Rest in Peace (R.I.P.)
Chapter 2: Broad Historical Overview of IR (Theory)
2.3 Origins of IR
2.3.3 Post Westphalia: Berlin Conference (1884-1885) and the Versailles Treaty (1919)
After the Treaty of Westphalia (1648), other such conferences followed. Two notable examples, where Afrika is specifically involved, includes the Berlin Conference (1884-1885) and Treaty of Versailles (1919). In reference to these two historical conventions, the following is noted
“Premier Jules Ferry of France and Chancellor Otto von Bismarck 150 of Germany… arranged an international conference on Afrika, in Berlin in November 15, 1884- February 26, 1885 (McKay et al, 1996:896)”. For the author of this study, this conference serves as an excellent example, of gatherings or conventions wherein Afrika, had no representatives and yet decisions, concerning Afrika and Afrikans were discussed, adopted and implemented.
For the author of this study, the height of imperialistic orientated and wholly Eurocentric driven modus-operandi was and still remains, exhibited in such international conventions/forums.
Mention at this point perhaps should be expressed, that the grave consequence of such conference (s), would spell the gruesome realization, of colonialist and imperialist forces, into Afrika. Not a thought, was spared for consultation, with any of the leaders, from the so called newly discovered region, to them as Westerners or foreigners to Afrika (author’s emphasis).
The Treaty of Versailles (1919) unlike the Berlin Conference was primarily aimed at achieving peace amongst European nations, who were read as victors of WWII. Germany having been the core loser of this war. Hosted in Paris (France), discussions were led by the United States (led by the scholarly democrat, President Woodrow Wilson151), Great Britain (led by the strong-willed President Lloyd George) and France (under President Clemenceau- the Tiger). Germany, as main
95
loser of WWII, was not allowed to participate, in the drafting of the treaty, so Italy though it had limited say, completed the Big Four leading European states.In the meeting of June 28, 1919
“seventy delegates, representing twenty seven victorious nations, were in attendance” (Mckay et al, 1996:983), all harbouring their country’s expectations, from this dubious peace convention.
Woodrow Wilson at the Versailles conference, was equivalently comparable almost to the tee, to the magnanimous Otto Von Bismarck during the earlier Berlin Conference. With the principle of self –determination endorsed, to be “applied in Central Europe and the League was incorporated in the Treaty of Versailles” (Hiscock, 1987:48152). It was at this conference where the infamous Fourteen Points of Woodrow Wilson, received a wider audience, beyond America (where they were harshly criticized). It also did not assist Wilson’s cause (having been a Democrat), that his cabinet was filled, with a majority of Republicans. This led to a refusal by senate, to ratify what they read as ‘Wilsonian idealism’ (Hiscock, 1987: 48). For many others, it is from these Fourteen points (specifically point 14), which serve as the roots, that led to the formation of multinational or intergovernmental institutions, such as the United Nations. For the complete points read as follows:
1) Open convenants of peace were to be openly arrived at. This implied that all treaties should be negotiated, openly and not in secret. 2) There was to be freedom of the navigation of the seas in peace and war. 3) All economic barriers were to be removed and the equality of trading conditions, among all nations was to be established. 4) Adequate guarantees that nations would disarm, to the lowest point consistent with national security. 5) All colonial claims must be settled justly. The interests of the people in the colonies, must be given weight with the claims of the colonial powers.
6) The Germans must hand back, all the territory they had taken from the Russians in the Treaty of Brest Litvosk. 7) Belgium was to be evacuated and her national integrity was to be restored. 8) All French territory was to be fixed. Here, special reference was made to Alsace-Lorraine which the Germans had taken in 1871. 9) Italy’s frontiers were to be re-adjusted along clearly recognizable lines of nationality.10) The people of Austria-Hungary, were to be allowed to develop according to the ‘fullest opportunity of autonomous development’. 11) Rumania, Serbia and Montenegro were to be evacuated. 12) The Turkish portions of the Ottoman Empire were to be given their independence. The other nationalities were to be guaranteed ‘security of life and an absolutely unmolested opportunity of autonomous development’. 13) An independent Polish state should be created. And lastly 14) A general association of nations was to be formed. Its main function was to guarantee the independence of both the major powers and the smaller nations (Hiscock, 1987:47- 48).
96
Note the fourteenth point, because that was Wilson’s defining argument, in the lead up to the eventual formation of the United Nations. The significance of the Versailles Treaty of 1919 similar, to that of the Berlin Conference (1884) is that details, treated as minor, as those which sought, to realize Wilson’s 14 points which consisted of resolutions that would eventually see
“Germany’s colonies…given to France, Britain, and Japan as League of Nations mandates 153 (Mckay et al, 1996:984)”, manifested how insignificant continents such as Afrika, were to be perceived, in as far as actors in IR, were concerned. With the Afrikan states, which were taken by Germany under the leadership of Bismack, at the earlier Berlin Conference. Note how the Versailles Treaty merely transferred ownership, of Afrikan states, in what in retrospect may arguably, be referred to, as one of the landmark colonialist exercise(s), which were implemented without seeing any fault, in their narcissistic and imperialistically driven decisions.
