African nations are a product of ‘forced’ foreign influence, which has demeaned her values over the years. Her political space has been rocked by crises fueled by international interference for self-gain, and her continued partnership with the Commonwealth has been more of a disguised curse than a blessing. Veiled impoverishment of Africa by the Commonwealth Colonial ‘powers’ should be enough justification for a push for ‘Afrexit’ from this redundant post-colonial club.
Brief History of the Commonwealth
In the 15th century, “Commonwealth” came into the limelight as an English equivalent to the Latin res publica, which means the public good or ‘common weal’. Lord Rosebery first used this term in a speech in Adelaide in 1884 to describe the British Empire. Later, in 1917, General JC Smuts coined the phrase ‘the British Commonwealth of Nations’ as an umbrella name for the ‘Dominions’ (parts of the Empire which had full internal self-government), whose membership had increased to six in 1920. The six dominions included Canada, Newfoundland, Australia, New Zealand, South Africa, the Irish Free State, and the United Kingdom. These Dominions were given full legislative independence under a special Act of Parliament of the Statute of Westminster, which consolidated the Dominions’ independent status. Following the independence and partitioning of India in 1947, the British Commonwealth assumed a new identity as the adjective ‘British’ preceding Commonwealth was dropped from its official usage. It was later accepted in 1949 that the republican status should not be a barrier to membership of the Commonwealth. Also, the British Monarch was recognised as the Head of the Commonwealth, a formal title with no constitutional responsibilities attached. It was a condition for membership as proposed by member-states, as the British Monarch was seen as a symbol of their free association. The Commonwealth grew in leaps and bounds as African, Caribbean, Asian and Oceanic nations gaining independence joined the organisation through the 1960s and 1970s. Currently, the Commonwealth has 53 member-states with representations spread across every continent (except for the Middle East.)
The Charter of the Commonwealth
A charter to set out the organisation’s values and the commitment of her member-states was proposed at the 2011 CHOGM in Perth, Australia. It was adopted on 19 December 2012 and assented to by Queen Elizabeth II on Commonwealth Day at Marlborough House, London, on 11 March 2013. The charter contains sixteen core beliefs, and they include enforcement of democracy, human rights, international peace and security, tolerance, respect and understanding, freedom of expression, separation of powers, the rule of law, good governance, sustainable development, protecting the environment, access to health, education, food and shelter, gender equality, importance of young people in the commonwealth, recognition of the needs of vulnerable states as well as the role of civil society.
Perceived Benefits of the Commonwealth to Africa
Over the years, Africa has been primarily adjudged to benefit immensely from the Commonwealth’s verbal niceties, just as painted by the media. Despite economic benefits acclaimed to have been received through various activities of the Commonwealth by member-states such as the Commonwealth Fund for Technical Cooperation (CFTC), which assists in alleviating poverty in all developing countries in Africa, it remains ironical that the economic index of African States as obtained in the latest Global competitiveness index, an insight report of the World Economic Forum proves otherwise. In the report, African countries comprised 17 of the bottom 20 nations, a sharp contrast to the rising narrative of Africa that we have been made to believe. The report also revealed that while the global median score is 60, the median score in sub-Saharan Africa is (45.2), which is the lowest for all the regions analysed. Furthermore, the advancement of democracy, human rights and promotion of sustainable economic growth and social development, which are seen as pivotal to the activities of the Commonwealth, are veiled and subtle ways of advancing the self-interest of the United Kingdom through propaganda that seek to throw weight behind candidates who are perceived as stooges.
How Africa’s Relationship with the Commonwealth Went Wrong
Despite the perceived benefits gained by Africa from its relationship with the Commonwealth, several challenges seem to have rocked this relationship, which has raised a lot of concern about Africa’s continued partnership. While the motivation of foreign interest in the affairs of their former colonies varies, there is no gainsaying that these influences range from a desire for a cheap supply of raw materials to the balance of international powers. In an ideal arrangement, the Commonwealth should promote activities that benefit her member-states, but her actions have been contrary. A report by Transparency International revealed that “Corrupt individuals often favour British Overseas Territories and Crown Dependencies due to their secretive legal systems created to mask identities behind opaque ‘anonymous’ companies. The UK’s connections with secrecy havens like the British Virgin Islands (BVI) and the Cayman Islands are one reason Britain is alluring for corrupt individuals. Our research shows that 75% of UK properties under investigation for corruption are registered with offshore companies. We have found that 91% of properties in London owned by overseas companies are controlled by anonymous corporate structures based in offshore havens. We have identified properties worth over £4.2 billion in London owned by individuals who are a corruption risk. Ninety per cent of the companies that bought these properties were incorporated in the BVI.” Interestingly, many African leaders and looters have taken advantage of the UK’s ‘refusal’ to release information about who controls anonymous companies based in offshore havens from the public in a bid to shield corrupt individuals from their crimes. The Panama Papers also confirmed the suspecting role of the UK in facilitating global money laundering and corrupt practices as Will Fitzgibbon, a journalist who was involved in the ICIJ’s work on the leaked documents, described the extent of the involvement of African presidents, politicians and their families in the Panama Papers as “jaw-dropping”.
