west used coups to depose leaders who defied packaging.

In almost every coup that happened in Africa, there was the hand of the CIA or FBI. In the early days, such interference was for keeping Russian influence off the continent. So any new leader who showed affection for socialism or communism was overthrown through a coup. 

As a result, there were 14 major coups between 1963 and 1966 while by 1968; the number had risen to 64 attempted and successful coups on the continent.

This does not mean that African leaders had no problems with their own conduct towards their people. There were various issues which could, if it was today, be passed on as undemocratic. But all these issues did not matter to the US, the British or the French.

In Togo, for example, Sylvanus Olympio was seen as a threat for his grassroots approach to issues while in Belgian Congo (DRC) Patrice Lumumba emerged as a communist and Nkrumah had to go because of his support for and discontent with Lumumba’s assassination.

Milton Obote of Uganda rubbed the British on the wrong side with his proposals to nationalise foreign businesses as well as voicing grave concern with British’s plans to sell arms to apartheid South Africa.

In those early days, it was not about democracy, economic mismanagement or human rights – it was purely to protect business interests. 

Togo and President Sylvanus Olympio

The most interesting is the story of a small West African country, Togo which gained independence in 1961 from the French. A trade unionist called Sylvanus Olympio was elected the first president but by 1963, he was assassinated in a coup. This became the first bloody coup in Africa.

It will not surprise that Olympio was murdered when he went to seek refuge in the American embassy compound which was close to the presidential palace. 

Reports say that after he had sent his family to safety, Olympio climbed the wall into the embassy compound but found the door locked. He then hid in one of the cars where the US ambassador found him and went away promising to come back with keys to the door. But before his return, Olympio was discovered by a 27-year-old army sergeant Gnassingbe Eyadema who later became one of Africa’s most notorious leaders.

It’s strongly suspected that the US ambassador alerted his French counterpart who in turn reported Olympio’s whereabouts the military.

But just like any other military man during the first era of coups, Eyadema handed over power to Nicolas Grunitzky who was Olympio’s brother-in-law.

Togo has never known peace since then. In 1969, Eyadema overthrew Grunitzky and took over power until his death in 2005.

Belgian Congo and Patrice Lumumba

Africa’s saddest story is that of Patrice Lumumba, Belgian Congo’s first Prime Minister who was ousted from office in 1960 three months after inauguration.

This was a coup by proxy where Joseph Mobutu, a chief of staff officer appointed by Lumumba caused the murder of his boss with the help of the US and Belgium. Mobutu, just like Eyadema, gave power to Joseph Kasavubu whom he overthrew in 1965.

Lumumba’s crime was giving a speech saying he would make sure that his country’s resources would be for the Congolese. It was an unprepared speech which caused a stir in Belgium and the US. It was at the height of the Cold War era and the west was keen to keep down all African leaders who showed any leanings to Russia. 

Mobutu, who also became one of Africa’s worst leaders, ruled Congo until he was ousted by Laurent Kabila in 1997.

Ghana and Kwame Nkrumah

Ghana was the first African country to attain independence in 1957 but by 1966, Kwame Nkrumah had been overthrown. 

Like Lumumba, Nkrumah had a dream of changing Africa by helping free every colonised country. One of his most popular speeches delivered on 5 March 1957 was: “We are going to see that we create our own African personality and identity. We again rededicate ourselves in the struggle to emancipate other countries in Africa; for our independence is meaningless unless it is linked up with the total liberation of the African continent.”

But when he voiced his concern over the assassination of Lumumba in 1960, Nkrumah made the US unhappy. A journal called InformAfrica which publish news and information that influence Africa says the coup that overthrew Nkrumah was engineered by the US, the British and the French.

Quoting  a leaked US Foreign Policy report titled Cases by Intervention Node; a US Foreign Policy in Perspective, InformAfrica says President John Kennedy offered military training to junior officers to prepare them for any possibilities including a coup because Nkrumah had taken an ‘ugly lurch to the left’.

The report notes that the CIA was pressured to come up with a ‘well conceived and executed action programme’ of economic and diplomatic pressure designed to ‘induce a chain reaction eventually leading to Nkrumah’s downfall’.

US ambassador to Ghana, the report further says, described Nkrumah as ‘a badly confused and immature person’.

“Over the next year, the security forces, who were becoming increasingly dissatisfied with Nkrumah, were cultivated by both the US and the British. By February 1965, the CIA was receiving word of coup plotting, an issue raised explicitly by the US ambassador with the CIA director the next month,” says the report.

