A Leauki's Writings
Reintroduce Imperialism
Published on September 14, 2009 By Leauki In International

Africans are not stupid. And organising a working state is difficult. Most of Africa has failed to do so, as has most of Europe at many points in its history.

What we are seeing in Africa is not an inherent inferiority of the location or the people but the same dark ages that many other continents were confronted with at other times.

I believe the best solution for Africa is to allow other countries to organise Africa's economy. But for this to work, those other countries must profit from it. Otherwise the policies made to help Africa will not be efficient because they won't be made with profit in mind but with status in mind. And we cannot afford another 40 years of empty gestures towards African countries.

I propose a system in which African countries can offer themselves as colonies to some non-African country of their choice. Participating non-African countries will then get to rule the candidate country as a colony for ten years. The only obligation the ruling country will have is not to violate human rights and to enforce laws that protect those human rights. Everything else, resources, cheap labour, is up for grabs.

Most of Africa is extremely rich in natural resources and incapable of using them. Instead corrupt rulers sell concessions to non-African countries below market price and in exchange for money then used to oppress the native population by native dictators under ultimate foreign control. Official imperialism could replace this system without affecting the native population negatively (they still wouldn't see the wealth of those natural resources) but also without the need to support native tyrants, since the imperialist ruler wouldn't need a local ally who can keep the population under control.

The ruling country will then proceed to make the most of the colony. Cheap labour is better when it is somewhat educated and building schools is not very expensive. A basic healthcare system will have to be set up to avoid nasty diseases from affecting too many people. That is not expensive either. Both will be an improvement over the current situation. The ruling country will also be able to organise a non-corrupt police force.

After ten years, the colony gets to vote again and to decide whether it wants to remain a colony or become fully independent again. If it votes for independence, foreign rule will end within a year and foreign troops and police, in as much as the former co,ony doesn't want to keep them, will have to withdraw within two. All contracts between the colonial government and private companies will also end.

If, however, the colony votes for a continuation of colonial status, the ruling country has to accept the definition and continue ruling. It will have no choice and cannot give up the colony or realse it into independence without approval by the vote.

Before year 1: The client country votes to become a colony of mother country. The mother country votes whether it wants to accept the colony.

Year 10: The colony votes to become independent, in which case the mother country loses the colony within one year, or votes to remain a colony, in which case the mother country cannot release the colony.

In this second ten-year period, some things will change. The master country is now obligated to allow some home rule. Such home rule must be democratic and cannot be sovereignty or even autonomy. To put it in American terms, in the first ten years the colony will be an unorganised unincorporated territory and will have to become an organised unincorporated territory now. The inhabitants of the colony, except those who moved there from the mother country, will not have citizenship or nationality of the mother country.

After this second ten-year period there will be another vote. If either country now votes against the association, the colony will become independent under the same terms as it would have been after the first ten-year period, except that it must keep the government system created by the mother country. If both countries vote for continuation, the association continues under the same terms as in the second ten-year period.

Year 20: The colony votes to become independent, in which case the mother country loses the colony within one year, or again votes to remain a colony, in which case the mother country can release the colony if it doesn't want to keep the colony.

After another ten years, in year 30 of the association, there will be another vote. This time, if both countries vote for continuation, the colony will have to be incorporated and its citizens will have the option of becoming citizens of the mother country. The colony will essentially be annexed by the mother country.

Year 30: The territory votes to become independent, in which case the mother country loses the territory within one year, or again votes to remain a territory of the mother country, in which case the mother country can release the territory if it doesn't want to keep it but will have to annex the territory and grant citizenship if it wants to keep it.

After year 30, there will be one more ten-year period, in which the former colony remains an incorporated (full rights for all citizens) and organised (local government) territory of the mother country. Populations can now mix freely (with the caveat that citizens living in the territory will not have representation in the mother country's parliament).

At the end of this fourth ten-year period there will be one more vote, in the former colony only, between independence or remaining with the mother country. If the territory votes for independence, citizens have one year to decide whether they want to move back to their original country (but they cannot any more choose which country they want to live in) and after that time the two countries split up and the united citizenship will become two citizenships again. If the territory votes to remain part of the mother country, the mother country will have ten years to extend all voting and representation privileges to the territory. In the case of federal countries the territory would have to become a state, otherwise it will somehow have to be made part of the single province a country is made of.

Year 40: The territory votes to become independent, in which case the mother country loses the territory within one year, or again votes to remain a territory of the mother country, obligating the mother country to integrate the territory fully into the mother country.

Note that if the mother country in year 30 decides it wants to keep the colony, it has to annex it and can still lose it after another ten years.

 

 


Comments
on Sep 14, 2009

...

on Sep 14, 2009

Putting aside the question of whether you could get all the necessary parties to agree to do this, I do like the idea. My main criticism is that 10 years is too short of a time for the first vote of independence. I think that the changes made to the country would need about 40 years in order to be ingrained in their culture. That is when the children who where there at the beginning will now be the people who will be running the country. I also think that a massive exchange student program would need to be started as soon as feasible and would need to continue through the entire process.

I am not sure if granting citizenship would be a good idea. Once independence is declared there could be a mass exodus which would hurt the new country.

on Sep 14, 2009

I also think that a massive exchange student program would need to be started as soon as feasible and would need to continue through the entire process.

Certainly.

 

I am not sure if granting citizenship would be a good idea. Once independence is declared there could be a mass exodus which would hurt the new country.

Once independence is declared, the citizenship vanishes again and the one citizenship becomes two, with every resident in the former colony becoming a citizen of the former colony and every resident in the former mother country becoming a citizen of the mother country. After that vote, every resident has the option to stay put or move back into his country of origin.

