Africa Month: Pan-Africanism Doublespeak Retarding Continent's Progress
Ghana's founder and first President Kwame Nkrumah (left) and Ethiopian Emperor Haile Selassie (centre) at the formation of the Organization of African Unity (OAU) in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia on May 25, 1963. The formation of the OAU is celebrated as Africa Day.
Dr. Reneva Fourie
EVERY year on May 25, we celebrate Africa Day. It commemorates the founding of the Organisation of African Unity in 1963, a moment born from the fires of anti-colonial struggle and lit by a bold vision of a united, free and sovereign continent.
In 2002, the organisation was reconstituted as the African Union, intended to carry the dream of Pan-Africanism into a new era. But over sixty years since the OAU's founding, the promise of liberation remains painfully unfulfilled.
Africa is not yet free. Not in the way Patrice Lumumba imagined when he spoke of a Congo governed by its people. Not in the way Kwame Nkrumah envisioned when he declared that political independence was meaningless without economic emancipation. It is not yet Uhuru. Independence, in much of Africa, was cosmetic.
The colonial flags came down, but a more insidious form of domination rose in their place. The colonisers changed uniforms, adopted new languages of diplomacy, development and aid, and returned through the back door of our treasuries, parliaments and boardrooms. Neocolonialism has become our daily reality.
Despite African exports amounting to billions of US dollars, much of that wealth bypasses the continent. Mineral-rich countries like the Democratic Republic of Congo, which supplies over the vast majority of the world's cobalt, remain trapped in poverty while multinationals profit from electric vehicle revolutions elsewhere.
Oil flows from Nigeria and Angola fuel foreign industries, while power cuts paralyse local economies. Coffee and cocoa leave African farms to be branded and sold at ten times the price abroad. The chains have not been broken. They have only been polished. Economic dependency is matched by political manipulation. The International Monetary Fund and World Bank, dominated by Western interests, continue to shape our economic policies through conditional lending.
Countries are told what to privatise, which subsidies to cut, and how to manage their fiscal budgets. The so-called structural adjustment programmes of the 1980s and 1990s devastated social services, dismantled local industries, and deepened inequality. Today, neocolonial manifestations are more subtle, but the outcomes remain the same. Sovereignty is traded for survival.
And when an African leader dares to walk a different path and to speak with independence, they are swiftly punished. Consider the case of Thomas Sankara of Burkina Faso, who was murdered in 1987 after nationalising land and rejecting foreign aid. Or Muammar Gaddafi, whose push for a gold-backed African currency threatened Western financial interests before he was toppled in a NATO-backed intervention.
More recently, leaders who defy global consensus on trade or security are isolated, sanctioned or unseated. Africa is told who to trust, who to trade with, and who to elect. Democracy is praised when it aligns with foreign interests, and questioned when it produces inconvenient results.
The role of foreign military presence in Africa cannot be ignored. The United States operates AFRICOM, a military command with operations in over 30 African countries. France maintains troops across the Sahel, even after public protests against its influence. The continent is courted, yes, but rarely as an equal.
We are treated as territory to be won, not as a people to be respected. While China builds infrastructure, often with little skills transfer and compliance with local labour laws, and Russia assists African leaders with arms and mercenaries, their mutually beneficial interventions cannot be equated with neocolonialism.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Eyewitness News
12 hours ago
- Eyewitness News
Zambia declares national mourning for ex-president Edgar Lungu
LUSAKA, Zambia - Zambia on Saturday declared seven days of national mourning in honour of the country's former president Edgar Lungu, who died in South Africa on Thursday, the government said. Lungu, who died at the age of 68, ruled the large but sparsely populated southern African nation from January 2015 until August 2021, when he lost to current President Hakainde Hichilema. "The government of the republic of Zambia wishes to inform the nation that President Hakainde Hichilema has accorded a state funeral to the sixth president, Edgar Lungu, who died on 5 June," said the secretary to the cabinet, Patrick Kangwa. The government announced that all flags would fly at half-mast from June 8 to 14 and that entertainment events would be suspended during that time. Kangwa said that the body of Lungu would arrive in Zambia next Wednesday and that Belvedere Lodge in the capital Lusaka had been designated as the official place of mourning. Lungu was receiving specialised medical treatment in a clinic in Pretoria, South Africa, his political party the Patriotic Front (PF) said. He was suffering from recurring achalasia, a condition caused by narrowing of the oesophagus.
