Pan Africanism : The United States of Africa with Libya's Khadafy as president

Discussion in 'Black History - Culture - Panafricanism' started by panafrica, Dec 23, 2003.

  1. panafrica

    panafrica Well-Known Member MEMBER

    Joined:
    Aug 24, 2002
    Messages:
    10,227
    Likes Received:
    191
    Location:
    The Diaspora
    Ratings:
    +194
    One of the biggest aspirations of the PanAfrican movement is to form a United States of Africa. Similar to the recently formed European Union, a United States of Africa would link the economies, industries, militaries, and various resources of several African nations into one powerful entity. Ideally this Nation would function like the US with One President and a cabinet, with each individual country acting as member states. This idea grew out of the failure of OAU (Organization of African Unity) in the 1960s. However it gained more attention in the late 1990s when Libya's President Moammar Khadafy suggested the concept to Nigeria & South Africa (after his failed attempt to form an Arab League).

    A chief concern for the proposed United States of Africa (and the main reason the idea has not yet come to fruition) is how to merge the incredibly diverse peoples and culture of Africa. Besides tribalism and border issues, a major bar to the success of such a venture would be language issues. One of the biggest factors which led to the "cultural" success of the United States was the common language factor. Khadafy realizing this, would solve this problem by having the official language of the proposed African Union be Arabic. However this would be difficult as most countries in Africa speak either English or French. It also brings up another issue, that of leadership.

    I believe that the idea of a United States of Africa is a great one. One neccessary for the prosperity of Africans throughout the Diaspora (making an effort to create a Black Super Powever, instead of making Western European countries great). However as with many issues involving Africa and black people in general, the leadership must be questioned. Khadafy loyalty appears to lie more with his Arabs ancestors and Libya rather than Africa. That he proposed (actually championed) the United States of Africa after his efforts to form an Arab League failed can't be overlooked. Also his insistence on making the offical language of this proposed union Arabics is a nod to the Middle East. Not to mention that he would like the United States of Africa to work closely with the Middle East.

    Africa is a continent that is rich in natural resources, which includes Oil (Nigeria, Congo, and Equatorial Guinea). Since oil is the biggest resource of the Arab nations, it is not economically advantageous for Africa to form a connection. Furthermore, the terrorist links of the Middle East would leave the proposed United States of Africa open to attack before it had a chance to develop. Khadafy himself was considered to be the world's biggest terrorist in the 1980's, and he recently admitted that he was attempting to build a nuclear bomb (although he has publicly stopped building Weapons of Mass Destruction). All this would make an African/Arab partnership dangerous for Africa.

    My question to my fellow PanAfricanist is whether or not you think a United States of Africa is neccessary? If so, do you think it is possible? What language should be chosen? What type of Economic System should be established? Lastly who do you think could lead it? Lets Discuss!
     
  2. NNQueen

    NNQueen going above and beyond PREMIUM MEMBER

    Country:
    United States
    Joined:
    Feb 9, 2001
    Messages:
    6,379
    Likes Received:
    1,434
    Gender:
    Female
    Ratings:
    +1,869
    Excellent topic

    Although it's one that I must study before I can dive into it, it stimulates some interesting ways to think about a possible future for Africa and Black people. This is an interesting concept and one, that on the surface, appears to be beneficial to Africa. Natural resources and wealth potential aside, given such diversity in culture and political issues that create divisiveness among the African nations, what would be the major advantages and disadvantages to such a notion?

    Can all African nations function independently of the parasites that are constantly present and sucking their resources dry? How does a country detach itself from those infested bloodsucking parasites and remain able to sustain itself under a United leadership? Are we resourceful enough to squash those and fight against the stronghold of the oppressors? Can we take notes from the United Europeans to strategize how this might be possible and beneficial for Africa? Different languages are spoken among Europeans except when it comes to their economy and system of government. Money and politics. Free enterprise and democracy and religions that give the people permission to gain wealth and prosper at any cost.

    What's the greatest benefit and whose to gain under a United States of Africa?

    Looking forward to the dialogue.
     
