In 1963,the vision of Africa nationalists like Kwame Nkrumah, Nnamdi Azikiwe and Sekou Toure amongst others on how all countries on the African continent could form one common socio-economic zone came to fruition with the formation of Organization of Africa Unity, OAU, now AU.
Writing about the founding of the OAU in an article entitled ‘Africa: Once Upon a Continent’ published on the back page of Thisday newspaper of May 25, 2015,Comrade Issa Aremu , a labour leader, noted that over 50 years after founding OAU, current African leaders have failed to bring to reality the vision of OAU’s founding fathers.
As he rightly posited, the continent has continued to wallow in poverty, disease, xenophobia and religion/ethnic related conflicts because it’s political leaders are yet to remove the socio-economic and political barriers that would facilitate commerce between countries on the continent to create wealth and prosperity for the people. He lamented that the European Union, EU which was formed 30 years after OAU, has blossomed into a union of common political and economic fortune while Africa has continued to be regarded as a dark continent.
Aremu is on point because according to the Africa Development Bank, AfDB, about four hundred million people out of estimated one billion African population are still living on about $1.25 per day.
In the renown unionist’s estimation, Africa’s malaise is attributable to what he refers to as lack of “African Consciousness” but is that really the specific culprit? I would argue that rather than lack of African consciousness which is a broad generalization, the lack of political will by African heads of government is specifically responsible for the malady.
My position is underscored by the fact that Nkrumah, in his speech at the opening ceremony of the OAU, specifically admonished African heads of government when he said “Our objective is African Union now. There is no time to waste. We must unite now or perish.”
Since African politicians who are supposed to lead the charge have provento be laggards in that respect, African businessmen have stepped up to fill the gap and they have thus become African development standard bearers through private sector driven commercial activities between countries on the continent
As the Africa Development Bank, AfDB testifies, the value of trade amongst member states being driven by the private sector, has gradually inched up to about 12% and this is evidenced by the continent’s cheering average GDP growth rate of 6% in the past decade. No wonder the chairman of the auditing firm, KPMG, Seyi Bickersteth affirms that “Today, 7 out of the 10 fastest growing economies in the world are in Africa.”
Just as the enthusiasm and determination encapsulated and conveyed in the OAU declaration speech by politicians like Nkrumah, Azikiwe etal can simply be defined as AFRINATIONALISM, the zeal of African businessmen and women whom l would like to refer to as Afripreneurs and who have been “conscious” enough to take the pan Africanist message to the next level through commerce and industry, in fulfilment of the dream of OAU’s founding fathers, is now being presented as AFRICAPITALISM.
Bearing the imprints of the pan-africanists vision which makes it look like a spin-off, Tony Elumelu, chairman of HEIRS holdings and AFRICAPITALISM concept’s Architect-in-Chief explains that “AFRICAPITALISM means we cannot leavethe business of development up to our governments, donor countries and philanthropic organizations alone.”
According to him “we in the private sector must wake up, recognize and embrace our role in driving economic growth and the social development of Africa, and we must act in that responsibility in tangible ways.”
The only difference between the Nkrumah and Elumelu doctrine of economic integration in Africa is that while the former expected the transformation to be led by African governments and by extension politicians the latter demands that African businessmen and women also known as AFRIPRENEURS should make it happen.
With Elumelu’s United Bank for Africa (UBA) footprint spreading from Lagos to Accra and over fifteen other countries on the continent, he is clearly pursuing the cause that Africa’s illustrious and visionary legends held so dear to their hearts through his AFRICAPITALISM concept, albeit intuitively and unintentionally.
However, the foremost AFRIPRENEUR that has gained more foothold across Africa than any other, is Africa’s richest man and 26th richest in the world, Aliko Dangote who is the chairman of Dangote group – an African conglomerate that has solid investments in the production of essential commodities, especially cement, spread around Africa from Nigeria to Ghana, Senegal, South Africa, Cameroon, Gambia and Ethiopia amongst many others in the making.
Devoid of the underpinning principles of pan-Africanism as enunciated by Nkrumah and Azikiwe and without any link to the philosophy of AFRICAPITALISM which Elumelu espouses with unbridled intellectual fervor, Dangote’s concept of integrating Africa through trade, which he is so passionate about , issimply driven by the quest for market expansion and wealth creation for mass prosperity in Africa.
