African Theories of International Relations: Nyerere, Nkrumah and Panafricanism.
by Bro Natty on Tuesday, July 10, 2012 at 8:43pm ·
African Theories of International Relations:
Nyerere, Nkrumah and Panafricanism.
Dominik Frühwirth
Introduction
The field of International Relations Theories tends to be, as the term already suggests, a very theoretical one. But even though we know that theory is one way or another the basis for all political actions, we should not forget about the practical side. This is especially important when it comes to International Relations in the contemporary history of Africa, where those who established the theories were very often also those who practically applied them. Whereas the Western World had its influential think tanks and theoretical schools which influenced the policies of whole dynasties of politicians and presidents, in the first generation post-colonial Africa it was the political leaders and key political figures themselves who formed and expressed their own theories after which they acted. Therefore, as Karen Smith (2009: 275) pointed out, “one should also be more inclusive with regard to the choice of sources” and “look beyond academic scholarship to the pronouncements and insights of political leaders”. For this purpose I chose two of the most prominent exponents of early post-colonial thought in Africa, Kwame Nkrumah of Ghana and Julius Nyerere of Tanganyika/Tanzania, to break the western bias of the International Relations field and show how their theories of (African) Socialism and Panafricanism were indeed International Relations Theories.
Indigenous African Theories of International Relations
Julius Nyerere’s understanding of Panafricanism and the deeper purpose of African Unity was closely connected to his understanding of real African Socialism, in fact the two topics were inseparable. To him, a real African Socialist was automatically a Panafricanist who works for the unity of Africa. In general, the only logical consequence of real socialism was the idea of unity, which started for Tanzania in Eastern Africa and went beyond African Unity towards a world unity. Therefore, socialism, or more precisely: African Socialism, was the basis for Nyereres International Relations theories regarding African Unity. (Nyerere 1972: 18)
But this African Socialism was not just an African version of European socialism, or just the application of European socialism in Africa, because “[w]e, in Africa, have no more need of being 'converted' to socialism than we have of being 'taught' democracy. Both are rooted in our past, in the traditional society which produced us”[1] (Nyerere 1972: 17f). Here, in Nyerere’s idea of the one traditional, pre-colonial African society, which practiced a “traditional African Socialism” long before there was a Karl Marx in Europe, we do find the logical connection between Nyerere’s understanding of African Socialism and Panafricanism as the fundamental basis for his International Relations theories and policies. By speaking of a common traditional African society and socialist way of life, he implied a fundamental psychological, cultural and even emotional unity of all Africans, and therefore found himself among panafrican ideas like those of the “African Personality”. (Nyerere 1963: 1) This means, on the one hand, Nyerere believed in an ancient and original unity of all African peoples, which made a modern political and economical unity of the continent, on the other hand, not only possible but also desirable in the first place. Therefore, the idea of the traditional socialist African society constituted the means as well as the end of African Unity, because „African unity is a natural thing [and] will be in accordance with the oldest traditions of Africa“ (Nyerere 1963: 2).
Originally, the connection between Panafricanism and Socialism can be traced back to the Fifth Panafrican Congress, which was held in Manchester, England, in 1945. While Kwame Nkrumah, the most outspoken exponent of this connection at the congress, understood socialism mainly in its scientific form of European origin, Panafricanists like George Padmore and politicians like Nyerere and Tom Mboya represented an explicitly traditional (Pan)African Socialism. (Tsomondo 1975: 39, 43)
„Freedom and Unity“ (Nyerere 1964[1960]: 40)
From the very beginning, African Unity constituted the center of Nyerere’s International Relations theories and policies. The “fundamental unity of the people of Africa“ (Nyerere 1964[1960]: 40) was in his view not only crucial for the anti-colonial struggle against colonialism on the national level, but then also on the continental level in the struggle against neo-colonialism, therefore, „the African Nationalists […] have always wanted unity“ (Nyerere 1964[1960]: 41). Nyerere was committed to the idea of African Unity to such an extent, that he was even willing to postpone the independence date of Tanganyika (and not to forget with it his own presidential status and power), when it already was in sight, if the European colonial powers had agreed to a joint East African independence in unity of Uganda, Kenya and Tanganyika all together.