Rumour of a coup involving ‘key military and police figures’ materialising spread in May 1965, the report says adding, “The plotters were keeping us briefed and State thinks we’re more on the inside than the British. While we’re not directly involved, we and other Western countries (including France) have been helping to set up the situation by ignoring Nkrumah’s pleas for economic aid.” 

However, the May coup did not happen thereby angering junior officers trained in the US to act with the help of the CIA to eventually depose Nkrumah in 1966 while he was on a visit to China.

This time, the army guys who spearheaded the coup did not hand it over to civilians. Lt Gen Joseph Arthur Ankrah took over as head of State until 1969.

Uganda, Idi Amin and the British

Idi Amin of Uganda once boasted that the British made him what he was. Indeed, it was the British who gave him power when they were scared with Milton Obote’s policies which were viewed as detrimental to their interest.

Mark Curtis in his book Unpeople: Britain’s Secret Human Rights Abuses says declassified files says British officials were ‘delighted to see the back of the government of Milton Obote’, Uganda’s President who was overthrown by Idi Amin Dada in 1971.

Obote’s crimes’ list, Curtis notes, were read out by British High Commissioner to Kampala then, Richard Slatter who accused him of making policies detrimental to British interests in Uganda.

Some of the crimes were nationalization plans and the threat to withdraw from the Commonwealth in protest to Britain’s plan to sell arms to apartheid South Africa. 

Curtis says, “The Obote government’s public challenge to British interests on arms was matched by its nationalisation decrees. In May 1970 Obote announced legislation whereby the government would take over all foreign import and export businesses and acquire compulsorily 60% of the shares of oil companies, manufacturing industries, banks, insurance companies and other sectors. Compensation would be paid over periods of up to 15 years out of the profits received and paid over to the Ugandan government as the major shareholder.”

Quoting a British Foreign Office official, Curtis writes; “. . . There is a danger that other countries will be tempted to try and get way with similar measures with more damaging consequences for British investment and trade.”

According to Curtis, a British business lobby group, the East African and Mauritius Association advised the Foreign Office that if they let Obote get away with his plans, British investments overseas would be lost.

“The end result is the loss of British investments overseas and the establishment of precedents which could involve similar action by governments of other territories with adverse repercussions on the British economy.”

Indeed, Curtis says Sudan nationalised some of the foreign businesses soon after Obote’s announcement and this prompted the British to move fast.   

Britain had about 50 companies in Uganda. There were banks such as Standard, Barclays and Grindlays, Shell/ BP, BAT, Dunlop, Brooke Bond and Mackenzie Dalgety among others.

Amin who was the Army Chief of Staff ironically deposed Obote while he was attending a Commonwealth conference in Singapore. The first country to recognise Amin’s government was Britain, the US and Israel while African states could not immediately accept Amin.

A British Foreign Office statement then said, “Our interest in Uganda in terms of citizens, investment, trade and aid programme [sic] are best served in these circumstances by early recognition.”

In his statement, British Assistant Under Secretary of State at the Foreign Office, Harold Smedley said, “We have no cause to shed tears on Dr Obote’s departure. At long last we have a chance of placing our relations with Uganda on a friendly footing.”

And British High Commissioner to Kampala, Slater wrote to the Foreign Office saying, “Anglo-Ugandan relations can only benefit from the change. Amin is deeply grateful (as I am) for the promptness with which Her Majesty’s Government recognised his regime.”

In addition, Curtis says, British officials ‘canvassed’ other moderate African governments, “We are hoping that we can discreetly let General Amin know of these efforts which we are making on his behalf.”

The British knew about Amin’s recklessness and involvement in unexplained murders in the army. They ignored all this because for and to them, he was the right candidate to do the dirty job.

Part 2

 

Packaging the African leaders

This is the second part of a two part series by Wonder Guchu which looks at how the west repackages African leaders. In the first part, he looked at how coups were used to topple leaders whose government leaned towards the then USSR or hinted at making economic moves that threatened former colonisers’ interests. In this part he concludes by discussing how the IMF and World Bank became lethal weapons in effecting regime changes in Africa.

Apart from well publicized coups in Togo, Belgian Congo, Ghana and Uganda there were various others across Africa. 

According to Eboe Hutchful of Stockholm International Peace Research Institute, there were 60 successful coups from 1956 to 1985 which is an average of two every year with 1966 claiming the top post with eight coups.

By 1986, Anyang' Nyong'o, says in Governance, Security and Conflict Resolution in Africa, 50 African states were under military rule while 18 were under civilian rule.