Starting out as a MICROPRENEUR (a concept of a promoter of micro-enterprise) in Nigeria about three decades ago by importing, re-bagging and selling rice, pasta, salt and sugar, Dangote changed gears from 1996, morphing into an AFRIPRENEUR with manufacturing concerns in Nigeria before later expanding into many African countries in tandem with the dream of the founders of OAU.
In a recent paper presented at a forum commemorating the founding of the Economic Community of West African States, (ECOWAS) and published on the back page of Thisday newspaper of Friday June, 5, 2015, the erudite professor of International Affairs, Bolaji Akinyemi (a product of the Fletcher school of Law and Diplomacy, USA, the foremost diplomacy school in the world from which l had the privilege of obtaining a Masters degree about four decades after Akinyemi left in late 1960s) acknowledged that the private sector has taken the driver’s seat in pan-Africanism but observed that no manufacturer of goods in Nigeria is producing with a view to exporting to the rest of African continent.
I however do bot share the respected professor’s argument. Perhaps, in arriving at the conclusion that no manufacturer is doing so with intention of exporting to Africa,the revered diplomat’s radar did not capture Dangote’s cement factory in Obajana, Kogi state, Nigeria which was built with that intension and is now exporting cement to the rest of Africa.
Aliko Dangote, chairman of the company, confirmed the above assertion at the commissioning of his new cement factory in faraway Ethiopia on June 4,2015, when he told his audience that his cement factories in Nigeria currently controls 60% of the local market share and now exports to the rest of Africa.
Undoubtedly, the vision of AFRINATIONALISTS such as Nkrumah, Azikiwe etal and Afripreneurs like Dangote and Elumelu’s inspiration for spreading business tentacles across Africa have converged but comrade Aremu is yet to notice, perhaps because he is still considering pan-Africanism only from the prism of socio-political formations like the EU which is now fraught with challenges and threatened by the risk of a break up.
Obviously, Aremu and other pan Africanist ideologues need to key into Elumelu’s doctrine of AFRICAPITALISM in which he has invested considerable intellectual capital trying to rouse the interest or capture the imagination of the fathers and apostles of capitalism such as president Barack Obama of USA, UN Secretary General, Ban Ki-Moon and World bank, managing director, Jim Young Kim as well as other critical stake holders in France with a view to convincing them that Africa is ripe for their investments. In other words, Africa needs trade/manufacturing through facilitation by the US and UK EXIM banks ,not aid via DFID and USAID.
What Elumelu and his team have not done for the benefit of African stakeholders, in my view , is properly linking AFRICAPITALISM to AFRINATIONALISM so as to earn the required pan-Africanist traction that the movement deserves but currently lacks.
At this juncture, let me hasten to point out that in addition to Dangote and Elumelu ,other notable individual Afripreneurs of Nigerian origin that are making waves in AFRICAPITALISM are Jim Ovia with his Zenith bank brand that is expanding with great speed across African locations such as Ghana, Liberia , Sierra-Leone and Gambia; Mike Adenuga with his GLO GSM telephone network expanding to Ghana and a couple of other African markets; Wale Tinubu with OANDO fuel stations also spreading as far as Ghana and Sayyu Dantata , proprietor of MRS brand who has fuel outlets in far flung locations like Benin Republic, Cote de Voire and Cameroon.
The only other African country, to the best of my knowledge, that rank with Nigeria in spreading the Afripreneur concept across African borders is South Africa, mainly with her MTN GSM telephone, DSTV/Multichoice satellite pay TV , Shoprite and Game retail stores, plus Stanbic/IBTC bank dominating the continent as well as Zimbabwe with the Econet GSM telecom network.
Given the value proposition which Afripreneurs bring to the table, it’s safe to assume that the dream of AFRICAPITALISM will not be atrophied in the manner that the pan Africanists concept of AFRINATIONALISM that was expected to be driven by governments died.
In any case, we have learnt from experience that good and inspiring ideas hardly die. Perhaps this is why a similar initiative introduced about three decades ago by Professor Bolaji Akinyemi along with his fellow visionary foreign affairs ministers of his days seem to be receiving a new lease of life in the far eastern part of the world.
It may be recalled that Concert of Medium Powers as a counterpoise to the United Nations, UN was a novel idea conceived in the 1980s but it got scuttled by the more powerful western conveners of the the UN because it would challenge their entrenched interests. China is now leading the charge for a re-enactment of a similar supra-national institution with a financial bias, to the consternation of some western powers. Surprisingly, the United Kingdom which is not a fan of the EU is tending towards being a willing subscriber to the China led initiative.
