The creation of patterns is inevitable, and it has been seen time and again, that history repeats itself. The same holds true for the continent of Africa. African nations hold a lion’s share in the list of the poorest countries in the world. Abstractions such as ‘market forces’, ‘international capitalism’, and ‘neocapitalism’ are employed to determine the root of the problems faced by these economies. Discontent stemming from poor economic conditions in turn leads to political instability and chaos, and the continent has been privy to such bedlam in the years following decolonization. The latest case is that of Sudan, where the civilians seek to get their voices heard, and the mere overthrowing of Omar al-Bashir’s regime is not the final solution for them.
This article attempts to explain the core ideas such as decolonization, neo-colonization along with tracing Western and Chinese interests in Africa, and to understand how each of these factors affect Sudan in particular.
Instability: How decolonization facilitated further damage
With the exception of modern-day Ethiopia, Egypt, Liberia and the Union of South Africa, the rest of Africa was engulfed by colonialism following the end of the Second World War. The Atlantic Charter of 1941 which is primarily known for the creation of the United Nations enlisted the right of the people to self-determination, which ignited hopes in the minds of those leaders who wanted sovereignty for their nations. Within the next two decades, the former colonies were liberated with hopes of a brighter future in mind.
However, by and large the process of decolonization had not been beneficial owing to hasty withdrawal procedures, and lack of existing infrastructure for which the nations once more had to seek the help of neo-imperialist forces such as the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and the World Bank. According to Michael Hodd, by 1982, nineteen African nations had accepted conditional loans from the IMF, and countries such as Sierra Leone and Tanzania which had attempted to resist such aid finally gave in, four years later, to add to the list of nations who accepted conditional loans. Dearth of trained professionals such as doctors and lawyers led to abysmal conditions among the masses, along with very few reforms for education. For instance, Tanzania had only three missionary schools functioning in its entire geographical space once it became independent in 1961, according to Norman Lowe.
In 1956, Sudan gained independence from joint British and Egyptian rule, and economic problems have been rampant since then. Within two years of liberation, the military seized control of the nation and introduced stringent Islamic laws, which led to the shutdown of missionary schools. Problems between the north and the south had also escalated, whose solution came in 2011, when the country was partitioned to create a new country: South Sudan. The history of the nation has been tumultuous, with civil wars, frequent coups, the establishment of one authoritarian regime after another: what was a protest movement started off by the Sudanese Professionals Association (SPA) did culminate in the end of Bashir’s regime, but what the movement stood for continues to be overlooked and subjugated as the situation deteriorates.
What is neo-colonialism?
Neo-colonialism can be defined as the sustained extraction of economic benefits by major world powers, all of whom do not have to necessarily be former imperial powers. The coinage of the term ‘neo-colonialism’ is attributed to Kwame Nkrumah, who led Ghana to its independence from Britain in 1957. Nkrumah authored a book titled Neo-Colonialism: The Last Stage of Imperialism in 1965 and his understanding of the term was limited to criticizing the exploitative relations shared between developed and developing countries. With the passage of time, the term’s scope has increased to trace the links between the Global North and the Global South (the term generally used to refer to the former ‘non-aligned’ countries and are currently considered as poor or ‘third-world’ nations).
The role of multinational corporations (MNCs) is a weighty one as far as neo-colonialism is concerned. Maneuvers such as insisting on a package of inappropriate policies, which include acknowledgement of ‘property rights’ pave the way for extracting further profit. These policies would also include curtailment of subsidies, price controls and state interference; all of which clearly spell out the reasons why so little is retained by the states these corporations invest in. Foreign Direct Investments (FDIs) can be considered another tool of neo-colonisation. Incidentally, according to CEIC, Sudan’s FDI increased to 430.1 USD in December 2018, from 299.9 USD in the previous quarter. While dominant nations have their methods of turning the tables in their favor, Nkrumah had suggested that foreign capital should flow into African countries, but according to the policies that have been decided by their own government bodies, so as to ensure more profits are retained by the state. Whether Sudan has been affected by this phenomenon can be understood by trying to analyze what notions the so-called developed nations have in store for them. A steep increase in FDIs, for example, did not act as an alleviating factor in an environment where political turmoil was gaining ground by the end of 2018.
Western Interests
The Government of Sudan adopted free trade policies and introduced a denationalization policy to revitalize the moribund national corporations in the early 1990s and a host of reforms followed. In addition to that, the country has always been in demand for its oil reserves which were valued at almost forty-five billion dollars in 1999. There has also been an increase in the growth of the private sector in Sudan, but none of those factors seem to have alleviated poor economic conditions as inflation rates remain high, perpetually. According to World Bank, sanctions that had been imposed by the US government on Sudan were since 1997 were lifted as late as 2017. Although that was to herald better times ahead, foreign investors and commercial banks remained reluctant to reengage in the state. Transactions between Sudan and the World economy remain minimal as Sudan continues to be designated by the U.S. as a state sponsor of terrorism, thereby disallowing normalization of relations with the U.S. Despite holding hopes high for a better future, the protests held in December 2018 can be held accountable for stalling the progress on further negotiations. However, these are not the only methods in which Western involvement can be traced to determine the unfavorable repercussions it has had on the economy and in turn on the civilians.