  3. Emeka

    Emeka Banned MEMBER

    Joined:
    Nov 6, 2003
    Messages:
    369
    Likes Received:
    5
    Ratings:
    +5

    You know this is not the first time Arabs have tried to use Black Africans to further their own agender. During the Roman occupation of North Africa and Arabia, Arabs influenced Blacks to side with them in fighting the oppressive menace of Rome. Many Blacks provided the Arabs with armies used to challenge Rome's strangle hold on both groups. However, as Rome began to decline (along with the advent of the rise of Islam) the Arabs turned on the Africans and began to enslave them.

    Now doesn't this scenario seem strangely familiar with what's happening today? Both the Arabs and Black Africans are both being oppressed by Western-European society and the Arabs wish for Africans to help them get rid of the mutual oppressor. History has already shown that Arabs only wish to use Africans to get to the top so that they can turn around and enslave Blacks once again (despite the fact that Arabs are still responsible for enslaving Black Africans today).
     
  4. panafrica

    panafrica Well-Known Member MEMBER

    Joined:
    Aug 24, 2002
    Messages:
    10,227
    Likes Received:
    191
    Location:
    The Diaspora
    Ratings:
    +194
    Agreed Chukwuemeka! Arabs are the original enslavers of Africa. The Arabic controlled Trans-Saharan slave trade pre-dated the Trans-Atlantic by some 1000 years. Although less well known (at least to non-historians), this slave trade was no less brutual. Arabs made Eunichs out of male Africans, used female Africans as sex slaves, and surplanted native African religion & culture with their own (regardless of what my brothers in the NOI say, Islams is no more our native religion than Christianity is). According with numerous reports Arabs are even continuing to enslave Africans in the Sudan till this day, and they are causing much turmoil with Jihads. An African/Arabic marriage would be a treacherous one to say the lest.

    Sadly I believe that the sole reason that Africans are considering (defering) a merger with Arabs is because there are currently no African leaders with political and economic influence on a global scale: South Africa's Mbeki is weak (caters to white folk too much), Senegal's Wade is a puppet of the French, Equatorial Guinea's Nguema is a dictator that would make Saddam jealous, Nigeria's Obasanjo can't control the turmoil in his own country, etc. Merging with Arabic nations (including Africa's North: Morroco, Egypt, Libya, Tunsia, Algeria) would give a proposed United States of Africa more global respect, but again I think the risk outweighs the benefits.

    If this idea is to work......the participating states would have to be very carefully selected. In in many cases, current administrations would have to be removed. One of Africa's biggest administrative problems is that it suffers from old leadership. Many of Africa's leaders were raised during colonization, and they have ruled for 30 years or more (Zimbabwe's Mugabe is an example of this). New blood needs to be brought in.........literally. Africa is badly in need of new ideas, and new leadership! With the right people behind it I believe a United States of Africa could become reality.
     
  5. Emeka

    Emeka Banned MEMBER

    Joined:
    Nov 6, 2003
    Messages:
    369
    Likes Received:
    5
    Ratings:
    +5
    The problem with bringing "new blood" into African leadership is that the new leadership often turns out to be just as bad or worse than their predecessors. The corruption, brutality and lack of human rights still prevails despite who ever has power. Take Liberia as an example; the recently deposed dictator Charles Taylor was just as depraved and homicidle if not worse than his predecessor Samuel K. Doe. The same is true for the overwhelming majority of African countries. This leads me to ask the question: What is wrong with Black people world wide?

    Why is it that everywhere you go (and I do mean EVERYWHERE) Black people face mass poverty and ineffectual leadership? Is there some thing wrong with us a race, or are we just cursed. Africa and her descendants (excluding the Arabs who pass themselve off as 'Africans') are the only people who have never had a world empire, and the only people who have been slaves to every other people. I once heard some Black people say that the Black race was indeed cursed by Noah through his son Ham and grandson Canaan because of some transgression committed by Ham. I'm vaguely familiar with this story, but it does lead me to ask many questions. Firstly, what type of a man is Noah who would punish his own countless descendants for the transgression of his son/grandson. Second, why would a God that 'loves everyone' permit an entire people to be cursed for some ancient transgression of one individual. And thirdly, how can the curse be broken.