Finally, even if this piece is not a critique of Comrade Issa Aremu’s treatise, his advice to President Muhamadu Buhari to focus his foreign policy on Africa is worrisome if it is going to be business as usual.
Perhaps in consonance with Nigeria’s foreign policy thrust which has the theme ‘Africa as the centre piece of Nigeria’s foreign,’, Aremu may be feeling nostalgic of General Olusegun Obasanjo’s era when Nigeria risked everything to secure freedom for the black majority from white minority rule in then front line states of Rhodesia now Zimbabwe and South Africa where the obnoxious black and white segregation known as apartheid was practised.
Unfortunately, Nigeria failed to reap positive benefits commensurate to her sacrifice arising from the brave fight she put up against the super powers of Europe and America that supported apartheid.
General, Yakubu Gowon, as post-civil war military head of state in the 1970s,carried on with the fire of pan-africanism ignited by Azikiwe when he became a co-promoter of the Economic Community of West African States, ECOWAS. General,Murtala Muhammed who ousted Gowon in a coup d’état continued with the policy before he was assassinated in office and General,Olusegun Obasanjo took over over the mantle.
Recall that, Obasanjo , brimming with what can now easily be described as AFRINATIONALISM zeal, inspired by the OAU’s philisophy, had in protest against western support for apartheid, as head of state of Nigeria,denied the then USA secretary of state, Henry Kissinger, a request for stop-over in Nigeria on his way from South Africa. Subsequently and in furtherance of his disdain for apartheid, the Nigerian government had to also nationalize UK assets like British Petroleum, BP, Barclays Bank and America business assets in Nigeria .While Nigeria’s demonstration of her anti-apartheid policy stance resonated amongst Africans, it was loud and clear to the super power supporters of apartheid that Nigeria was daring them and must pay the price.
It is alleged that as a consequence of Nigeria’s perceived hostile actions towards powerful nations like USA and UK, in pursuit of her foreign policy geared towards liberating Africa from the yoke of apartheid and imperialism, the price of crude oil which was then and has remained the backbone of Nigeria’s economy and its source of political clout that emboldened her to challenge the powerful and rich western nations ,was manipulated resulting in a dramatic oil price drop to an all-time low leading to the collapse of the Nigerian economy reminiscent of the present state of affairs in Nigeria today.
The rest, as they say is history as the President,Shehu Shagari led democratically elected government was brought to its knees when it became difficult, if not impossible for government to discharge its responsibilities financially in terms of salaries and emoluments to workers due to the unprecedented crash in crude oil price as is currently being re-enacted.
Incidentally, it was General,Muhamadu Buhari as a soldier, who following public outcry against the infamous ‘Austerity Measures’ introduced by Shagari’s regime,on December 31,1983 embarked on a rescue mission by ousting the Shagari government and today under similar circumstances of threats of economic collapse owing to sharp decline in oil price, President Buhari has once again mounted the saddle of leadership of Nigeria but this time as a democratically elected president for another rescue mission.
Regrettably, unlike USA which recouped the cost it incurred in liberating Kuwait from lraq’s annexation through proceeds from future crude oil sales, Nigeria made all the sacrifices without bargaining on how to recoup her investment after the liberation struggle for Zimbabwe and South Africa. Like oil rich Kuwait which USA stopped lraq from grabbing through the first gulf war, the southern African region is also richly endowed with the world’s most sought after precious gem stones and resources, yet Nigeria failed to recoup her investment after helping to restore hope and dignity to the majority black population in the countries and steering them from imminent self-annihilation.
What is galling is that aside from not receiving financial reimbursement, a visit to South Africa and Zimbabwe, will reveal that no streets or monuments are named after Nigeria , a country which made huge sacrifices for their freedom. Neither have personages been recognized, anti-apartheid icons like Murtala Muhammed, who as Nigeria’s head of state ,single-handedly roused Africa into action towards the liberation of the Southern Africa region with his “Africa Has Come of Age” speech nor Olusegun Obasanjo, Murtala’s successor, who tightened the pressure on Western powers as well as other Nigerian brn anti-apartheid icons, especially Nigerian workers who made the sacrifice of allowing government to deduct their salaries as their contribution to funds supporting the struggle for the liberation of the frontline states.
But on the contrary, monuments are named after the region’s freedom fighters and presidents such as Samora Machel , Jonas Savimbi etc. As someone once pointed out, not leaving Nigeria’s legacies in countries where she made great human and financial sacrifices to rescue the people from oppression is akin to going to the moon without placing a flag there?