It’s not surprising, therefore, that Nyerere’s Tanganyika African National Union (TANU) officially committed itself in the 1967 Arusha Declaration to the liberation and unity of the whole African continent. Accordingly, TANU saw its policies towards Tanzania’s[2] development as an integral part of the development of the whole continent. (Nyerere 1972: 61, 63)
„The Dilemma of the Pan-Africanist“ (Nyerere 1966)
Tanganyika’s independence in 1961 demanded of Nyerere the readjustment of his original panafrican ideas, since he originally was against the independence of separate nations and strove at least for the joint independence of the east African colonies as one first step towards the unity of all Africa. (Nyerere 1964[1960]: 40)
But when the early 1960s witnessed the separate independencies of more and more African nations, and there was no continental unity already at independence, Panafricanists like Nyerere and Nkrumah were faced with a dilemma which seemed to seriously threaten African Unity. (Agyeman 1975: 660) While Nyerere embraced these new circumstances very fast and described the new states as instruments towards the realization of African Unity, Nkrumah was very sceptical towards these step-by-step solutions and subordinated the national interests of Ghana to the interests of African Unity in its constitution of 1960. (Nyerere 1963: 6; Agyeman 1975: 661) Nkrumah viewed the idea of a step-by-step approach towards African Unity in the form of regional federations as a „dangerous doctrine“ of „neo-colonialists and their agents“ (Agyeman 1975: 655f; Nyerere 1966), although originally, he too pursued a very similar plan for a regional federation of west Africa. (Nkrumah 1979[1945/62]: x, 33) Nyerere, however, still saw the only realistic chance for African Unity in a gradual approach and accused Nkrumah of risking African Unity with his unrealistic demand of an immediate continental unity. (Agyeman 1975: 656, 659)
But although Nyerere and Nkrumah couldn’t agree on the best way to implement African Unity in an era and reality of post-colonial states, a disagreement that culminated at the 1964 OAU Summit in Cairo, they shared the conviction for the fundamental necessity of African Unity. Both of them saw African Unity as the most important instrument against neo-colonial dependencies and the weakened position of separate African states within the capitalistic world system. In African Unity they saw an economic rise through a common pressure on the terms of trade, an intercontinental division of labour and a common trade policy. (Nyerere 1964[1960]: 41; Nyerere 1963: 2f; Nyerere 1966; Nkrumah 1984: xi, 6, 9, 11, 25) For Nyerere it was much more important to understand the fundamental need for African Unity and to strive for it, than to quarrel about details, ways and means, for which reason he called Nkrumah in spite of everything one of the most brilliant and farsighted sons of Africa. (Nyerere 1963: 3; Nyerere 1964[1960]: 44)
Panafricanism: A way “Towards Colonial Freedom” (Nkrumah 1979)
For Nkrumah too, Panafricanism was at the center of his International Relations theories and policies, which was why, to him, it was even more important than Ghanaian nationalism, because the continent had always priority over the state. Agyeman (1975: 666) said of Nkrumah, „his energies were devoted more to pan-African pursuits than to Ghanaian nation-building.” Similar to Nyerere, Nkrumah saw the need for nationalism in the anti-colonial struggle, but it couldn’t be the „final solution“ (Afari-Gyan 1993: 170) in itself. The final solution was African Unity, and Nkrumah was not willing to compromise on that.
As already mentioned, Kwame Nkrumah was together with George Padmore in the organisational committee of the Fifth Panafrican Congress, which was held in Manchester, England, in 1945. This congress was preceded by four other panafrican congresses, 1919 in Paris, 1921 and 1923 in London and 1927 in New York. According to Nkrumah, the fifth congress was special because it was here that Panafricanism was connected to African Nationalism and the African liberation struggle for the first time. Therefore, the aim of the Fifth Panafrican Congress was „national independence leading to African unity“ (Nkrumah 1974: 135). This step-by-step idea inspired his early thoughts on African Unity, while his nationalistic ideas were broad enough to strive for a united West African independence.
His first book Towards Colonial Freedom (1979[1945/62]), which was originally finished during the Fifth Panafrican Congress in 1945, gives some insight into his thoughts at that time. In the preface to the first publication of the book nearly 20 years later, in 1962, Nkrumah wrote that „the views I expressed then are precisely the views I hold today“, with only one exception: „There is, however, one matter on which my views have been expanded, and that is regarding African unity. […] Twenty years ago my ideas on African unity […] were limited to West African unity. Today […] I see […] the only guarantee, in fact, for our survival – in a total continental political union of Africa” (Nkrumah 1979: xf).
Nkrumah saw the only guarantee for survival in the total continental political union of Africa, this illustrates how essential African Unity was for his whole understanding of International Relations policies. This fact cannot be overemphasized, the panafrican idea of African Unity was his highest priority. To Nkrumah, neo-colonialism was the biggest enemy and threat for Africa, and he saw „African unity as the most reliable safeguard against neo-colonialism“ (Nkrumah 1974: 147). He was convinced, that neo-colonialism and its agents wanted to continue its “divide and rule” strategies to maintain their influence and therefore opposed African Unity, which made African Unity automatically the number one anti-(neo-) colonial strategy: „The creation of several weak and unstable states of this kind in Africa, it is hoped, will ensure the continued dependence on the former colonial powers for economic aid, and impede African unity. This policy of balkanization is the new imperialism.” (Nkrumah 1974: 179) He saw the need for African Unity particularly in three fields: foreign, defence and economic policies. „The forward solution is for the African states to stand together politically, to have a united foreign policy, a common defence plan and a fully integrated economic programme for the development of the whole continent” (Nkrumah 1974: 177).