    Pehaps I'm being crazy or unduly defeatist, but when I see how dire our position is on the Earth I have to think of any possibility that may explain this phenomenon. What I'm talking about has been going on for about ar least a thousand years. Basically what I'm saying is: are we doomed to be the underdogs of the worlds peoples? Is that "our place" or is a thousand years of history wrong.
     
  6. panafrica

    panafrica Well-Known Member MEMBER

    Joined:
    Aug 24, 2002
    Messages:
    10,227
    Likes Received:
    191
    Location:
    The Diaspora
    Ratings:
    +194
    The origins of PanAfricanism were rooted in the realization that black people worldwide were being enslaved or otherwise oppressed. Although looking at the overall worldwide black situation is enough to cause one to dispare, I see no need to do so. One thing I can say is the black people have always been the victims of some horrible leadership...........ones whos shortsighted decisions have hurt the continent decades...centuries...into the future. African participation in slavery (I know not all African leaders participated in the slave trade): From the Trans-Saharan slave trade, which introduced the world to African slavery. To the Trans-Atlantic slave trade which decimated Africa's population, and underdeveloped its economic, military, political, structures, damaged Africa in ways in which the motherland has never recovered. A closer look at the Trans-Atlantic slave trade shows exactly why Africa is currently struggling: For one an estimated 30 million Africans (according to black historians, white historians, particularly Phillip Curtin argues only 1 million were taken) were taken during the roughly 400 years (1500-1900) that this trade lasted. The individuals who were stolen from African were generally 13-35. These are the young people who society is usually built by. During these 400 years Africa was so focused on the slave trade (either participating in it, or trying to stop it) that they neglected to catch up with the rapid military, scientific, and economic changes of the world. Which hurt Africa when Europe decided to colonize it during the Berlin Conference of 1884-1885.

    All this being said, the true question is how can we change things? I for one believe that the social/economic state of black people worldwide will not improve until social/economic/political state of Africa improves. Every people has a native country, and the respect that people get worldwide is tied to the respect/power of the homeland. A British person can travel anywhere in the world, because England has the respect of the world. The same can be said of a Greek, a French person, even a Japanese. However, when you look at Africa and how it is perceived throughout the world, the treatment of black people is obvious. But again I digress. I'll say this though, Europe & America plays a strong role in the poor leadership that Africa suffers from. There is no "new" leader in Africa that does not have the approval/backing of their former colonial masters. Similarly no leader in Africa is "replaced" unless they stop securing the interest of their former colonial masters. The summary of this is that African leaders are not working for the betterment of their people/nations, they are working for their former colonial masters.

    What we have in Africa is neo-colonization. In truth Africa was never freed, a nation can not have independence if it does not have control of its economy or its resources. Political independence without economic independence is an illusion! That Africa's leaders are controlled by the colonial masters is evident with Zaire's first president, Lumumba. For all intents and purposes he was a strong leader, without corruption, that wanted to built a strong nation. The result of this was that Belgium had him murdered after only 6 months in office, and handpicked a replacement who was loyal to Belgium. His replacement was Mobutu, one of Africa's most infamous butchers who placed the country in turmoil for almost 30 years.

    The pattern of black people not working for the betterment of their communities is repeated worldwide. What have Condolesa Rice or Colin Powell done for the black community? How many blacks do our CEOs (like Richard Parsons) hire? We have black doctors, lawyers, engineers (which includes my own brother) who all use their brilliant minds/skill to enrich white corporations. Black people worldwide depend on whites to feed us, cloth us, provide us with shelter, educate us, etc! As long as this continues our situation worldwide will never change.

    P.S. The Noah curse theory is nonsense. A white supremacy theory along the lines of "White Man's Burden". It deserves no attention, other than to note it as the garbage it is.
     
