Muhammad Mahdi Rahimi, journalist and researcher
Imagine a school where several hundred students share a single teacher and only one small classroom suitable for instruction. Now imagine that once a year, the students' parents gather for a day, and the school principal speaks about the necessity of using the world’s most advanced teaching methods and the need to compete with other schools.
This bizarre and questionable situation is remarkably similar to what happens annually under United Nations sponsorship under the title of commemorating Africa Industrialization Day.
“Innovation,” “artificial intelligence,” “eco-friendly production,” “empowering women,” “local and indigenous production.” Where do these words steer your mind? A startup? A transformation blueprint in a European corporation? Part of an academic text on the future of industry in the US? Astonishingly, these are the central themes of gatherings and discussions surrounding Africa Industrialization Day for at least the past five years. For anyone familiar with the state of industry on this continent, such rhetoric immediately raises a red flag: something about this situation is deeply troubling.
The colonizers do not wish to leave
With the end of traditional colonialism in the years following World War II, independence movements took root across Africa, and the colonizers, weakened by war no longer had the capacity to maintain a permanent military presence on the pre-war scale. France and Britain’s last attempts at permanent military occupation, in Kenya and Algeria, ended in failure, prompting the aging European victors of the war to devise new strategies for returning to Africa and seizing its natural resources.
Africa was also a key theater for the Western Cold War against the Soviet Union. This very rivalry between the West and the USSR created conditions for the advancement of some African nations—particularly the Arab countries of North Africa. However, for the sub-Saharan African nations, the story was not meant to end so simply. Using economic and political instruments, the West once again established its foothold in Africa to exploit its abundant resources. Copper, oil, cobalt, diamonds, uranium, and gold were just a portion of the continent’s extraordinary wealth, coveted from those years until now.
Hundreds of years of war, plunder, and European colonialism had destroyed much of Africa’s educational, cultural, and industrial infrastructure. With the withdrawal of the colonial powers, the resulting political and economic vacuums prevented newly independent countries from enacting lasting changes in their economic and industrial development. Civil war, poverty, and a lack of effective policy-making paved the way for Europe’s return. It was at this point that the western financial institutions returned to Africa, using instruments such as coups, as in Ghana, or negotiating with incumbent governments.
Loans were the primary tool of entry. The initial loans, granted to African countries for investment in the mining and raw material export sectors, were structured with repayment timelines that made actual repayment virtually impossible. In the early years, the funds were spent on building essential infrastructure like roads, healthcare, and education; or, in corrupt governments linked to Europe, it was divided among the powerful; or lost as the prices of minerals would collapse. These factors forced most African borrowers to turn once more to the international institutions, this time from a subordinated position, accepting their terms for loan extensions or new financing.
Loans arrive with consultants and legal bills
The conditions set by the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund for extending installments and granting new loans placed African countries into a vicious, self-perpetuating cycle. Henceforth, new loans were spent under the supervision of these institutions’ consultants, and the economic policies they prescribed had to be transformed into law, becoming the new economic structure of these countries.
Very quickly, these consultations and the imposed neoliberal policy left African governments defenseless. The main features of these policies were economic austerity, the privatization of mines and industries, and money printing. The limited educational, healthcare, and industrial infrastructure that had developed in the wake of independence movements soon lost government support. Privatizing the mines once again placed ownership in the hands of wealthy European companies, effectively draining governments of the stable revenue they needed for national development beyond debt repayment. To meet their basic operating costs, governments turned to tax hikes and printing money. As their currencies steadily lost value, these countries became increasingly cut off from meaningful engagement with the rest of the world, losing the ability to redirect their political trajectory. The people grew poorer by the day, and Africa’s overall landscape began to change. It Is noteworthy that out of 54 African countries, 51 implemented these programs, and 23 of those 51 are now among the weakest economies in the world. Ghana, Zambia, Tanzania, Ethiopia, and Mozambique all have long histories with the World Bank and the IMF, yet they have still been unable to escape poverty.
Both mine and industry? Africa can’t have both!
Let us now return to the occasion at hand: Africa Industrialization Day.
Statistics show that, aside from South Africa, no country in sub‑Saharan can be described as “industrialized.” Although significant industrial activity has occurred in Africa since the start of the 21st century, the continent still lacks foundational industries, adequate infrastructure, and the socio-political stability required for such progress. But why did the West not permit Africa to rebuild—as it did for Europe and Japan after World War II? What is the reason for this cunning and deliberate weakening of Africa?
The reality is that Africa is a continent of immense potential. Beyond its extraordinary natural resources, its population is rapidly expanding—an asset that could pave the way for the emergence of a new global economic power, much like China and India. But the Western hegemonic system is fully aware of this potential and does not wish to relinquish such a vast reservoir of natural wealth, just as it lost its grip access in China, India, Iran, Venezuela, and elsewhere. This is why it so ruthlessly fights against progress in Africa.
The fight against progress and industrialization has not been confined to the economic arena. In the cultural arena, programs have been implemented by Europe and America to alter social structures, destroy the family unit, and spread moral deviance in Africa, a topic addressed in the article “Africa Campaign: African Women vs. Western Capitalists.” Moreover, a comprehensive program has been underway for years to undermine small businesses and extinguish the spirit of craftsmanship and production in Africa. This program, known in media discourse as the “aid industry”, involves sending massive quantities of consumer goods such as food, clothing, and workshop‑level products to African countries in the form of “aid.” The long‑term effect is to block the emergence of local production capacity and erode the ethos of self‑reliance and self‑sufficiency among their populations.
What does the future hold?
The opportunities facing Africa are clear to all. The role of foreign actors and their intentions has now become evident to many Africans themselves and to external observers. Imam Khamenei describes the path out of this situation as follows:
“Imagine that a nation has lagged behind other countries for many centuries due to the corruption of its rulers and an autocratic leadership style. Imagine that this nation has fallen behind in the areas of science, culture or many other areas. Colonial powers have penetrated into such a nation and they have helped rulers maintain this situation by recourse to different means and complicated plots. Colonialist powers have destroyed the cultural and historical values of this nation and they have taken control of the country. In such circumstances, what does this nation need in order to change the situation? Is it possible for this nation to ask the treacherous and cruel colonial ruler to end his colonial domination or act against his interests? Is it helpful to adopt this measure? If that nation decides to stop begging the autocratic ruler and if it tries to negotiate with him, will it be helpful? Is it possible to take the bait out of the mouth of a wolf by negotiating and speaking logically?
In such circumstances, nations have only one good option. They have to bring their strong will into the arena and they should use their abilities so that the enemy cannot exploit their weak points. There is no other good option for nations.”
As long as these fundamental obstacles to Africa’s industrial development persist, focusing on secondary issues—such as artificial intelligence, eco-friendly production, free trade zones, women’s empowerment, and so on, serves only to distract from the primary barriers. Yet it must be noted that, with the emergence of a new global order, African countries, should they choose the path of independence, are not alone. Since the outset of the Islamic Revolution, the Islamic Republic of Iran has supported African independence. In the early years of the Revolution, Iranian engineers and experts traveled to countries such as Tanzania, Ghana, and Sudan to assist in building economic and cultural infrastructure, without any financial expectation. Today, as African nations pursue self‑sufficiency, they can continue to count on the Islamic Republic as an ally in this endeavor.
(The views expressed in this article are author’s own and do not necessarily reflect those of Khamenei.ir.)
Comment