Also, in a quest to further achieve their aims, many officers of the African states were used by the former colonialists to disrupt the political space of their home countries. It is unfair and harsh to state categorically that all coups in Africa are a result of foreign influence. Still, it is also fundamental to note that there is every possibility of foreign interest in these coups with different forms of involvement. Staffan Wiking, a notable scholar, once stated that the levels of international influence had been discussed along three lines of interpretation, which see coups as purely internal affairs without any foreign influence; as internal affairs, but it is assumed that the officers might have been influenced, for instance, by foreign education and traditions; and that foreign interests desire political change and that they, therefore, encourage and influence the armed forces. He also mentioned that the international situation may be reflected in a country in such a way as to promote a political climate that is favourable to coups. Kwame Nkrumah states his views on the relationship between the imperialistic ambitions of the metropoles and coups d’etat when he said: “The imperialistic aggression materialises not only in coups d’etat, but also in the assassination of revolutionary leaders, and in the setting-up of new intelligence organisations”, he wrote in his book, “Class Struggle in Africa”. “Behind every coup or attempted coup is a similar situation. We have, on the one hand, the neocolonialist powers … and on the other, the awakening African masses …”
Sandhurst and Coups in Africa: What’s The Connection?
In Africa, it is not out of place to assert that officers’ place of training influenced the significant proponents of the coups. This was readily seen when the armed forces in several former British colonies seized power in their different countries. Evidence from different African coups lends credence to this proposition that a connection exists. Nigeria suffered a massive setback in governance in what was regarded as the bloodiest military coup any black African nation has yet suffered, which was led by a notable graduate of the Royal Military Academy, Sandhurst, United Kingdom, Major Chukwuma Nzeogwu, who was at the forefront of the coup that led to the death of the Premiers of Northern and Western regions, the Prime Minister of the nation and other top military officers that were brutally murdered. Recently, in The Gambia, a Sandhurst-trained officer, Colonel Lamin Sanneh, was a notable figure in the coup attempt on Yahya Jammeh, a long-time serving President. Other Sandhurst graduates who had participated in one coup or the other (in varying degrees) in their countries include Major General Yakubu Gowon (Nigeria), Akwasi Africa (Ghana), Brigadier David Lansana (Sierra Leone), Brigadier John Bangura (Sierra Leone), General Illiya Bisalla (Nigeria), Major General Neville Odarte-Wellington and others. It is probably correct to claim that there are traces of foreign influences in the coup d’etats in Africa and that Sandhurst might have played a considerable role.
Britain’s Interest in Uganda: A Case Study of Foreign Interference
It was also widely reported that when Idi Amin seized power in Uganda in 1971, Great Britain’s interest in the takeover was apparent. Ulf Rundin mentioned that, for instance, “that the British … hastened to recognise the Amin regime … “, which indicates a British interest in a change in the policy of the former president, Obote. Rudin says, however, that other factors were essential in triggering the coup. In another discussion of Idi Amin’s coup, Helge Hveem also considered Britain’s interest in replacing Obote with a ruler more favourably inclined to British policy. Hveem points to the conflicts of interest between the British and Obote, which reached a climax at the Commonwealth Conference in Singapore just before Amin’s takeover. He pointed out that British pilots were responsible for the plane, which was to take Obote back to Uganda and which, for some reason, was delayed for two days, enabling Amin to capture power in the absence of the country’s true ruler. This is a further testament to the existence of foreign interest.
Africa as a Proxy Colony…
Most things have stayed the same recently, as the former imperialists still see Africa as a proxy colony. Several controversial statements have been made by current British Prime Minister Boris Johnson in the past and even more recently, which allude to neo-colonialist tendencies. After a visit to Uganda, he tweeted that “the problem with colonialism was not Britain ruling African countries but the fact it was no longer in charge.” And he once also mentioned that “the Commonwealth is to be thanked for providing rows and rows of ‘flag-waving piccaninnies’ for Queen Elizabeth.” How he intended to alleviate African leaders who derided their countries remains unsolved. How will anyone take a man who claims “the best fate for Africa would be if the old colonial powers, or their citizens, scrambled once again in her direction; on the understanding that this time they will not be asked to feel guilty” seriously?
Africa can no longer play the victim card. It’s high time we stepped out of the shadows of veiled colonialists and challenged the status quo that has made the continent an object of ridicule. We don’t have to be ‘milked dry’ before taking our rightful place in the governance scheme. It’s time for Africa’s exit!