IOL News
13 hours ago
- IOL News
Kursk Under Fire, Truth Under Siege
By Gillian Schutte On 5 June 2025, I attended the Russian-hosted international online press symposium titled 'Liberation of Kursk Region', a teleconference convened to present first-hand accounts, evidence, and legal testimony on the attacks carried out by the Armed Forces of Ukraine (AFU) and foreign mercenaries during incursions into the Kursk Region. It was a sobering exercise in counter-memory — one that exposed the ideological filters through which Western media interprets war, and how it strategically erases certain kinds of suffering. The event brought together a panel of experts, eyewitnesses, and officials to report on the nature of these violations. Each presentation revealed both the physical damage inflicted on the Russian civilian population, as well as the deeper injury of denial — a refusal by the Western bloc to recognise the legitimacy of Russian civilian grief. The eyewitness accounts shared by three Kurskites were harrowing. One described watching elderly neighbours die when their home was shelled. Another spoke of civilians being shot at close range. A third, fighting tears, recounted the rape of women during the brief occupation of their village. These testimonies were the lived memories of war and trauma, delivered with quiet devastation. Rodion Miroshnik, Ambassador-at-Large of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Russian Federation, provided a comprehensive briefing on what Russia identifies as crimes committed by the Kiev regime. He detailed the shelling of border villages, destruction of non-military infrastructure, use of foreign mercenaries, and the discovery of banned Western-supplied munitions, including cluster bombs and white phosphorus, in civilian zones. Miroshnik cited ongoing investigations by the Russian Investigative Committee into violations of international humanitarian law — all allegedly ignored by the institutions tasked with upholding these laws. According to Miroshnik, several communities in the Kursk Region suffered not only bombardment but were also subject to brief occupations by AFU-aligned forces. During these episodes, civilians were reportedly displaced, forcibly taken into Ukrainian territory, and subjected to psychological trauma. Families returning to liberated areas faced destroyed homes, contaminated land, and unexploded ordnance, with little to no humanitarian intervention from the international community. Igor Kashin, Head of the Special Projects Department in the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights in the Russian Federation, presented a legal analysis of these findings. His tone was forensic. He itemised the breaches of the Geneva Conventions and other international protocols, explaining how evidence had been submitted to various global institutions — including the UN and the ICC — yet no meaningful action had followed. Olga Kiriy, a Russian filmmaker and documentarian, delivered a visual account of the devastation. Her footage showed razed schools, burning residential blocks, and civilians returning to ghost towns, still wearing the shock of war on their faces. In one of her documentaries she shows a Ukranian soldier admitting to the rape of women by himself and his unit. Her presentation conveyed what words could not: the raw aftermath of military violence on people who remain unseen and unspoken in the official Western narrative of the conflict. Ivan Konovalov, military analyst and historian, contextualised the attacks on Kursk within a broader framework. He explained that the AFU operations were tactical provocations — designed to destabilise border regions and provoke retaliation, which could then be framed by NATO-aligned media as further proof of Russian aggression. He pointed out that these attacks coincided with deliveries of new Western weaponry to Ukraine, raising serious questions about the complicity of foreign governments and arms manufacturers. The testimonies shared during the teleconference dismantled the binary framework imposed by Western media, where Ukraine is valorised as a struggling democracy and Russia is reduced to a caricature. The reality conveyed by the speakers was more complex and far more disturbing. Russia, too, has civilians. Its towns and villages are not abstract zones on a geopolitical map but home to people who have suffered death, displacement, and the terror of war. Yet these accounts are absent from global headlines. They are not debated in parliaments, nor dissected on primetime panels. Instead, they are swiftly relegated to the realm of 'disinformation' — a catch-all term used by liberal institutions to shut down inconvenient truths. This is the machinery of narrative warfare — where facts are not weighed for their truth, but for their utility to power. The West's information order sustains itself through omission, selective moral outrage, and the assumption that some lives matter more than others. As a South African journalist who has long documented structural injustice, I recognise this silencing. It follows a pattern familiar to the Global South — where international law is invoked as a weapon rather than a principle; where invasions by Western powers are called interventions, but