  7. Emeka

    Emeka Banned MEMBER

    Joined:
    Nov 6, 2003
    Messages:
    369
    Likes Received:
    5
    Ratings:
    +5

    Panafrica, if it is the case that Africa was never free and that the western nations control who Africa's leaders are, then how can we seriously hope to see any change on the continent. As you've already stated; most of Africa's "leaders" are really HNICs and not leaders at all, but really traitors. This was exactly the case when the Europeans first set foot on the African coast. Many of the national (not tribal) leaders of Africa simply obeyed what they told by the Europeans who promised and gave them worthless trinkets in place of human beings. Those African leaders who did refuse to play along with the Europeans who ether deposed, assassinated or watched their own people be enslaved by other groups who were in league with the Europeans. It is a common myth that African leaders simply wanted to sell their own people. Whilst there were plenty of those who were callous enough to do so willingly, most were coerced into compliance with the white man. Basically the Europeans told them "you ether bring us slaves or you and your people will be enslaved".
     
  8. NNQueen

    NNQueen going above and beyond PREMIUM MEMBER

    Country:
    United States
    Joined:
    Feb 9, 2001
    Messages:
    6,379
    Likes Received:
    1,434
    Gender:
    Female
    Ratings:
    +1,869
    Has any country ever gained political/economic/social independence without violence? I'm no historian and don't know the facts, but if Africa was ever to truly become "free" and independent, seems to me nothing short of a revolution is required and I've never heard of one that didn't occur without some form of struggle and violence paving the way.

    With the "right" people in place, Africa can thrive, and with over 50 countries, none should be neglected. The same way Europe and America help each other, I think that Africa can benefit from the same collaborative effort and comraderie. They exchange resources, they support each other in wars, they've established a set of rules to abide by (although they are not always followed nor enforced).

    It seems that if anything resembling a United States of Africa were to be possible, the place to start is in the minds of Black people. Are there enough Black people worldwide who care about Africa and its current state and future, and if so, are they in agreement or at least organized?

    I'm not promoting this but I think it's important to mention. Another feature that seems to earn countries "respect" is having access to what's called a, "weapon of mass destruction." Countries like Korea seem to have earned the respect of America since they acknowledged they own missiles and have no qualms about pointing them at America. I don't see Bush rushing into that country trying to bully its leaders like it did Iraq.

    Maybe I'm being an extreme pessimist but I don't see anything short of a major war taking place to "free" Africa and putting it together the "right" way.
     
  9. panafrica

    panafrica Well-Known Member MEMBER

    Joined:
    Aug 24, 2002
    Messages:
    10,227
    Likes Received:
    191
    Location:
    The Diaspora
    Ratings:
    +194
    Good question NN! Technically you could say that Liberia, Sierra Leone, and Ethiopia all had independence without violence. If only because these countries never "officially" were colonized. But in reality Liberia has always been a colony of the USA, Sierra Leone a colony of England, and Ethiopia a colony of Italy. So in reality the answer to your question is NO. I can't think of any significant country, particularly a world power that gained true independence (political/social/economic), without violence. And that includes the United States of America which fought a couple of wars against its former colonizer........Britain. The closest example of a non-violent independence movement that I can think of is India. But I don't think Africa can effectively follow that example.

    A major war might indeed be what Africa needs to rebuild itself in the right way. I would support this idea. As long as it is fought against the right people.
    :wink: However one think that is extremely important is that the major resources and infastructure remains intact, so that Africa would not become another Haiti (who destroyed their resources in their independence struggle, and as a result had nothing to rebuild with). It is also very important to have the right people into place. Having the right people also addresses Chukwuemeka's concerns. I think that just maybe the people to lead Africa into a new age are in the Diaspora......this is where PanAfricanism comes into play.
     
  10. Emeka

    Emeka Banned MEMBER

    Joined:
    Nov 6, 2003
    Messages:
    369
    Likes Received:
    5
    Ratings:
    +5
    Panafrica, I don't know if you've noticed but the countries of Africa are a little bit weak militarily, economicaly and politicaly. Therefore, if any African country or even the whole country were to fight the west the would recieve a serious drubbing! The countries of Africa most somehow learn to play "The Great Game" of world imperialism if they are to succeed. Europe has been playing this game since William, Duke of Normandy--popularly known as "The Conqueror"-- decided to set sail from Normandy in September of 1066 inorder to invade the Island of Britain and claim the English throne.
     
Loading...