Here  is the check-list:  Congo-Brazzaville, August 1963 Government of Abbe' Youlou overthrown; Dahomey, December 1963 Colonel Sogho overthrows President Maga; Gabon,  February 1964 Coup d'etat occurs but is reverted by French forces; Algeria, June 1965 Colonel Boumedienne overthrows President Ben Bella; Dahomey; December 1965. A second coup is staged; Burundi, October 1965. The monarchy is overthrown by Army officers; Central Africa Republic, January 1966. President David Dacko is ousted by Colonel Jean Bokassa; Upper Volta, January 1966 Colonel Lamizana deposes President Yamego; Nigeria, January 1966 General Ironsi is installed after a coup led by young officers; Ghana, February 1966 President Kwame Nkruma is over-thrown by General Ankrah; Nigeria, July 1966 General Gowon overthrows General Ironsi; Burundi, November 1966 Captain Micombero takes over in another coup; Sierra Leone, March 1967 President Margai deposed by Lieutenant Colonel Juxon-Smith; Algeria, December 1967, a second coup attempt is made; Sierra Leone, April 1968. A coup from the ranks over-throws Lieutenant Colonel Juxon-Smith. Civilian government re-installed under President Siaka Stevens; Mali, November 1968. Young officers led by Lieutenant Moussa Traore depose the government of President Keita; Sudan, May 1969. Free Officers' Movement seizes power; Libya, September 1969, the monarchy is deposed; Somalia, October 1969. A revolutionary Council        led by the military overthrows the government; the feudal monarchy of

Emperor Haile Selassie in Ethiopia was deposed by the military in September 1974. 

What is interesting is that most of these countries are yet to know peace and are being ravaged by gross poverty. Nigeria, Democratic Republic of Congo, Sierra Leone, Burundi, Burkina Faso, Ethiopia and Somalia are either in turmoil or the levels of poverty are staggering. 

The economy as weapon of subversion

When coups went out of fashion and when more and more African countries attained independence, the modus operandi had to change. This time, the World Bank and the IMF were roped in to whip perceived rogue leaders into line and further protect the US, British and French interests on the continent.

Dr Gloria Emeagwali, a professor of History and African Studies at Central Connecticut State University, New Britain, United States notes that IMF policies cause forced currency devaluation which leads to a free fall in the value of domestic currencies and ultimately lower purchasing power and living standards.

In addition, IMF policies cause massive unemployment through retrenchment of workers and bring about high prices which trigger food riots and social unrest.

The effects of privatisation are, among others, the de-industrialisation of economies and   reduce local ownership of companies because they can’t afford buying into companies. 

The removal of health subsidies has led to widespread increased mortality rate while that on education is responsible for massive school drop-outs and child labour. Most often, subsidies on education affects girl children because parents will opt to send boys to school. 

The long term effect is an uneven and the feminisation of poverty, she writes.

When the economy declines because of IMF policies, Emeagwali further notes, democratic governance is prejudiced and it gives rise to ethnic politics as well as possible military dictatorships.

Ironically, the IMF measures have led to increased debt for nations which saw a transfer of as much as 40% of domestic budget to debt repayment to creditors or bankers of Euro-America. Once that percentage of a budget is reserved for debt repayment, nation losses its sovereignty.

A report titled The Policy Roots of Economic Crisis and Poverty: A Multi-Country Participatory Assessment of Structural Adjustment done by the Structural Adjustment Participatory Review International Network (SAPRIN) in conjunction with World Bank, national governments and civil society says IMF policies have been “expanding poverty, inequality and insecurity around the world”. 

“They have] torn at the heart of economies and the social fabric . . . increasing tensions among different social strata, fueling extremist movements and delegitimising democratic political systems. Their effects, particularly on the poor are so profound and pervasive that no amount of targeted social investments can begin to address the social crises that they have engendered,” the report says.

SAPRIN further says IMF reforms impoverish and increase economic inequality, “First, trade and financial sector reforms have destroyed domestic manufacturing leading to massive unemployment of workers and small producers. Second, agricultural, trade and mining reforms have reduced the incomes of small farms and poor rural communities as well as their food security. Thirdly, labour market flexibilisation measures and privatisations have caused mass lay-offs of workers and resulted in lower wages, less secure employment, fewer benefits and an erosion of workers’ rights and bargaining power.”

Privatisation, the report also notes, of major national assets and essential services has also allowed multinational corporations to remove resources and profits from countries as well as increase rates for water and electricity which has hit the poor the hardest. 