defensive operations by others are framed as crimes; and where victims must pass ideological litmus tests before they are deemed worthy of empathy. The suffering in the Kursk Region demands recognition. The use of banned munitions against civilians, the forced displacement of families, and the destruction of non-military infrastructure all constitute grave breaches of international law. That these acts are committed using Western weapons, under the cover of Western media silence, reveals a moral crisis at the heart of the liberal order. The conference was more than a forum for Russian voices. It was a reminder that truth is not owned by the powerful. It must be spoken even when it is buried. The people of Kursk have lived through war. They have returned to broken homes and haunted fields. Their testimonies exist. Their pain is real. And their silence is manufactured by design. If the term 'liberation' is to have meaning, it must include liberation from the monopolies that determine whose pain is legitimate. It must disrupt the asymmetry of grief that defines the West's geopolitical posture. We owe that to the people of Kursk. We owe it to all communities whose trauma is edited out of history to suit imperial narratives. And we owe it to ourselves, if we are to resist becoming complicit in the global machinery of selective justice. *Gillian Schutte is a South African writer, filmmaker, and critical-race scholar known for her radical critiques of neoliberalism, whiteness, and donor-driven media. Her work centres African liberation, social justice, and revolutionary thought. ** The views expressed do not necessarily reflect the views of IOL or Independent Media.
IOL News
16 hours ago
- IOL News
How South Africa's G20 Presidency transforms infrastructure finance in Africa
President Cyril Ramaphosa said recently that his US counterpart Donald Trump, has agreed that the US should continue playing a key role in the G20. Image: Supplied/GCIS IN 2025, South Africa assumed the presidency of the G20, becoming the first sub-Saharan African nation to lead the world's most influential economic forum. This milestone comes at a critical juncture for both the global economy and the African continent. Against the backdrop of widening inequality, climate instability, and calls for more equitable global governance, South Africa's leadership offers an opportunity to reshape international economic priorities through a lens of inclusivity, resilience, and long-term development. Under the theme Solidarity, Equality, and Sustainability, South Africa has used its presidency to elevate issues that have long defined the Global South — access to infrastructure finance, food security, digital transformation, and institutional reform. With the G20 representing 85% of global gross domestic product (GDP), 75% of world trade, and two-thirds of the global population, this platform provides unparalleled leverage to influence how capital flows, how development is financed, and how emerging markets can take a more active role in setting the rules of the global economy. South Africa has set the tone for a presidency driven not by rhetoric but by results. The presidency includes chairing more than 200 meetings of ministers, officials, and international organisations such as the IMF and World Bank, culminating in a summit of Heads of State and Government. Video Player is loading. Play Video Play Unmute Current Time 0:00 / Duration -:- Loaded : 0% Stream Type LIVE Seek to live, currently behind live LIVE Remaining Time - 0:00 This is a modal window. Beginning of dialog window. Escape will cancel and close the window. Text Color White Black Red Green Blue Yellow Magenta Cyan Transparency Opaque Semi-Transparent Background Color Black White Red Green Blue Yellow Magenta Cyan Transparency Opaque Semi-Transparent Transparent Window Color Black White Red Green Blue Yellow Magenta Cyan Transparency Transparent Semi-Transparent Opaque Font Size 50% 75% 100% 125% 150% 175% 200% 300% 400% Text Edge Style None Raised Depressed Uniform Dropshadow Font Family Proportional Sans-Serif Monospace Sans-Serif Proportional Serif Monospace Serif Casual Script Small Caps Reset restore all settings to the default values Done Close Modal Dialog End of dialog window. Advertisement Next Stay Close ✕ These engagements are already shaping discourse on sustainable economic recovery, digital infrastructure, climate resilience, and more equitable access to capital. South Africa has used its platform to champion the unique challenges faced by developing economies, particularly in Africa, while pushing for systemic reforms in global economic governance. One of the core priorities for South Africa's G20 presidency is expanding access to capital for infrastructure — a pressing concern not only for South Africa but across the African continent. Africa's infrastructure deficit, estimated at more than $100 billion (R1.8 trillion) a year, continues to hinder growth, integration, and competitiveness. Traditional funding models — reliant on sovereign debt or limited public resources — are insufficient to meet the scale of need. South Africa is advocating for blended finance structures that combine concessional funding from development institutions with private sector