The Principles and Modalities of EU-India Cooperation on African Development

Abstract

IntroductionAfrica is in a historic trap. Its integration in the global system has been historically conditioned against Africa's best interests. Africa is caught to this day at the lowest value chain in global production and exchange. Ideally, Africa should seize the present crisis of capitalism as an opportunity to assert its independence to create the terms and modalities under which it would want to be integrated in the global system and do business with Europe and India. Africa is resurging, but the main challenges still lie ahead. If Europe and India wish to play a useful role in Africa then they need to help reverse the processes by which Africa is integrated in the global system.Defining the Basic Principle of EU-India Cooperation on African DevelopmentThe colonization of Africa by Europe in the nineteenth century and early part of the twentieth century enlisted the services of the Indians (among others such as the Lebanese) in the colonization process. Indians acted variously as providers of indentured labour in parts of Africa (for example in the sugar plantations of South Africa); as skilled and semi-skilled artisans and workers (as in the building of railways in East Africa); as traders and providers of goods and services imported from Europe and India; as middle and low level civil servants in the colonial administration; and in professional field as doctors, lawyers, accountants and managers. The beneficiaries were overwhelmingly the Europeans as the colonial masters. They benefitted out of the appropriation of the natural wealth of Africa in the form of minerals and products of land and cheap labour. The Indians, although a subset of the exploited, also benefitted in various ways and in varying degrees. At the lowest end of the 'development' chain, the indentured labourers in South Africa and the railway workers of East Africa, for example, secured jobs and wages when prospects for either were almost non-existent in colonial India. At higher levels as traders, civil servants and professionals, they became the colonial middle class with corresponding financial and social benefits.Colonial historians and apologists would argue that Africans also benefitted. They benefitted from having their 'backward' continent 'developed' not only in concrete economic terms (such as having sugar plantations, the railways, and shops from which to buy modern goods), but also broadly in the form of education through, among others, the work of missionaries, and acquiring knowledge of modern administration in matters of state and economy. Africa, the apologists argued, was taken out of darkness into enlightenment. I do not wish to enter this debate. It is not worth giving respectability to colonial conquest. Even if those involved in the process during the period of colonization sincerely believed that they were in a civilizing mission in Africa, they were in reality pillaging Africa. Africa's plunder was all the more cruel because it deprived Africans the time and the opportunity to develop themselves by their own means and institutions. Africans were deprived of the opportunity to control their own destiny and to evolve in their own pace and time. Many of contemporary problems have their roots in this deprivation. The phenomenon of the so-called 'failed state' in Africa is part of this colonial heritage. It is as if Africans have to rewind the clock back into history, and relearn the process of governing themselves.It might be argued that was history. It is not likely to recur in our own times. Africans now have political independence and can take their own decisions. Besides, Europe no longer has absolute hegemony over the fate of Africa. And India is no longer a passive intermediary ready to serve colonial powers.There is a grain of truth in all the above propositions. However, fundamentally, the power asymmetry remains an abiding feature of this triangular relationship - the Europeans still occupy the top rungs of the power and economic hierarchy; the Indians occupy, essentially, a middle role; and Africans are still at the lowest rungs, except for a tiny minority of individuals who are in state power or as partners or shareholders in European or Asian commercial companies. …