But his focus was mainly on the economic benefits: Resources should be exploited and used together. A common trade policy and currency should strengthen Africa’s position at the world market. A continental infrastructure should promote African trade and exchange. Common problems like malaria should be jointly tackled. Big intercontinental development projects should be jointly financed. „The necessary capital for all these changes can only be accumulated by the employment of our resources on a continental extension” (Nkrumah 1974: 157). Especially the technical modernization should be financed in this way: “Each of us alone cannot hope to secure the highest benefits of modern technology, which demands vast capital investment” (Nkrumah 1974: 168). In addition, a united Africa was more attractive to foreign capital and investment. Therefore, African Unity was to Nkrumah the fundamental precondition for development: „The unity of the countries of Africa is an indispensable precondition for the speediest and fullest development“ (Nkrumah 1974: 163).
But Nkrumah did not only speak about economic unity. He pointed out that economic unity could only be achieved through political unity. Therefore, „economic and political issues […] are, for us, inseperable at this time in our history. For the radical changes that are urgently needed in economic planning can only be brought about quickly and effectually if we are united politically“ (Nkrumah 1974: 168).
Achieving African Unity
As already mentioned, the idea of „national independence leading to African unity“ (Nkrumah 1974: 135) dated as far back as to the Fifth Panafrican Congress, where it was called Panafrican Nationalism. Nkrumah tried to implement this idea of Panafrican Nationalism from the time on when he returned from England into the future Ghana: „When I returned to West Africa in 1947, it was with the intention of using the Gold Coast as a starting-off point for African independence and unity” (Nkrumah 1974: 136). Even though he saw regional nationalism within the colonial boundaries as the necessary means for the liberation from colonial oppression, he never forgot about the continental perspective: „I at once made it clear that there would be no meaning to the national independence of Ghana unless it was linked with the total liberation of the African continent!” (Nkrumah 1974: 136) Therefore, it was a two-edged sword, national struggles for independence and sovereignty offered necessary possibilities and posed threats at the same time. As already mentioned, Nkrumah originally promoted regional federations to reach independence together, because during colonialism only regional federations within the colonial territories of each colonial power would have been possible, and continental solutions were out of reach at that time. (Nkrumah 1974: 76; Agyeman 1975: 660) That’s why he promoted these regional solutions only in the early days of decolonization, while he emphatically rejected them from about 1960 onwards, because „regional federations are a form of balkanization on a grand scale“ (Nkrumah 1974: 214), since, for example, Tanganyika could join a continental union but Ghana couldn’t join an east African union. (Afari-Gyan 1993: 171)
To overcome the threat which separate sovereignties posed, namely the fear of sacrificing them for African Unity, „Nkrumah diplomatically sought to underplay the obstacle, saying that individual sovereignties, far from being sacrificed or infringed, would rather be ‚enhanced‘, ‚preserved‘ and ‘strengthened‘ in African unity“ (Agyeman 1975: 660). This means, Nkrumah envisioned the African Nation as a federation of more or less sovereign states, a United States of Africa. The USA and the Soviet Union served him as models, since both of them were unions of federated states with somehow independent authorities. It is therefore important to note, that Nkrumah had always presupposed sovereign federated states to constitute a continental union: “We […] need a common political basis […]. That basis for political action need not infringe the essential sovereignty of the separate African States. These States would continue to exercise independent authority” and the „citizens of the federated states owe a double allegiance, one to the individual state, the other to the federal government“ (Nkrumah 1974: 205, 218).