investment. These models help reduce investor risk while crowding in private capital for long-term infrastructure projects in transport, energy, water, and telecommunications. The G20 Infrastructure Working Group, under South Africa's chairship, is pushing for reforms that make such finance more accessible, transparent, and catalytic. A key focus has been on improving credit enhancement tools, lowering the cost of capital for African countries, and standardising project preparation processes to improve bankability. South Africa's National Treasury and development finance institutions are leading by example, offering replicable models in renewable energy and logistics. South Africa's ability to lead on financial innovation is underpinned by the strength of its own financial services sector. Recognised globally for its stability and sophistication, the South African banking system is one of the most advanced in emerging markets. Institutions such as Standard Bank, FirstRand, Absa, and Nedbank operate with robust capital buffers, strong governance, and active engagement in infrastructure finance across the continent. The Johannesburg Stock Exchange (JSE) remains Africa's most liquid capital market, while the country's insurance and pension sectors collectively manage more than R5trln in assets. Regulatory bodies such as the SA Reserve Bank (SARB) and Financial Sector Conduct Authority (FSCA) ensure prudential oversight in line with global standards. This mature financial ecosystem positions South Africa not only as a credible G20 partner but also as a financial gateway to Africa. As G20 president, it is championing mechanisms that allow institutional investors to participate more meaningfully in infrastructure development, unlocking a new asset class that delivers both economic and social returns. Another dimension of the G20 presidency's impact lies in the potential it holds for African entrepreneurship. Across the continent, entrepreneurs are building solutions in clean energy, mobility, fintech, agritech, and logistics — often filling gaps left by public infrastructure. Yet access to scale-up capital, exposure to global markets, and integration into value chains remain significant barriers. South Africa's G20 leadership is helping to reposition these innovators as central actors in development. The presidency has promoted inclusive procurement frameworks, G20-backed innovation hubs, and SME-focused financing tools that aim to reduce barriers to entry for African businesses. Through public-private dialogues and policy discussions, the G20, under South Africa's guidance, is highlighting how local entrepreneurs can be integral to infrastructure rollouts —from smart metering in cities to solar microgrids in rural communities. This signals a shift in how the global economy sees African enterprise, not as recipients of aid but as drivers of innovation, employment, and resilience. Agriculture, a lifeline for millions across the continent, is another central theme of South Africa's presidency. With shifting climate patterns and increased food insecurity, the G20 is being mobilised to focus on food systems that are both productive and climate-resilient. South Africa is drawing attention to the dual role its agricultural sector plays — as a food supplier to the region and a testbed for climate-smart technologies. Investments in irrigation, transport logistics, cold chains, and digital platforms for farmers are being showcased as scalable models. The presidency is calling for greater investment in regional food corridors and cross-border agricultural trade to bolster food security. Beyond finance and development, South Africa's G20 presidency is a call for structural reform. The current architecture of global economic governance — from the IMF to credit rating agencies — remains skewed toward the interests and assumptions of high-income countries. South Africa has been vocal in calling for a more balanced and inclusive system. Central to this is the push for IMF quota reform, enabling greater voice and vote for African countries. South Africa is also urging the G20 to examine how international institutions assess environmental and social impacts, particularly in the developing world. Reforms could include more localised frameworks, better representation in decision-making, and stronger mandates to support just transitions. The presidency is facilitating discussions on the division of responsibility between international organisations and member states, with the goal of ensuring that global policies better reflect local realities and development pathways. The benefits of hosting and leading the G20 are not limited to policy influence. They include tangible economic gains for South Africa itself: increased visibility to global investors, enhanced tourism and conferencing activity, and a sharpened diplomatic presence. Moreover, the presidency allows South Africa to spotlight its strategic industries —renewables, financial services, agritech, and manufacturing — and secure stronger bilateral and multilateral cooperation. It is also an opportunity to advance regional priorities such as the African Continental Free Trade Area (AfCFTA), digital integration, and cross-border infrastructure development.
