STEMBILE MPOFU
A few years ago I had the opportunity to visit Robben Island Prison. As you will know this is where Nelson Mandela served the greater part of his sentence as a political prisoner under the apartheid regime. While there, I learnt many things about the daily lives of the prisoners, how they were assigned to certain blocks, who they could interact with and how this interaction took place. What stood out for me however, was the allocation of the food rations. The information was listed on a small piece of paper stuck on one of the walls. Typewritten at the top in bold capital letters was the heading “Differences between B and C Diets”. Below were two columns, one for B prisoners who were classified as Coloureds/Asiatics (Mixed race and Indian people) and the second column for C prisoners classified as Bantu (Black people).
An educated guess would be that White prisoners, if they were to be confined at Robben Island, would be classified under A.
Below each of the columns were the daily rations of the B and C groups detailing the amount of food each racial group was entitled to. Some of the items listed included sugar, fat, meat and bread. For each item the C prisoners received a portion that was slightly less than that of the B prisoners.
For example the B group were apportioned 1 ounce of fat per day while the Cs were apportioned ½ an ounce of fat, Bs received 2 ounces of sugar per day and Cs 1½ ounces, Bs received 6 ounces of meat while the Cs received 5 ounces. Bread, jam and syrup were not on the menu for the C group but given to the Bs.
The difference in amounts was negligible if one considers that an ounce of meat is not larger than a matchbox.
It was this small piece of paper with its neatly typed script and corners slightly upturned that provided me with an insight into the psychological warfare that was waged on the people of South Africa through the system of apartheid and the peoples of the world, through the system of colonisation.
The prison system was set up in such a way that every aspect of the prisoner’s life was a mirror of his place and worth in the social hierarchy. Each prisoner was provided with food but one group had slightly more or less than the other based solely on his racial classification. Every aspect of the system was constantly communicating to each prisoner who they were, telling them how they should see themselves compared to others, what they had the capacity to do and what they were unable to do. There was no need for verbal announcements to tell the prisoners who was better or less than the other because the system was designed to constantly communicate that message at a conscious and subconscious level.
For me the classifications as reflected on this small list of prisoners’ rations were a reflection of our current geopolitical system.
It reflected how the different people of the world see themselves and others as a result of what this global system communicates. It reflects the thinking on which current global socio-cultural, legal, financial and political systems are founded, it reflects how they have developed over time and are practiced today.
The Chinese presence in Africa provides us with the opportunity to unpack the implications of this system on Africa. Currently, Africa is seized with what has been framed by the mainstream media as the Chinese colonisation of Africa. Zambia has unfortunately been targeted as the poster child of what happens when an African country falls into the Chinese debt trap.
Despite providing facts to the contrary the Zambian government has been unable to counter the narrative that it is in a debt crisis.
The people of Zambia do not believe their leaders because the high levels of corruption taking place show a leadership that is willing to impoverish the poorest to enrich itself.
“Zambia’s looming debt crisis is a warning for the rest of Africa – Reckless in Lusaka”, cries a headline in The Economist. The story the publication tells is typical of stories written about African economies. Zambia’s crisis is as a result of poor economic management by what the Economist describes as an “inept and venal elite” that is lining their pockets through infrastructure deals. China, a new character in the drama, cares little for good governance and does not bother demanding prudent economic reforms before giving out loans.
This is unlike the heroes of the story, the IMF, World Bank and Paris Club, western government creditors who provide loans only after demanding prudent economic reforms as a condition for their help.
The economist laments the waning influence of the western institutions, predicting Africa’s spectacular ruin as it falls prey to Chinese colonisation. From this narrative we can easily classify citizen A, B and C. Given the facts of the case many will attest to this being a true classification of the groups involved. This is so because we have been primed by the media, our education system, economic forecasts and the reports of international institutions like the UN to expect this information sequence. Citizen C is “inept and venal”, citizen B has no moral compass and will take advantage of any situation, while Citizen A is benevolent and has the good of citizen C at heart, if only Citizen C would allow him to help.
There is however a crucial part of the story that has not been told that provides a broader view and new perspective to Zambia’s current predicament. In 1999 Zambia announced the sale of its copper mines. The IMF and World Bank had put considerable pressure on the Zambian Government to sell to private foreign companies. The circumstances surrounding the sale of the mines were detailed in a 2007 report published by Action for Southern Africa, Christian Aid and Scotland’s Aid Agency entitled, “Undermining development, Copper mining in Zambia”.