The USA learned from the mistakes of Great Britain which in her hey days, embarked on empire building spreading as far away as Australia , India and Africa- nations now referred to as Commonwealth countries, and became bankrupt when she could no longer shoulder the administrative cost of the expanding empires.
To properly focus America’s foreign policy and avoid incurring unnecessary burden similar to Great Britain’s experience, American government introduced the Monroe Doctrine, named after a former president , James Monroe who originated the policy. Monroe’s doctrine of 1823 stipulates that the USA would not embark on unnecessary empire building and would not allow Europe, particularly Spain continue to encroach on territories in the Americas.
It has since added considerations of economic benefits before embarking on any military or territorial adventures with a view to recouping her investments or reaping economic gains to the doctrine which has remained the cornerstone of America’s foreign policy. Put succinctly ,political and economic interest are the cardinal objectives of USA foreign policy hence she bargains for recoupment of costs of engaging in international military intervention in a country like oil rich Kuwait and would not intervene in poverty stricken Rwanda or Sudan in Africa. This pragmatic and somewhat Darwinian approach is underpinned by the MONROE doctrine of 1823.
Unlike USA, Nigeria clearly did not apply the principle of cost benefit analysis before engaging in the rescue mission to Zimbabwe and South Africa, instead social responsibility was Nigeria’s main consideration/driving force and this attests to Nigeria’s big brother posture in Africa.
As history has a way of repeating itself, especially if a wrong is not identified and corrected, Nigeria after the first coming of General Olusegun Obasanjo as military head of state in the late 1970s, embarked on two other military misadventures in Sierra Leone and Liberia. Re-enacting his usual sense of valor, president Obasanjo returning in 1999 as a democratically elected president, through the platform of ECOMOG intervened in civil wars in those countries at great financial and human cost to Nigeria.
A window of opportunity to correct the previous mistakes of fruitless investments in the liberation of the Southern African region of Zimbabwe and South Africa by bargaining to receive payment through proceeds realized from the abundant gold and diamond deposits in Liberia and Sierra-Leone also eluded Nigeria as political leaders failed to negotiate with both countries to pledge the precious stones deposits in their countries in return for the funding of ECOMOG which Nigeria practically bankrolled.
Annoyingly,Nigeria’s interventions in the crisis in Africa is not confined to South Africa, Zimbabwe, Liberia and Sierra-Leone but it also extends to Somalia and Sudan amongst others and all these were carried out at great costs ,yet most African countries particularly the ones she helped unshackle from the yoke of white minority rule are averse to Nigeria becoming a permanent member of UN Security Council on behalf of the continent.
One would have thought that the very glaring dire financial burden of previous actions would deter continued reckless pursuit of the 1963 OAU founding fathers mandate without factoring in national interest but it appears our politicians were just embarking on those costly and barren adventures for the thrill.
Unfortunately, that reckless military and territorial adventurism which have constituted a huge drain on Nigeria’s treasury seem to have remained the bedrock of Nigerian foreign policy despite having proven time and time again to be a counter-productive policy.
This is why President Buhari must interrogate why ‘Africa as the centre piece of Nigeria’s foreign policy’ anchored on or derived from the principles for establishing the OAU in 1963, seems to have become immortality.
The unbridled and ill advised AFRINATIONALISM oriented adventure being exhibited by our political leaders is quite the opposite of what Afripreneurs are doing via AFRICAPITALISM which is driven by principles of investing in wealth creating activities for shared prosperity of the people of the continent culminating in the slowly but sure growing profile of Africa compared to other continents in the global arena.
I’m alarmed and piqued that lssa Aremu, in his seminal article, may be inadvertently nudging President Buhari in the same old direction of investing time and resources on regional conflict interventions in consonance with OAU’s vision without expecting to earn tangible economic returns on investment and that would amount to a repeat of the old foreign policy missteps.
The usual civil service operations manual/template which does not entail cost benefit analysis but is premised on the mission of providing free social services, seems to be the formula being applied in Nigeria’s foreign policy initiative and it is unwise and out of tune with modern trends in international relations.
If we don’t want Nigeria to become bankrupt like Great Britain in her days of empire building , it is time we introduced a policy similar to the Monroe doctrine practiced by USA to save Nigeria from future financial and human catastrophe that previous crisis interventions have wrought on our dear country.