| Friends don't let friends kill each other.I read today, with great delight, about the recent announcement from Beijing that a freighter bound for South Africa bearing several tons of arms and ammunition was on its way back to her port of call. I felt elated that a slight victory could have been won in an age of corruption and capitulation. I knew the importance of this weapons shipment at a time when Mugabe's dictatorship was on the verge of collapse, simply by the voice of the people. I had feared the Transport Workers Union would be shut down in their refusal to unload the cargo. To my surprise, not only did the longshoremen stand their ground, but the South African courts ruled that even if the Chinese could get someone to unload the weapons, it would be illegal to transport them overland into Zimbabwe. Stupid me didn't even realize that the freighter could have unloaded their cargo in Mozambique. But to my absolute delight, in a show of true familial concern, Mozambique's government also vetoed any option of shipping through their country.
The ironic thing is that this sort of interference in Zimbabwe's politics is criticized by China. Today, the Chinese consular (?) spokeswoman Jiang Yu issued the following statements "There are some people in the United States who would like to pose
as the world's policemen, but they are not welcomed in the world," and "We have friendly relationship with African
countries."(1) [sic]
While the former statement certainly has much substance to it, I can hardly believe the latter is anything but a cruel, perverse joke. So China has "friendly relations" with African countries. Oh yes, certainly. Friends are the kind of people who'd capitalize on a friend who was contemplating murdering his brother. Yet this is exactly what China is doing, only on a bigger scale: "3.5 million rifle rounds, small arms, mortar shells and rocket-propelled grenades"(2) "It's free trade, isn't that what you Americans are all about?" Freedom, yes, but freedom within reason. "Oh, but that's so paternalistic of you. As if you know what's best for Africa better than the African governments do." Once again, there's a grain of truth to this accusation. All the same, I wonder if a little common sense is in order here. Just because someone like Robert Mugabe styles himself the "head of state" in Zimbabwe, does that mean he really is the legitimate popularly elected official? Here we need to use a little common sense. European colonialism was an oppressively selfish grab for Africa that needed to be removed. Nonetheless, did colonialism go away just because they replaced the white, European oppressors with their darker skinned cronnies? Does somehow the fact that Mr. Mugabe is black somehow make it okay for him to treat his people with the same contempt the colonial governments did?
I think here we verge onto the more central issue. Was colonialism ever about racism? Certainly racism was the tool that the colonists used to justify their, "fatherly protection" (because we all know that good fathers pimp their sons and daughters, and take the profits right out of their hands because they "wouldn't know how to spend it properly anyway."). But was it the central motive? No, at the heart of this is a more fundamental approach to how the West has viewed Africa: wealth. Keep in mind, there was nothing magical in the 16th century that suddenly made Europeans feel "paternal responsibility for poor, little Africa." No. But it was a time when changing attitudes towards economics made an aggresive, trade-based economy. The origins of the middle class burgers. The beginning of the shared venture. All of this made not only Africa, but the whole world look like a ripe watermelon patch to us filthy, greedy Europeans. There wasn't a particular hate of African people. Just ask the Native Americans. We screwed them over way worse than Africa. It's purely a matter of pragmatics. Cold, calculating, and cruel.
The problem was, however, that we didn't care about whether there were any lasting implications for those we exploited. We didn't ask how they got their slaves, we just bought what they brought us, and fueled money into the hands equally greedy warlords willing to strike a bargain with the devil to ensure their own desires were fulfilled. And who lost in this deal? The vast majority of the African people, whether now in the Americas, or still at home in Africa. In the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, investment in Africa was probably as exciting to the folks in Amsterdam, Paris or Madrid, as it is today to the their modern counterparts in New York, London, and Tokyo. And then, as now, the investors don't seem to care how these businesses make their money, just as long as the report good profits. Now, as it was then, people didn't give a rip about the solidarity of the human race (yes, there's just one race of us.) Rather, we rob the cookie jar while we look at our heavenly Father (the true Father who really does now us better than we ourselves), and make some lame excuse. "Am I my brother's keeper?"(3)
Yet China now seems to be making just the same mistake, and thinking that because "president" Mugabe is the head of state, business they do with him is actually benefiting the whole nation. It's easy to blind yourself when your head in a bag of money. The intoxication is almost irresistible. That China now falls prey to the same injustices of Europe and America is just the way it is. Perhaps even Africa will have it's day of shame. Whatever the case, the imperative for today is neither to turn a blind eye to these situations that arise in Africa as a result of colonial oppression, nor simply blaming China for engaging in the same opportunistic exploitation as the West is guilty of. Rather, something more fundamental needs to be brought back into the public consciousness: that all humans are members of one family. We are all in this together. We all have common hopes, dreams and aspirations. Let's join together as friends, and pursue this common vision. Mr. Mugabe, even though you are my brother, I will still not let you kill our brothers and sisters.
1 Source: CNN World News http://www.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/africa/04/24/zimbabwe.ship/index.html
2 Ibid.
3 Note the irony in how nineteenth century interpreters used this "mark of Cain" story as a justification for slavery. Wasn't the story primarily about our responsibility to our sisters and brothers? Likewise, the store of the curse of Ham was brought out in favor of slavery and racism, but wasn't it really about the grievousness of exposing a family member to open shame? Yet in both cases, wasn't slavery a reeneactment of these same sins? Whose mark is it? Whose curse? God have mercy on us all.
|