As an outspoken socialist, Nkrumah imagined a continental government as an „All-African socialist government“ (Nkrumah 1980: 518), because, similar to Nyerere, he thought that „the political unification of Africa and socialism are synonymous“ (Nkrumah 1980: 514). Therefore, he did not only see African Unity but also „socialism as the only way to defeat neo-colonialism“ (Afari-Gyan 1993: 165), because the two went together since capitalist development was interested in the balkanization of Africa to lead it directly into neo-colonial dependency. That’s why, similar to Nyerere, in „all of Nkrumah’s works on the subject, a Pan-Africanist and a black socialist were one and the same person” (Tsomondo 1975: 39). (Nkrumah 1974: 173; Nkrumah 1980: 496)
Conclusion
Even though Kwame Nkrumah and Julius Nyerere wrote numerous books and papers about core topics of applied and practical International Relations, they usually were not considered International Relations theorists within the International Relations field, nor do their works suggest that they considered themselves as such, nor does the International Relations literature value their contributions to the field in any appropriate way. That is why it was my aim in this paper, which I hope I could reach in a comprehensible way, to present the main points of their political thoughts in order to show that they are indeed central to what we understand as International Relations today. The reason why they were not heard and accepted appropriately within the International Relations community might be found in the fact that this community had its center and main focus in the western world and its political ideologies, while Nkrumah and Nyerere denounced these neo-colonial ideologies from a perspective of the so called periphery. Furthermore their ideas were hard to grasp from both a realist as well as a liberal western position, because their ideas of the relation between sovereign nations and an All-African federal government were easier to understand from a traditional African perspective, as Nyerere would have said, then from a European one: On the one hand they spoke of sovereign nations with militaristic powers and defence, a clear realist positions, and on the other hand they wanted to federate these nations, clinged to the United Nation’s non interference policy and supported the non-aligned movement, which located them within liberal thought. And still it is obvious that they were always speaking of International Relations issues, whether it concerned Inter-African topics or Africa’s relations with the West and the rest of the periphery, it was always about International Relations. And this is, in my opinion, the most important lesson which we need to learn from their contributions to International Relations: They dealt with important international issues without caring too much if they were fitting into some theoretical dogma of the West. And if we look at the world situation today, at the new forms of political, economic and cultural neo-imperialism and neo-colonialism within the frameworks of the neo-liberal globalisation, then we will see how current, relevant and important their ideas still are unto this very day, no matter if some academic elite considers them International Relations or not. In this spirit I want to conclude with the words of the late and great Walter Rodney (2012[1972]): “The purpose has been to try to reach Africans who wish to explore further the nature of their exploitation, rather than to satisfy the 'standards' set by our oppressors and their spokesmen in the academic world.”
SOURCES
Afari-Gyan, Kwadwo (1993): Nkrumah’s Ideology. In: Arhin, Kwame (Hg.): The Life and Work of Kwame Nkrumah. Trenton: Africa World Press, Inc. 161-175.
Agyeman, Opoku (1975): The Osagyefo, the Mwalimu, and Pan-Africanism: A Study in the Growth of a Dynamic Concept. In: The Journal of Modern African Studies: 13 (4), 653-675.
Nkrumah, Kwame (1974[1963]): Africa Must Unite. London: Panaf Books.
Nkrumah, Kwame (1979[1945/62]): Towards Colonial Freedom: Africa in the Struggle against World Imperialism. London: Panaf.
Nkrumah, Kwame (1980[1973]): Revolutionary Path. London: Panaf Books.
Nkrumah, Kwame (1984): Neo-Colonialism. The last Stage of Imperialism. New York: International Publishers.
Nyerere, Julius (1966): The Dilemma of the Pan-Africanist. http://www.blackpast.org/?q=1966-julius-kambarage-nyerere-dilemma-pan-africanist [05.02.2012]
Nyerere, Julius K. (1963): A United States of Africa. In: The Journal of Modern African Studies: 1 (1), 1-6.
Nyerere, Julius K. (1964[1960]: Freedom and Unity. In: Transition: 1(14), 40-45.
Nyerere, Julius K. (1972): Afrikanischer Sozialismus. Aus den Reden und Schriften von Julius K. Nyerere. [Ujamaa – Grundlage des afrikanischen Sozialismus und Die Entschließung von Arusha] Stuttgart: Arbeitsgemeinschaft Evangelischer Kirchen in Deutschland "Dienste in Übersee".
Rodney, Walter (2012[1972]): How Europe Underdeveloped Africa. Cape Town, Dakar, Nairobi, Oxford: Pambazuka Press.
Smith, Karen (2009): Has Africa Got Anything to Say? African Contributions to the Theoretical Development of International Relations. In: The Round Table: 98 (402), 269-284.
Tsomondo, Micah S. (1975): From Pan-Africanism to Socialism: The Modernization of an African Liberation Ideology. In: Issue: A Journal of Opinion: 5 (4), 39-46.
[1] My own translation from the German source. original: „[w]ir in Afrika haben ebensowenig [sic] Bedarf daran, zum Sozialismus ‚bekehrt‘ zu werden, wie über Demokratie ‚belehrt‘ zu werden. Beide haben ihre Wurzeln in unserer eigenen Vergangenheit – in der traditionellen Gesellschaft, aus der wir hervorgegangen sind.“
[2] In 1964 Nyerere saw his efforts towards unity at least a bit fulfilled when Tanganyika and Zanzibar together formed Tanzania.