It should be noted at this stage of the study, that as we rewind the cassette, of Afrikan history, reference to an Africa (n) (spelling deliberate here- as part of the authors emphasis) continent, becomes to the author of this study as problematic, as the vocabulary of states, countries and continent(s), in use today. These terms are continuously being employed, without any due problemmatisation, applied to them. The use of various forms of pedagogy, to achieve and sustain colonialist ambitions, has almost certainly been overlooked, by those Chinweizu, referred to as “black comprador colonialists…black comprador managers…what Nkrumah called neo- colonialism” (Chinweizu, 2009:9).
In continuation from the previous stanza, specified reference is directed to the respective individuals, who have been at the helm of their nations/countries, in various portfolios, ranging from government to business. Such a term as comprador, is directed towards them, since the phase where pronouncement of false declaration(s) of independence, of their respective countries, such individuals problematically assumed, similar roles as those of their colonisers. Interestingly almost all (if not entirely) these local leaders, emanated from the oppressed class, although the majority of them were Western educated or received a typical colonial education.
97
Based on the above common trait of individual leaders in question, Ibekwe Chinweizu (2009) correctly asserts, that based on their capitalist ambitions, their atrocious political decision- making, manifested that they were not “educated in what C.L.R James called ‘the political intricacies, that the modern world demanded” (Chinweizu, 2009:9). This is evident as these compradors, never addressed the core issues, of their fellow oppressed people. Beyond the lucrative exploits, made possible, by the venture of capitalism, in as far as the author of this study is concerned, beyond the outstanding economic war, in order to do justice in the effort of redress, then recognising that the core issue lay and still remains, within the domain of pedagogy is of paramount importance.
What has become the standard operational and contemporary terminology, in any discourse within Afrika, is as a result of no pedagogical revolution, having taken place, as recognized by the likes of Mphahlele, Gayatri Spivak, Frantz Fanon, Paul Freire, Edward Said, and Dani Wadada Nabudere. In an enormous way, this manifests the depth of victory, still enjoyed by the colonizer, over the colonized. The majority (if not all) academic fields on offer, within or about Afrika are exhibited, via the extensive use, of what may be referred to as international lingua franca. For the author of this study, such practice is nothing more than the promotion of the Greek’s influence in Mainstream philosophy.
Having registered, the distorted use of the concept of international, in as far as IR is concerned – the author of this study, is inclined to question, whatever may be meant, from users of such a term and when used, it is at whose expense? It is the author’s contention that such questions, should be posed whenever such an overly simplified concept, is employed. The non-Afrocentric choice of vocabulary, remains conspicuously absent, in the standard use, of what is presently read, as the global tongue, mostly found in the form, of the coloniser’s tongue. Such an anomaly remains unfinished business, which is yet to be addressed hopefully by contemporary and future Afrocentric scholars. Depending on one’s geographical space, the colonialist’s tongue, could range from Spanish, Portuguese, Arabic, French or English amongst others. Ironically to date, Afrika remains split, (with the exception of Spanish) along the above foreign languages.
98
With technology and other forms of sources, being continuously recovered, by researchers globally, scholars are made aware, that the dominant vocabulary used, such as that which makes reference to an Africa (author’s emphasis), did not exist (at least not in its current form), in which it is observed in the modern day. Furthermore there is seemingly not much evidence to date, which may suggest otherwise. Hardly any consensus, has been traced by the author of this study, regarding the use, of such a colonial term, specifically from amongst those folks, to which it refers. One of the leading contemporary Afrikan philosophers Valentin Mudimbe 154 states as follows, in the preface of his text titled The Idea of Afrika (1994), which is a sequel to The Invention of Afrika (1988), and is highly recommended to be read as follows:
Let us note that the very name, of the continent is itself, a major problem. The Greeks named it Libya and used to call, any black person Aithiops.The confusion begins with the Romans. They had a province, in their empire known as Africa and their intellectuals used the same word, for the
“teria orbis terrarium pars” (e.g., Sallustrus, Iug. 17, 3), that is, the continent as we know it, being the third, after Europe and Asia. With the European “discovery” of the continent in the fifteenth century, the confusion becomes complete” (Mudimbe, 1994: xi).
