World-class political and economic summits should be platforms through which nations are able to formulate political and economic solutions to their common problems. However, it seems that the political and economic solutions that powerful nations want are not the same as those that weak nations seek, making international talks on these issues pointless, especially for poor nations.
I know this proposition will be challenged by some scholars and readers, as it is an opinion currently unpopular among world thinkers, but it requires a bit of a critical view of world politics and a deep analysis of African crises to properly critique my argument.
First, let’s start with an overview of the global configuration at the end of World War II in 1945. Obviously, World War II ended with the United States as the biggest winner – not destroyed by war, and by far the richest country on planet Earth with 50% of the world’s wealth with only 5% of the world’s population. Meanwhile, Europe and Asia were crippled by war, and Africa was still formally a colony of European nations. As a result, American thinkers, and decision-makers, among others George Kennan, through certain institutions such as the Council on Foreign Relations, were considering how to preserve the status quo of the world with the United States as the dominant power. Their reflection led to the development of a few policy documents, one of which was called “National Security Council memorandum 68” (NSC 68), through which various strategic plans were described for the post-World War II period. The ultimate goal was to redesign the world order by assigning specific tasks to each block of countries in relation to the American interest. For example, according to Noam Chomsky, Japan and Germany were assigned the role of industrial leaders of Europe under the supervision of the United States. Regarding Africa, the United States first forced European countries that had colonies in Africa to end colonization, not because they wanted to save Africans, but because they wanted to increase their share in the project of neo-colonialism that was being implemented. In other words, by urging other countries to end colonialism, the United States aimed to become the new global colonial power. However, for former colonial powers like France and Britain, George Kennan suggested that they can still get psychological relief from exploiting Africa; one can imagine if the opposite was said about Africa. In fact, American policymakers placed Africa in what they described as the “Grand Area”, and the tasks assigned to Africa as a whole were to become the US supplier of resources and the market for American products.
Moreover, the policies outlined in such secret documents as NSC 68 were not mere theories, the United States ensured that they were implemented worldwide. Countries around the world were forced to follow the American economic and political plan, regardless of the consequences on the population, and any regime that tried to seek an alternative, whether it was a democratic regime, was qualified of “communist” regime and subsequently overthrown or its leaders assassinated.
Basically, the United States waged war in remote areas against some small countries like Vietnam, Panama, and others that could never threaten America even if there were communist regimes. The truth is that American policymakers always fear the threat of a good example, which means that if a small country with limited resources like Ethiopia found an alternative to its political and economic development away from American imperialism, it would revolutionize other resourceful countries like the DRC and Nigeria to rethink about their approaches to development without the World Bank and the IMF. Indeed, it was in the name of the threat of a good example, mostly disguised as a threat of communism and dictatorship, or a humanitarian mission that the United States and its allies overthrew Nkrumah, assassinated Lumumba, Sankara, Laurent D Kabila, Muammar Kadhafi and others who have tried alternative means of political and economic development.
In reality, the United States and the whole West in general have never cared about empty words (according to George Kennan) like democracy, peace, human rights, etc., they pursue their political and economic interests whatever the regime is.
Currently, the United States and its allies are supplying arms to Ukraine so it can defend itself against Russian aggression, in the name of humanitarian aid. Meanwhile, several UN reports have condemned the Rwandan regime for supporting terrorist groups that massacre civilians in the eastern part of DR. Congo, one would have expected the West to support the Congolese army as it does for Ukraine. Guess what? They don’t, in fact, they just added $20 million to their regular support for the Rwandan army, I leave the rest to your imagination.
In a nutshell, it is clear that the political and economic objective of the United States and the EU, on the one hand, is to keep Africa under their domination, which translates into the oppression of the masses. On the other hand, the real political and economic objective of Africa is to free itself from all forms of domination so that its development can take place. These two diametrically opposed objectives lead us to question the essence of international summits on political and economic solutions between Africa and strong nations like the US and the EU. As stated earlier, international summits can work for people who have common problems and are looking for common solutions, but here we have the predator and the prey coming together, what can we expect from these expensive international discussions? The possible outcome that we have seen from these ceremonies has been the compliance of African leaders to economic and political policies instructed by the West; African leaders have been experts in appearing in these international ceremonies to beg, or sometimes they appear to the United Nations General Assembly to make statements about things that they do not have the individual power to set in motion.
There is an urgent need for African leaders and aspiring leaders to recoup their courage and be less enthusiastic at the thought of appearing in these big red-carpet shows, while the people of Africa are languishing in hopeless misery. Essentially, only when we stop thinking that these ceremonies can solve our problems can we look within and find out how much we can do together in a Pan-Africanist setting. Because there is no European or American solution to the African problem, as there has never been in the past. In particular, at a time when the old-world order is being challenged, Africans have a better chance of coming together to redraw their own path to a better future for their children.
Yes, we can do it again.