Nyerere, Nkrumah and Panafricanism.
Dominik Frühwirth
Introduction
The field of International Relations Theories tends to be, as the term already suggests, a very theoretical one. But even though we know that theory is one way or another the basis for all political actions, we should not forget about the practical side. This is especially important when it comes to International Relations in the contemporary history of Africa, where those who established the theories were very often also those who practically applied them. Whereas the Western World had its influential think tanks and theoretical schools which influenced the policies of whole dynasties of politicians and presidents, in the first generation post-colonial Africa it was the political leaders and key political figures themselves who formed and expressed their own theories after which they acted. Therefore, as Karen Smith (2009: 275) pointed out, “one should also be more inclusive with regard to the choice of sources” and “look beyond academic scholarship to the pronouncements and insights of political leaders”. For this purpose I chose two of the most prominent exponents of early post-colonial thought in Africa, Kwame Nkrumah of Ghana and Julius Nyerere of Tanganyika/Tanzania, to break the western bias of the International Relations field and show how their theories of (African) Socialism and Panafricanism were indeed International Relations Theories.
Indigenous African Theories of International Relations
Julius Nyerere’s understanding of Panafricanism and the deeper purpose of African Unity was closely connected to his understanding of real African Socialism, in fact the two topics were inseparable. To him, a real African Socialist was automatically a Panafricanist who works for the unity of Africa. In general, the only logical consequence of real socialism was the idea of unity, which started for Tanzania in Eastern Africa and went beyond African Unity towards a world unity. Therefore, socialism, or more precisely: African Socialism, was the basis for Nyereres International Relations theories regarding African Unity. (Nyerere 1972: 18)
But this African Socialism was not just an African version of European socialism, or just the application of European socialism in Africa, because “[w]e, in Africa, have no more need of being 'converted' to socialism than we have of being 'taught' democracy. Both are rooted in our past, in the traditional society which produced us”[1] (Nyerere 1972: 17f). Here, in Nyerere’s idea of the one traditional, pre-colonial African society, which practiced a “traditional African Socialism” long before there was a Karl Marx in Europe, we do find the logical connection between Nyerere’s understanding of African Socialism and Panafricanism as the fundamental basis for his International Relations theories and policies. By speaking of a common traditional African society and socialist way of life, he implied a fundamental psychological, cultural and even emotional unity of all Africans, and therefore found himself among panafrican ideas like those of the “African Personality”. (Nyerere 1963: 1) This means, on the one hand, Nyerere believed in an ancient and original unity of all African peoples, which made a modern political and economical unity of the continent, on the other hand, not only possible but also desirable in the first place. Therefore, the idea of the traditional socialist African society constituted the means as well as the end of African Unity, because „African unity is a natural thing [and] will be in accordance with the oldest traditions of Africa“ (Nyerere 1963: 2).
Originally, the connection between Panafricanism and Socialism can be traced back to the Fifth Panafrican Congress, which was held in Manchester, England, in 1945. While Kwame Nkrumah, the most outspoken exponent of this connection at the congress, understood socialism mainly in its scientific form of European origin, Panafricanists like George Padmore and politicians like Nyerere and Tom Mboya represented an explicitly traditional (Pan)African Socialism. (Tsomondo 1975: 39, 43)
„Freedom and Unity“ (Nyerere 1964[1960]: 40)
From the very beginning, African Unity constituted the center of Nyerere’s International Relations theories and policies. The “fundamental unity of the people of Africa“ (Nyerere 1964[1960]: 40) was in his view not only crucial for the anti-colonial struggle against colonialism on the national level, but then also on the continental level in the struggle against neo-colonialism, therefore, „the African Nationalists […] have always wanted unity“ (Nyerere 1964[1960]: 41). Nyerere was committed to the idea of African Unity to such an extent, that he was even willing to postpone the independence date of Tanganyika (and not to forget with it his own presidential status and power), when it already was in sight, if the European colonial powers had agreed to a joint East African independence in unity of Uganda, Kenya and Tanganyika all together.