In an interview with the report’s author, Zambia’s former Finance Minister Edith Nawakwi said, “We were told by advisors who included the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank, that not in my life time would the price of copper change. They put production models on the table and told us that there was no copper in the Nchanga mine, Mufulira was supposed to have five years life left and all the production models that could be employed were showing that for the next 20 years, Zambian Copper would not make a profit.” Nawakwi added, “Conversely if we privatised we would be able to access debt relief, and this was a huge carrot in front of us – like waving medicine in front of a dying woman we had no option.”
She revealed that “Privatisation of Zambia Consolidated Copper Mine (ZCCM) was a condition repeatedly attached to several loans from both these institutions (IMF and World Bank) and was a precondition for Zambia to qualify for debt relief through the Highly Indebted Poor Countries Initiative (HIPC). In 1999 with the government still reluctant to privatise ZCCM, major donors withheld some $530 million in aid until the government conceded.”
The mafia-type tactics used by the Bretton Woods Institutions to get their way were noted in the 2007 report.
It concluded that Zambia was unable to bargain to their best advantage because of the considerable pressure created by the IMF and World Bank, forcing them to negotiate a deal that did not reflect the value of their asset. Within two years of the sale, contrary to the information provided by the IMF and World Bank, copper prices revived. The IMF and World Bank models were spectacularly wrong.
Some may argue that privatisation was not bad in itself. It was the underpinning philosophy of the Structural Adjustment Programme imposed by the IMF and World Bank on developing nations in the 1980’s- 90’s.
This programme forced many African countries to sell off their assets after their debts to the IMF and World Bank ballooned following a spike in interest rates. Many multinational companies came in to buy up African assets. In Zambia’s case the copper mines were purchased by commodity giants Glencore, a Swiss based company, British Indian Company Vedanta and Canadian companies First Quantum and African Barrick Gold.
After purchasing these assets, Glencore and Vedanta have avoided paying the correct amount of tax due to the Zambian government. In 2012 Zambia’s Deputy Finance Minister Miles Sampa, announced that the country was losing over 2 billion dollars in annual revenue from multinationals who had not paid taxes due to the Zambian Government.
By inflating costs to reduce taxable income, transfer pricing and under reporting of production, companies under declared profits and dodged paying taxes. In 2014 after a public outcry, the Zambian government, attempted to reform their tax system and put in place laws to compel these companies to pay the correct tax.
In retaliation the companies threatened to cut thousands of jobs and withdraw billions of dollars worth of investment.
The IMF was again batting for the multinationals and stated they did not like the new tax measures either. They claimed the slump in global commodity prices was likely to adversely affect investors.
So, as it was on Robben Island and as the system dictates, Citizen C receives a daily ration that is less than that of the other citizens. And in this place of lack in the midst of abundance, the C Citizens who have access to what is left steal from each other and further impoverish themselves. All of them caught up in the debt trap that is the system.
The Zambian story should not lead to Africans blaming the system for their lot.
This is because it is as it is. The story’s purpose is to reveal and analyse the system’s shape and form. It is important to introspect and then devise actions to change how African people and countries interact with it to eradicate the C Citizen classification.
Apart from dealing with the elephant in the room – corruption at governmental level, there is a great deal more that needs to be done to build confidence in Africans? The Citizen C mindset leads a nation to believe that it is acceptable to be dictated to by A and B Citizens and accepts everything that is offered without question. This is true of government-to-government contracts and contracts signed by NGOs when receiving funding.
The Citizen C mindset will see African stock market traders and accountants facilitate transactions that allow multinationals to dodge tax and see media practitioners profit from selling stories that paint a negative picture of their countries.
What is clear from the Zambian example is that there is need to develop a set of skills that sees Africa in a position where it relies on information that it generates on its own, from geological information to population and health statistics. Information provided by those pursuing their own interest is likely to have biases that do not benefit Africa.
The challenge lies with Africans to see how they can change their lot. When we look at the Zambian example it is very clear that there is no “new” colonisation of Africa by the Chinese or a debt trap being created. The fact is that the colonisation of Africa using debt traps has been in place for many decades.
The only difference is that the Chinese are moving into the space that has been occupied by western players.
On one hand as C Citizens we remain desperate for our governments to bring in investors because we have been told and believe that we have little capacity to create our own wealth.
While on the other hand we complain that the Chinese are taking over Africa and putting up Chinese road signs everywhere. We must realise that they are merely replacing the English, Portuguese or French signs installed by those who came before them.
We must urgently realise that if Africans fail to change their mindset and with it the system, within the next one hundred years we shall be assessing each other’s level of education based on how well we speak Mandarin and our ability to eat using chopsticks.