In addition, the cutting of health and education spending under IMF policies and the introduction of user fees for these services, when combined with higher utility rates, has resulted in a severe increase in the number of poor as well as a deepening of poverty.

In the process, the report says, “Third World countries are forced to open their economies to Western penetration and increase exports of primary goods to wealthy nations. These steps amongst others have multiplied profits for Western multinational corporations while subjecting Third World countries to horrendous levels of poverty, unemployment, malnutrition, illiteracy and economic decline. The region worst affected has been Africa.”

This, according to the report, should not come as a surprise because the US and IMF has become synonymous, “Washington's predominance ensured that whatever their theoretical mandates might be, the World Bank and the IMF would become instruments of U.S. foreign policy. The role of both has been to fully integrate the Third World into the U.S.-dominated global capitalist system in the subordinate position of raw material supplier and open market.

“As such, these institutions complement the US' use of the Pentagon and the CIA to crush Third World governments aspiring to independent development.”

 Trade unions

Once the economy is down and the people unhappy, voices of dissent rise. With workers getting next to nothing, trade unions chip in fighting government. These become second forces on the political spectrum because they have a huge following. Indeed, there have been a number of labour leaders who crossed the floor into politics after seeing that they have a ready-made support base created by IMF/ World Bank policies.

The closest examples where trade unionists were used to effect regime change are Zambia and Zimbabwe’s. The late Frederick Chiluba toppled Kenneth Kaunda’s government after IMF policies wrecked the economy while Morgan Tsvangirai who was spurred by genuine food riots in the late 90s also formed the MDC thereby becoming an opposition leader with the help of Britain and the US.

But what trade unionists forget is the role their funders for regime change would have done to their countries through economic subversion. The Zimbabwean example speaks clear and loud enough: the MDC has its backbone in the 1997/98/99 food riots caused by unworkable IMF policies.

Low-Intensity Conflict policy

As part of its new mandate, IMF and World Bank Fund also had a low-intensity conflict (ILC) policy in the 80s that was pushed by the US targeting Angola in Africa and elsewhere Grenada, Panama, Nicaragua, Angola, Panama, El Salvador and Guatemala as well as Philippines.

The LIC involved financing conflicts as a way of controlling the Third World. This was also meant to break and whip it into line a Third World that was demanding a new international economic order.

George Bush also pursued this policy with the help of the Fund and the World Bank such that by 1993 Latin American government considered to be radical and revolutionary had been deposed.

Nicaragua fell victim to this during Ronald Reagan’s tenure when the Contras attacked the Sandinista government while the World Bank, under Thomas Clausen, a Reagan appointee pulled the plug on funding.

Sub Saharan Africa too was caught up in the scheme of things and as of 1980 36 out of 47 countries were under SAPs.

Angola ditched the IMF in 1997 and opted to work with Russia and China.

Democracy and civic society

When IMF and World Bank policies fail to yield desired results, democracy became a war cry. And to spearhead the fight are civic organisation that come in all forms and sizes. Some are church – driven while others just sprout from universities or communities and even women organisations. But they are funded by powerful foundations set up by some of the world’s wealthiest families. The Rockefeller Foundation and the Ford Foundation are just but very few of many such foundations funding civic organisations calling for democracy read as regime change in Third World countries. Look across in Africa today and you will realise the role of civic organisations that are claiming to be part of the governing process. 

These civic organisations wield enormous power because most of them command grassroots support which can easily be turned against any government.

In Africa or any other Third World country after the hurricane IMF has flattened economies, the question of good governance demands huge answers. These are countries ravaged by massive IMF-induced poverty and deprivation. The people are unhappy and so under such circumstances, most governments bring in measures for their survival. 

Demands for good governance have also become part and parcel to any donor funding requests. In tandem with good governance are demands for a clean human rights record.

All these demands are spearheaded by well-funded civic organisations which sprung in the 90s. The West works closely with these civic organisations and in most cases what they say about or against a government is taken seriously. 

Tanzania is a good example of how donors’ demands are pushed onto a helpless Third World country. For Tanzania to get funding from Finland they had to introduce a Commission for Human Rights and Good Governance and the donor country had to second an advisor on good governance to the President. 

The advisor, Finnish diplomat, Martin Althassari was sponsored by the World Bank!

Protection of human life

The latest is the protection of human mantra that is being used in Libya today. Unlike the Tunisian and Egyptian revolutions, the US, British and French chose to ignore the fact that the Libyan issue was an armed rebellion. While those who called for the removal of Ben Ali in Tunisia and Hosni Mubarak in Egypt had no arms, the Libyans in Benghazi were armed.