It’s not surprising, therefore, that Nyerere’s Tanganyika African National Union (TANU) officially committed itself in the 1967 Arusha Declaration to the liberation and unity of the whole African continent. Accordingly, TANU saw its policies towards Tanzania’s[2] development as an integral part of the development of the whole continent. (Nyerere 1972: 61, 63)
„The Dilemma of the Pan-Africanist“ (Nyerere 1966)
Tanganyika’s independence in 1961 demanded of Nyerere the readjustment of his original panafrican ideas, since he originally was against the independence of separate nations and strove at least for the joint independence of the east African colonies as one first step towards the unity of all Africa. (Nyerere 1964[1960]: 40)
But when the early 1960s witnessed the separate independencies of more and more African nations, and there was no continental unity already at independence, Panafricanists like Nyerere and Nkrumah were faced with a dilemma which seemed to seriously threaten African Unity. (Agyeman 1975: 660) While Nyerere embraced these new circumstances very fast and described the new states as instruments towards the realization of African Unity, Nkrumah was very sceptical towards these step-by-step solutions and subordinated the national interests of Ghana to the interests of African Unity in its constitution of 1960. (Nyerere 1963: 6; Agyeman 1975: 661) Nkrumah viewed the idea of a step-by-step approach towards African Unity in the form of regional federations as a „dangerous doctrine“ of „neo-colonialists and their agents“ (Agyeman 1975: 655f; Nyerere 1966), although originally, he too pursued a very similar plan for a regional federation of west Africa. (Nkrumah 1979[1945/62]: x, 33) Nyerere, however, still saw the only realistic chance for African Unity in a gradual approach and accused Nkrumah of risking African Unity with his unrealistic demand of an immediate continental unity. (Agyeman 1975: 656, 659)
But although Nyerere and Nkrumah couldn’t agree on the best way to implement African Unity in an era and reality of post-colonial states, a disagreement that culminated at the 1964 OAU Summit in Cairo, they shared the conviction for the fundamental necessity of African Unity. Both of them saw African Unity as the most important instrument against neo-colonial dependencies and the weakened position of separate African states within the capitalistic world system. In African Unity they saw an economic rise through a common pressure on the terms of trade, an intercontinental division of labour and a common trade policy. (Nyerere 1964[1960]: 41; Nyerere 1963: 2f; Nyerere 1966; Nkrumah 1984: xi, 6, 9, 11, 25) For Nyerere it was much more important to understand the fundamental need for African Unity and to strive for it, than to quarrel about details, ways and means, for which reason he called Nkrumah in spite of everything one of the most brilliant and farsighted sons of Africa. (Nyerere 1963: 3; Nyerere 1964[1960]: 44)
Panafricanism: A way “Towards Colonial Freedom” (Nkrumah 1979)
For Nkrumah too, Panafricanism was at the center of his International Relations theories and policies, which was why, to him, it was even more important than Ghanaian nationalism, because the continent had always priority over the state. Agyeman (1975: 666) said of Nkrumah, „his energies were devoted more to pan-African pursuits than to Ghanaian nation-building.” Similar to Nyerere, Nkrumah saw the need for nationalism in the anti-colonial struggle, but it couldn’t be the „final solution“ (Afari-Gyan 1993: 170) in itself. The final solution was African Unity, and Nkrumah was not willing to compromise on that.
As already mentioned, Kwame Nkrumah was together with George Padmore in the organisational committee of the Fifth Panafrican Congress, which was held in Manchester, England, in 1945. This congress was preceded by four other panafrican congresses, 1919 in Paris, 1921 and 1923 in London and 1927 in New York. According to Nkrumah, the fifth congress was special because it was here that Panafricanism was connected to African Nationalism and the African liberation struggle for the first time. Therefore, the aim of the Fifth Panafrican Congress was „national independence leading to African unity“ (Nkrumah 1974: 135). This step-by-step idea inspired his early thoughts on African Unity, while his nationalistic ideas were broad enough to strive for a united West African independence.
His first book Towards Colonial Freedom (1979[1945/62]), which was originally finished during the Fifth Panafrican Congress in 1945, gives some insight into his thoughts at that time. In the preface to the first publication of the book nearly 20 years later, in 1962, Nkrumah wrote that „the views I expressed then are precisely the views I hold today“, with only one exception: „There is, however, one matter on which my views have been expanded, and that is regarding African unity. […] Twenty years ago my ideas on African unity […] were limited to West African unity. Today […] I see […] the only guarantee, in fact, for our survival – in a total continental political union of Africa” (Nkrumah 1979: xf).
Nkrumah saw the only guarantee for survival in the total continental political union of Africa, this illustrates how essential African Unity was for his whole understanding of International Relations policies. This fact cannot be overemphasized, the panafrican idea of African Unity was his highest priority. To Nkrumah, neo-colonialism was the biggest enemy and threat for Africa, and he saw „African unity as the most reliable safeguard against neo-colonialism“ (Nkrumah 1974: 147). He was convinced, that neo-colonialism and its agents wanted to continue its “divide and rule” strategies to maintain their influence and therefore opposed African Unity, which made African Unity automatically the number one anti-(neo-) colonial strategy: „The creation of several weak and unstable states of this kind in Africa, it is hoped, will ensure the continued dependence on the former colonial powers for economic aid, and impede African unity. This policy of balkanization is the new imperialism.” (Nkrumah 1974: 179) He saw the need for African Unity particularly in three fields: foreign, defence and economic policies. „The forward solution is for the African states to stand together politically, to have a united foreign policy, a common defence plan and a fully integrated economic programme for the development of the whole continent” (Nkrumah 1974: 177).