In 2016, the European Union initiated the “Khartoum Process” or a ‘Better Migration Management’ program which is a regional project aiming to limit the number of migrants going into continental Europe from the Horn of Africa, according to the official website of the ‘Horn of Africa Migration Route Initiative.’ This program covers several countries such as Eritrea, Ethiopia, Djibouti, Tunisia, South Sudan and Sudan. The European Union Emergency Trust Fund even put in 40 million euros worth of financial assistance with the intent of ameliorating the conditions of people so that they do not feel the need to migrate. However, there are allegations that the money, whose recipient happens to be the military soaks up the aid at the borders without allowing it to reach the citizens. Here, the ‘interests’ are not the conventional economic ones, but there is an attempt to curb financial strains of a more severe nature in Europe, by handing out some capital beforehand.
Chinese Interests
With the wave of decolonization in Africa post the creation of the People’s Republic of China in 1949, the number of nations that recognized the legitimacy of the newly created nation increased drastically. Therefore, the continent has had a hand in securing firm political foundations for China, as it had also secured support from Africa for the diplomatic battle it waged against Taiwan. In 1959, Mao Zedong had hailed the continent as an ally in the “struggle against imperialism”.
In contrast to that, when it comes to dealing with Sudan, there is conclusive evidence that goes on to show that China had become its primary international sponsor when the state was engulfed in conflict in the region of Darfur, which entailed what is considered to be the first genocide of the twenty-first century. The motivation fueling China’s increased involvement in the region mainly include the extraction of oil and natural resources. In addition to that, China has lent support to Khartoum, favoring oppression of the masses by overlooking gross human rights abuses. These are not unfamiliar practices for the Chinese government who rely on similar tactics to silence its denizens, in order to maintain a façade of political stability.
While neo-colonialism poses its own set of problems, a parallel problem is the increasing power of the military, edging towards authoritarianism. Countries such as China, follow a policy of non-interference as far as military rule is concerned, their interests largely being economical, rather than political. Currently, the Transitional Military Council (TMC) is in charge of the affairs of state, headed by Abdel Fattah al-Burhan, who has stated that the council’s primary aim is to transfer power to a civilian government. However, there are several reasons to believe otherwise. More authority is attributed to Mohamed Hamdan Dagolo, who is better known by the nickname ‘Hemeti.’ According to an article published by Foreign Policy , Hemeti is considered to be the main legacy of Bashir’s prolonged rule of three decades. He led the ‘janjaweed’: the Arab militia that started wreaking havoc in the region of Darfur sixteen years ago. Under his leadership, the ‘janjaweed’ massacred non-Arab men by driving pickup trucks into them, and raped several women. While the TMC is a recent establishment, in runs hand in hand with an advanced paramilitary force entitled the ‘Rapid Support Forces’ (RSF), in which again, Hemeti had a crucial role to play.
The reason why the TMC continues to grow stronger is because the monetary aid earmarked for social welfare is siphoned off for military consumption. Two months ago, Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates had pledged to send three billion dollars’ worth of aid to Sudan, of which most benefits went to the TMC and the RSF, although aid was sent in other forms such as food, medicines and petroleum. In 2016, as Sudan started cooperating with the European Union, as has been mentioned earlier, to curb migration flows, Hemeti’s men took it upon themselves to waylay migrants, from Sudan itself as well as other parts of the Horn of Africa, while they were on their way to Libya. These interceptions were broadcast on local and foreign TV stations to illustrate to the European Union that they were the ones who understood their sentiments fully and were willing to comply to their wishes.
If one traces the rise of Hemeti to power, there is an uncanny resemblance with the way Idi Amin rose to power after overthrowing Milton Obote in Uganda. Obote had underestimated the ambitions of Amin who had created an ethnic support for himself in the army. The rest is history, as Idi Amin is remembered by many as one of the most notorious and vicious dictators to have seized power in a state. With an individual like Hemeti whose reputation speaks volumes might portent darker times ahead. If unchecked, the powers of the military continue to grow, and it takes more than passion and optimism on part of unarmed civilians to tackle the ruthlessness that military regimes tend to unleash over their populations to retain a dominant position.
This part needs further clarification on how the Chinese neocolonialism is responsible.
Unlike colonialism, wherein the perpetrator’s identity is a lot more conspicuous, within the traps of neo-colonialism, it becomes an exigent task to blame a single party for further exploitation and deteriorating conditions of the ‘third-world’ economies. Despite Nkrumah’s condemnation of the phenomenon and his desperate attempts to ward it off, he fell victim to a coup d’état the year after his book on neo-colonisation was published. This happened with tacit support from Washington, as Nkrumah’s increasingly dictatorial stance did not go down well with the people of Ghana. In Sudan, the need of the hour is for the international sympathy to go down with its citizens, and to look for channels via which economic aid directly reaches the civilians instead of the TMC. It is indeed a very complex cycle within which the desire for democratic values and neo-colonisation seemingly go hand in hand, and yet again the latter ends up thwarting the former.
