History/Future of Africa as Free Market
Since continental Africa has been considered a a "free market" for Europe since the late 19th century, considering the Berlin Conference of 1885 in which Western Nations agreed to carve up Africa like a thanksgiving turkey. The rule for freedom and fairness were drawn only as it related to the international rivalry between France, Great Britain and Belgium et. al. The political product of the conference was the General Act of February 1885, international legislation pioneering in global imperial policy with a major intention of keeping European powers from clashing amongst themselves as the overran the continent with military, political, and economic dominance.
Of particular historical relevance to Belgium's venture into the resource-rich region of the Congo Basin, is article 3 and 4 of the act. "III. Goods of whatever origin, imported into these regions, under whatsoever flag, by sea or river, or overland, shall be subject to no other taxes than such as may be levied as fair compensation for expenditure in the interests of trade . . . IV. Merchandise imported into these regions shall remain free from import and transit duties..." In addition, a the exercise of monopoly was prohibited.
The parallel between the problem is apparent today as it was over one hundred years ago. Advocates of the continent and its people must differentiate between "opportunity for Africa" versus "opportunity in Africa." The advocates of the former almost certainly use the rhetoric of freedom, democracy and development but to what end? The free market system has traditionally (and in the case of the African continent--historically) benefited industrialized nations at the expense of developing nations. Precisely what makes free markets "free" for developed nations is that the costs associated with equitable practices are nill, virtually "underdeveloping" in the words of Walter Rodney, new economies that are unable to compete in a global scale.
Free market economics has a tremendous ability to democratize economic relations between two players who are relative similar in portfolio, but when the principle of laissez-faire has been broadly applied and expanded into regions of Africa, Asia and Latin America that have historically been pimped by the interest of the imperial state and large business, a normalization/regulation of relations is necessary.
Relatively speaking, supporters of the legislation will argue that Africa will be better off today than it was 5 years ago. Relatively is conceded. Africa is also still relatively free after 50 years of independence movements and neo-colonial administration; Africa does not need relative freedom but rather total independence and 80-90% self sufficiency. Africa does not need the relative freedom that is brought through the free market economic agenda of industrialized nations, what the soul of the Pangea needs is no dependency on Western markets especially when entrance to this markets are structured according the advantage of the West and the dependency of the sub-Saharan hosts.
Africa and the world are interdependent. Economic and political relations should acknowledge this fact. Rather than allowing the West to determine the dependency of the underdeveloped world, Africa and other underdeveloped nations must work with mulitinational corporations to increase their political bargaining capabilities in the global economic policy.
Major Criticisms of AGOA
Some non-governmental organizations have highlighted several major criticisms of the African Growth and Opporunity Act as follows:
- AGOA exhibits preference for multinational corporations at the expense of developing African states.
- AGOA forces African nations willing to enter into NAFTA-like agreement to adhere to IMF structural adjustment policies.
- AGOA has minimal labor and environmental protections.
Cultural Issues Regarding AGOA
In addition to the previous economic concerns there are also several important criticisms of the Act with regard to cultural issues.
- AGOA evidences a transfer of racialized policy objectives in the America to Africa; underlying philsopohy of "what works for us is best for them."
- AGOA presupposes a paternalistic relationship between the United States and Africa. Africa is not a nation but rather a continent with a serious of autonomous states, each of which have the sovereign right to determine their own policy and government with out the economic-engineering of hte United States.
- AGOA brokers relationships between individuals African nations at the expense of others; it creates 'house nigger' complex in which nations who are aligned with the U.S. reap economic benefits at the expense and exclusion of others.
Policy Recommendations and Strategy for NGOs
- Human Rights, Opportunity, Partnership, and Empowerment for Africa (HOPE Bill) addresses many of the previous concern by engaging African nations as autonomous, productive and vital members of the global community. This approach is designed to deal with Africa in a similar manner that Europe is dealt with, one nation at a time recognizing the strength and needs of each country.
- This bill focuses on human rights as an equally integral a component in nation development as economic concerns. Instead of exclusively promoting "free trade" principles, uses a mixture of mild regulation and market forces to stimulate economic growth.