 

on Sep 14, 2009

A buddy system for countries? I like it. I've mused on something similar, though not nearly to the depth you have.

One problem: what happens when a country like Saudi Arabia, China, or Syria decide to buddy up? How would you stop them from abusing human rights, redefining human rights to be whatever they want them to be, or rigging independance votes/not respecting the results? In other words, how would this be enforced? I'd be skeptical of the UN being any sort of authority on human rights, or having the respect for the rule of law to actually consistently enforce such a system...

on Sep 14, 2009

One problem: what happens when a country like Saudi Arabia, China, or Syria decide to buddy up? How would you stop them from abusing human rights, redefining human rights to be whatever they want them to be, or rigging independance votes/not respecting the results?

I couldn't stop them. But I cannot stop them now either. That problem is real but not unique to my international buddy plan.

 

In other words, how would this be enforced? I'd be skeptical of the UN being any sort of authority on human rights, or having the respect for the rule of law to actually consistently enforce such a system...

It wouldn't be enforced by any external authority except the international buddy federation, if we found one. My idea is a framework, not an organisation.

on Sep 16, 2009

I propose a system in which African countries can offer themselves as colonies to some non-African country of their choice.

i'm sure your intentions are good but i really gotta wonder how anyone as seemingly well-educated and well-informed as yourself is able to completely overlook the fact that colonization--whether in its most venal or most noble manifestations (don't forget those whose only interest in such things was saving souls and bringing civilization to the heathens contributed  to the ongoing problem just as much as those who plundered and profited for king/queen and country)--is the root cause of 90% of africa's problems, not to mention those of india,pakistan, vietnam, china and much of the middle east.

The ruling country will then proceed to make the most of the colony. Cheap labour is better when it is somewhat educated and building schools is not very expensive

do you know the diference between the two warring groups in rwanda?  or uganda?  or the congo?

while you may believe hutus and tutsis to be of different ethnicities it ain't necessarily so.

just a thought....maybe we should let the palestinans choose 1st world godcountries.

 

on Sep 16, 2009

colonization [...] is the root cause of 90% of africa's problems

I doubt that.

African countries did better when they were colonies than they do under native (or Arab) dictators. And Ethiopia, which has never been colonised, is doing as badly as the rest of Africa.

I think we have to get rid of the old "colonisation caused the problems" attitude as it has clearly not been helpful or solved anything.

 

just a thought....maybe we should let the palestinans choose 1st world godcountries.

They chose their fellow Arabs (who themselves colonised Tamazgha and the middle east) and lost. But otherwise I think that would be a good idea. Anything that would keep them from attacking Israel and shooting themselves in the foot would help.

 

(And yes, I know the difference between the two warring groups in Rwanda. I am still learning about Africa, but I think I know more than most already.)

 

on Sep 17, 2009

I know the difference between the two warring groups in Rwanda.

then you also know those artificial castes or classes were imposed and exploited by their colonial masters...the gift that keeps on giving.

African countries did better when they were colonies than they do under native (or Arab) dictators.

exactly the inspiration for tuneful invitation to sign on for slavery as imagined, written & performed by randy newman

In America you'll get food to eat
Won't have to run through the jungle
And scuff up your feet
You'll just sing about Jesus and drink wine all day
It's great to be an American

Ain't no lions or tigers-ain't no mamba snake
Just the sweet watermelon and the buckwheat cake
Ev'rybody is as happy as a man can be
Climb aboard, little wog-sail away with me

Sail away-sail away
We will cross the mighty ocean into Charleston Bay
Sail away-sail away
We will cross the mighty ocean into Charleston Bay

In America every man is free
To take care of his home and his family
You'll be as happy as a monkey in a monkey tree
You're all gonna be an American

Sail away-sail away
We will cross the mighty ocean into Charleston Bay
Sail away-sail away
We will cross the mighty ocean into Charleston Bay

 

on Sep 17, 2009

the more i consider your proposal, the more clearly i can see signs arching over each border checkpoint proclaiming 'arbeit macht frei'

on Sep 17, 2009

then you also know those artificial castes or classes were imposed and exploited by their colonial masters...the gift that keeps on giving.

Yes, but I am also aware of the fact that African tribes have been fighting each other for millenia and that Africans have free will.

In general just telling two groups that they ought to be enemies of each other won't have much of an effect, unless they want to be.

 

the more i consider your proposal, the more clearly i can see signs arching over each border checkpoint proclaiming 'arbeit macht frei'

Perhaps people with your kind of mindset simply shouldn't consider such proposals. Could save us all a lot of grief.

 

on Sep 17, 2009

Perhaps people with your kind of mindset simply shouldn't consider such proposals.

an equally plausible possibility is this: anyone who has any awareness of how horribly the native peoples of africa--might as well toss in the americas as well--were exploited at the hands of european imperialistic colonialism simply shouldn't propose such ridiculously outrageous "solutions" to the obvious consequences of such past outrages.

 

on Sep 18, 2009

an equally plausible possibility is this: anyone who has any awareness of how horribly the native peoples of africa--might as well toss in the americas as well--were exploited at the hands of european imperialistic colonialism simply shouldn't propose such ridiculously outrageous "solutions" to the obvious consequences of such past outrages.

Plausible? Yes.

But also cliche and wrong. Contrary to popular myth the natives of Africa are not really better off under native dictators.

Most people tend to think that once one surrenders a colony to some powerful wanna-be Hitler, the responsibility ends and everything is fine.