But his focus was mainly on the economic benefits: Resources should be exploited and used together. A common trade policy and currency should strengthen Africa’s position at the world market. A continental infrastructure should promote African trade and exchange. Common problems like malaria should be jointly tackled. Big intercontinental development projects should be jointly financed. „The necessary capital for all these changes can only be accumulated by the employment of our resources on a continental extension” (Nkrumah 1974: 157). Especially the technical modernization should be financed in this way: “Each of us alone cannot hope to secure the highest benefits of modern technology, which demands vast capital investment” (Nkrumah 1974: 168). In addition, a united Africa was more attractive to foreign capital and investment. Therefore, African Unity was to Nkrumah the fundamental precondition for development: „The unity of the countries of Africa is an indispensable precondition for the speediest and fullest development“ (Nkrumah 1974: 163).
But Nkrumah did not only speak about economic unity. He pointed out that economic unity could only be achieved through political unity. Therefore, „economic and political issues […] are, for us, inseperable at this time in our history. For the radical changes that are urgently needed in economic planning can only be brought about quickly and effectually if we are united politically“ (Nkrumah 1974: 168).
Achieving African Unity
As already mentioned, the idea of „national independence leading to African unity“ (Nkrumah 1974: 135) dated as far back as to the Fifth Panafrican Congress, where it was called Panafrican Nationalism. Nkrumah tried to implement this idea of Panafrican Nationalism from the time on when he returned from England into the future Ghana: „When I returned to West Africa in 1947, it was with the intention of using the Gold Coast as a starting-off point for African independence and unity” (Nkrumah 1974: 136). Even though he saw regional nationalism within the colonial boundaries as the necessary means for the liberation from colonial oppression, he never forgot about the continental perspective: „I at once made it clear that there would be no meaning to the national independence of Ghana unless it was linked with the total liberation of the African continent!” (Nkrumah 1974: 136) Therefore, it was a two-edged sword, national struggles for independence and sovereignty offered necessary possibilities and posed threats at the same time. As already mentioned, Nkrumah originally promoted regional federations to reach independence together, because during colonialism only regional federations within the colonial territories of each colonial power would have been possible, and continental solutions were out of reach at that time. (Nkrumah 1974: 76; Agyeman 1975: 660) That’s why he promoted these regional solutions only in the early days of decolonization, while he emphatically rejected them from about 1960 onwards, because „regional federations are a form of balkanization on a grand scale“ (Nkrumah 1974: 214), since, for example, Tanganyika could join a continental union but Ghana couldn’t join an east African union. (Afari-Gyan 1993: 171)
To overcome the threat which separate sovereignties posed, namely the fear of sacrificing them for African Unity, „Nkrumah diplomatically sought to underplay the obstacle, saying that individual sovereignties, far from being sacrificed or infringed, would rather be ‚enhanced‘, ‚preserved‘ and ‘strengthened‘ in African unity“ (Agyeman 1975: 660). This means, Nkrumah envisioned the African Nation as a federation of more or less sovereign states, a United States of Africa. The USA and the Soviet Union served him as models, since both of them were unions of federated states with somehow independent authorities. It is therefore important to note, that Nkrumah had always presupposed sovereign federated states to constitute a continental union: “We […] need a common political basis […]. That basis for political action need not infringe the essential sovereignty of the separate African States. These States would continue to exercise independent authority” and the „citizens of the federated states owe a double allegiance, one to the individual state, the other to the federal government“ (Nkrumah 1974: 205, 218).