From the various general (less authoritative) theories155 available, not much confidence is achieved, away from reference such as teria orbis terrarium pars pertaining to Africa. What seems to be clear from almost all hypothesis or etymological theories, about the origins of the concept of Africa, reveals no sign of locals (problematically referred to as Africans) being part of the contributors to such a momentous, identity forming process. So Romans and Greeks via their language (s), such as that of Latin, are the masterminds behind our unproblematised and currently absurdly, romanticized African reference. Effort to address such myth(s), as initially undertaken by Pan-Afrikanists need to be encouraged.
With regards to the contributing factors, which eventually promote misleading social constructs, the author of this study, with the exception of Ali Mazrui, is tempted to ask fellow IR scholars, where are the Afrocentric echoes of Mphahlele, Cabral, Asante, Biko, Mutwa, Prah, Chinweizu, Fanon, Freire, Ramose, Nabudere and the rest of their ilk, as located from their respective insightful projects? From amongst other reasons, particularly wherein Afrikan contribution to IR (and broader pedagogy) is desired, securing advise, on the much needed way forward, pertaining
99
to such a scholarly discourse, which is mired by ahistorical data, inevitably presents growing dilemma(s). Notice how the theme of obstructing characteristics, related to the theme of
‘identity’ continuosly recurs. Views of the proposed voices thus become compulsory, particularly for guidance purposes.
With the abovementioned circumstances, worthwhile past and present efforts, to name ourselves, should thus be acknowledged and thoroughly investigated. An excellent case in point here, is the term AZANIA, as formulated by South Afrika’s Pan-Afrikan Congress (PAC). Unfortunately, contemporaries amongst the ruling Afrikan National Congress (ANC) government, have never demonstrated any support, nor showed any interest, to the term above. This may be read as a classic example of indifference (author’s emphasis). This may also serve as a classic example of having embraced a spirit of Eurocentric driven capitalist thought(s), even towards initiatives under the theme of identity, which are of mutual benefit to all, regardless of petty political party differences.
Given that none such initiative(s), from this century year old, liberation movement, is known (at least publicly), this consolidates a pitiful narrative, of how compradors typically behave- it has become apparent that the capitalist driven case(s) of a winner, takes all and the rest (being the losers), ceasing to exist in their eyes and arguably also in their minds, has evidently become local Afrikan reality. Denialism of each other’s worth, that has been ingrained in the minds of the oppressed, by the seeds of imperialistic and capitalistic spirits. Needless to say, none of this is Afrocentric.
With the amount of criticism (historical and contemporary), directed towards Afrika and Afrikans, by the descendants of the represented states, in conferences (such as that hosted in Berlin and Versailles), in conjunction today with those other Eurocentric states, that were absent then, but however are part of the foremost forces, guilty of the same charge, in the present century – eg.USA, not much choice appears to be available, to those who seek, to be alive, to the issue of Afrocentricity. Refusing to heed to the above call, as contemporary Afrikan scholars, should be read, as equivalent to blatant denialism, in the face of our ancient and contemporary, socially constructed realities.
100
It is the contention of the author of this study, that the propaganda that contributes to the socially constructed realities, particularly for the subaltern international community, have and still remain mostly spearheaded by American forces. This is realised via its intergovernmental institutions, of the United Nations (UN), World Bank and an endless list of Non-governmental Organisations (NGO’s), ranging from Amnesty International , Human Rights Watch and even the infamous Save Our Souls (SOS) campaigners, which whenever it may be convenient to them double(s) up, in the Machiavellian sense, as extended employees, of the American secret services.
Prime examples of the above organs, include the Federal Bureau of Investigations (FBI) and the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA). These two American organisations, serve, as prime examples of fruition of a process, which has eventually been packaged, as part of the broader project of neo-colonialism. So with all that has been stated here, renewed efforts to name ourselves, should be encouraged and never underestimated. To PAC and its stalwarts, because of the gift, of having tirelessly made the call, for the concept of AZANIA, to be used, instead of the overly simplified geonym that is implied by South Afrika- a hearty Afrocentric congratulations are due to that political organisation.
In reference to the Berlin conference (1884-1885) Asante (2007:363) commented as follows
“Europe declared war on Afrika, dividing Afrika among the European powers”. In continuation McKay et al explain that as a result of this conference “Germany acquires protectorates in Togo, Cameroon, Southwest Afrika, and East Afrika; Belgium acquires the Congo Free State”. All this is of cause after the “British occupation of Egypt in 1882 (McKay et al, 1996:907)”. To this end, one of the Afrikan IR sages, remarked as follows “It is one of the ironies of the great German leader Otto von Bismarck, that he helped to unify Germany in the nineteenth century and initiated the division of Afrika soon after” (Mazrui, 2010: ix156).The Treaty of Versailles (1919) (in the light of the animosity it caused, ironically is commonly referred to, as the peace conference, alongside the Berlin Conference may serve as two classic examples, wherein the West did as they pleased, with Afrika, in the process creating the ahistorical myths, about Afrika.
101