The British established their colonial presence in East Africa in the early 1890s as German colonial authorities took control of what they called Deutsch Ostafrika or German East Africa—combining Tanganyika, Burundi and Rwanda as one territory—aiming, inter alia, to provide their country a reliable source of raw cotton.
But things did not turn out as they planned. Large numbers of labourers defected from the cotton fields because they found the industry financially unrewarding. Several villages resisted growing the crop as a way of rebelling against the German authority, though cotton eventually became Tanzania’s most important export crop.
Following Germany’s defeat in World War I (1914-18), German East Africa fell apart and Tanganyika became a UN trusteeship under the British mandate while Burundi and Rwanda were taken over by Belgium.
Defeat of the fascists’ global ambitions accelerated the spread of anti-colonial sentiment. World War II (1939-45) foreshadowed the end of colonialism in Africa, and the independence of many countries came much sooner than expected. So-called colonial experts had asserted that it would take decades for Africans to get set for self-government.
What evidence did they have to make such a presumption? Did that assessment suggest malevolence towards nascent African nations, or was it an indication that foreign countries might try to interfere in African affairs?
History clearly shows that Europe’s headlong scramble for Africa was propelled by an intense desire to acquire the abundant natural resources of this continent. They forced its doors open and started plundering it under what they often claimed to be international approval, given without the consent of Africans.
They formed chartered companies and gave them exclusive rights to exploit the resources they had discovered.
What those companies paid in return for the wealth they took away ended up in their own administration and security costs. Though the chartered companies disappeared long ago, almost the same scenario that outlined their operations is present today.
Africa’s mineral resources were a valuable contribution to the victory of allied forces in the Second World War. Development of the atom bomb, for instance, which ended the war with Japan, was absolutely dependent upon uranium from the Democratic Republic of Congo, then known as Belgian Congo.
Wartime demand for strategic raw materials benefited Angola and Mozambique and, in British West Africa, there was increased output of iron from Sierra Leone and tin from Nigeria. In Southern Africa, the manufacturing industry expanded at a dramatic rate and Southern Rhodesia (now Zimbabwe) effectively created an iron and steel industry from scratch.
The 1989 peaceful end of the Cold War, principally hostile relations between the two superpowers—the former Soviet Union and the United States—has renewed and even multiplied the demand for African resources ranging from fossil fuel to uranium and assorted metals and land for production of renewable energy resources.
Political independence has not given African countries muscle strong enough to stand up for their economic interests in firming up deals with these powers.
What is sometimes arguably, and maybe rightly, called flag independence gave African nations identification only but not a firm position among the nations of the world. Tanzania has tremendous wealth in minerals and other natural resources that would not only affirm its economic position but also make the country influential on a global scale before clocking its centenary.
The renewed rush for its mineral and land resources may be the harbinger of the prosperity that Nyerere envisioned, but a change in the way these resources are being exploited is required. What goes out now will never be recreated and deposited back.
National leaders usually make decisions on the exploitation of resources within a political environment, but to what extent do the people have a chance to shape that environment so that their lives are better off now than in 1961? What lessons have been drawn from constant squabbles between local communities and mining companies or other investors on the Tanzanian soil and waters?
While today’s generation has grown up in a somewhat healthier society, there are serious problems affecting some segments of the population because of endless poverty.
The country may have encouraging indices on levels of enrolments in primary schools, all-weather roads and telephony, but the number of families in need of decent shelter, enough nutritional meals a day and healthcare are increasing
At 50, this country should have been a long way beyond its growing pains if its resources, including human resources, were put to appropriate use. There is a need to go urgently to the root of the matter and think about the historical consequences of failed promises and attempts to organise the Tanzanian society since 1961.
Tanzanians have one expectation of their leaders: It is not so much wisdom as fairness in every decision and action they take in the name of the people.
No comments:
Post a Comment