As an outspoken socialist, Nkrumah imagined a continental government as an „All-African socialist government“ (Nkrumah 1980: 518), because, similar to Nyerere, he thought that „the political unification of Africa and socialism are synonymous“ (Nkrumah 1980: 514). Therefore, he did not only see African Unity but also „socialism as the only way to defeat neo-colonialism“ (Afari-Gyan 1993: 165), because the two went together since capitalist development was interested in the balkanization of Africa to lead it directly into neo-colonial dependency. That’s why, similar to Nyerere, in „all of Nkrumah’s works on the subject, a Pan-Africanist and a black socialist were one and the same person” (Tsomondo 1975: 39). (Nkrumah 1974: 173; Nkrumah 1980: 496)
Conclusion
Even though Kwame Nkrumah and Julius Nyerere wrote numerous books and papers about core topics of applied and practical International Relations, they usually were not considered International Relations theorists within the International Relations field, nor do their works suggest that they considered themselves as such, nor does the International Relations literature value their contributions to the field in any appropriate way. That is why it was my aim in this paper, which I hope I could reach in a comprehensible way, to present the main points of their political thoughts in order to show that they are indeed central to what we understand as International Relations today. The reason why they were not heard and accepted appropriately within the International Relations community might be found in the fact that this community had its center and main focus in the western world and its political ideologies, while Nkrumah and Nyerere denounced these neo-colonial ideologies from a perspective of the so called periphery. Furthermore their ideas were hard to grasp from both a realist as well as a liberal western position, because their ideas of the relation between sovereign nations and an All-African federal government were easier to understand from a traditional African perspective, as Nyerere would have said, then from a European one: On the one hand they spoke of sovereign nations with militaristic powers and defence, a clear realist positions, and on the other hand they wanted to federate these nations, clinged to the United Nation’s non interference policy and supported the non-aligned movement, which located them within liberal thought. And still it is obvious that they were always speaking of International Relations issues, whether it concerned Inter-African topics or Africa’s relations with the West and the rest of the periphery, it was always about International Relations. And this is, in my opinion, the most important lesson which we need to learn from their contributions to International Relations: They dealt with important international issues without caring too much if they were fitting into some theoretical dogma of the West. And if we look at the world situation today, at the new forms of political, economic and cultural neo-imperialism and neo-colonialism within the frameworks of the neo-liberal globalisation, then we will see how current, relevant and important their ideas still are unto this very day, no matter if some academic elite considers them International Relations or not. In this spirit I want to conclude with the words of the late and great Walter Rodney (2012[1972]): “The purpose has been to try to reach Africans who wish to explore further the nature of their exploitation, rather than to satisfy the 'standards' set by our oppressors and their spokesmen in the academic world.”
SOURCES
Afari-Gyan, Kwadwo (1993): Nkrumah’s Ideology. In: Arhin, Kwame (Hg.): The Life and Work of Kwame Nkrumah. Trenton: Africa World Press, Inc. 161-175.
Agyeman, Opoku (1975): The Osagyefo, the Mwalimu, and Pan-Africanism: A Study in the Growth of a Dynamic Concept. In: The Journal of Modern African Studies: 13 (4), 653-675.
Nkrumah, Kwame (1974[1963]): Africa Must Unite. London: Panaf Books.
Nkrumah, Kwame (1979[1945/62]): Towards Colonial Freedom: Africa in the Struggle against World Imperialism. London: Panaf.
Nkrumah, Kwame (1980[1973]): Revolutionary Path. London: Panaf Books.
Nkrumah, Kwame (1984): Neo-Colonialism. The last Stage of Imperialism. New York: International Publishers.
Nyerere, Julius (1966): The Dilemma of the Pan-Africanist. http://www.blackpast.org/?q=1966-julius-kambarage-nyerere-dilemma-pan-africanist [05.02.2012]
Nyerere, Julius K. (1963): A United States of Africa. In: The Journal of Modern African Studies: 1 (1), 1-6.
Nyerere, Julius K. (1964[1960]: Freedom and Unity. In: Transition: 1(14), 40-45.
Nyerere, Julius K. (1972): Afrikanischer Sozialismus. Aus den Reden und Schriften von Julius K. Nyerere. [Ujamaa – Grundlage des afrikanischen Sozialismus und Die Entschließung von Arusha] Stuttgart: Arbeitsgemeinschaft Evangelischer Kirchen in Deutschland "Dienste in Übersee".
Rodney, Walter (2012[1972]): How Europe Underdeveloped Africa. Cape Town, Dakar, Nairobi, Oxford: Pambazuka Press.
Smith, Karen (2009): Has Africa Got Anything to Say? African Contributions to the Theoretical Development of International Relations. In: The Round Table: 98 (402), 269-284.
Tsomondo, Micah S. (1975): From Pan-Africanism to Socialism: The Modernization of an African Liberation Ideology. In: Issue: A Journal of Opinion: 5 (4), 39-46.
[1] My own translation from the German source. original: „[w]ir in Afrika haben ebensowenig [sic] Bedarf daran, zum Sozialismus ‚bekehrt‘ zu werden, wie über Demokratie ‚belehrt‘ zu werden. Beide haben ihre Wurzeln in unserer eigenen Vergangenheit – in der traditionellen Gesellschaft, aus der wir hervorgegangen sind.“
[2] In 1964 Nyerere saw his efforts towards unity at least a bit fulfilled when Tanganyika and Zanzibar together formed Tanzania.
No comments:
Post a Comment