Medición de resistencia de la conexión a tierra

Most African nationalist leaders envisioned closer ties between independent African states in the areas of economy, defence and foreign policies. This ideal, detractors of

144

African affairs considered impossible. Their contention was that there are many obstacles in the way of realizing any form of continental unity. These include varied national self-interests, geography, divergent culture and languages, varying political systems and economic structures, and disputes initiated by the colonial balkanization of the continent. Inspite of these, Kaunda believes that Africa shows greater affinity for unity among its states more than any other continent. According to him, this “conviction is not only wide spread throughout the continent; it is also urgent”.¹⁹⁴ The basis of this urgency is both psychological and economic. The psychological reason is obvious in the fact that independent African states have not developed the derogatory and discriminatory attitudes characteristic of Europe and their apartheid policies. In Kaunda’s words, “the minds of our people are still malleable. They may well be more amenable to the sacrifices which wider links will demand at this moment than in twenty-five years’ time”.¹⁹⁵ The economic aspect is explained by the fact that Africa has much wealth, in terms of its large expense of land, compared to its population. Kaunda further explains how this would translate to African unity:

And what wealth Africa has locked away in the ground!

Tentative geological surveys have already proved cobalt, radium, copper, diamonds, gold, manganese, vanadium, bauxite, coal, iron and tin. Many resources lie dormant because few states have the capital and skill to exploit them efficiently. Instead of piecemeal appeals for aid and isolated efforts, an overall strategy is urgently required so that costly duplication and reduplication can be avoided and loans raised on a much wider basis than the single State, whose credit worthiness may be very limited. Many of our individual efforts to exploits this great wealth, though profitable in the short term, may prove to be robbery of the earth in the long run because we have not rationalized our efforts and treated some of these resources as reserves.¹⁹⁶

Kaunda considers a common ownership of all the natural resources on the continent by all the African states irrespective of wherever it is situated. These resources are to be

145

used to prevent the continent from degenerating into slum status. Consequently, Pan-Africanism assumes an economic necessity.

The forging of African unity also, necessarily demands that the obstacles to this process be tackled. For Kaunda, the first and most potent of these obstacles is neo-colonialism;

subtle attempt by former colonial masters to use, either economic or political means to manoeuver independent African states to further subjugation. This usually, could be subtle financial, diplomatic or ideological web weaved around independent nations, which curtails its freedom of action. Though, proclaiming the fact that the era of physical dominion of Africa is long gone, yet, the influence of the colonial powers could still be seen to lurk around in the continent. The problem with neo-colonialism according to Kaunda is that it obstructs the mutual trust and filial relation which should exist between African states. As a result:

Neo-colonialism is destructive of Africa’s Unity because it creates mutual suspicion amongst newly independent states. We find ourselves asking: is that truly the voice of a particular people speaking or is international finance or an imperial power speaking through them, luring us away from our goal for their own purposes? African Unity is going to require considerable sacrifices from individual states.¹⁹⁷

Therefore, in foreign relations each African nation is to act not only in its own interests, but, importantly, towards the promotion of the unity of African states.

The second obstacle, and closely associated with the ideals of neo-colonialism, is the infiltration of foreign ideologies, particularly, communism, into young African states.

The problem with the acceptance of communism is that it will align Africa with one of the world’s power blocs (i.e. the Eastern power bloc); Africa had maintained non-aligned position in the struggle between the world’s two great power blocs. Kaunda

146

posits that Africa remained non-aligned in the ideological conflict because she cannot afford to take sides. “The problem of securing her own freedom is such that she cannot surrender it to the external power blocs”.¹⁹⁸ Secondly, the liberation movement within the continent was nationalist rather than communist; thus, communism is foreign to Africa. Nationalism represented the authentic search for African personality. Apart from this, communism is divisive, and creates a lot of fanaticism. For this reason, Kaunda concludes that:

Any success which the communist bloc may achieve in aligning African States with it is destructive of African Unity, and causes a shift of loyalty from Pan-Africa to Pan-Communism. Ideological subservience must be seen for what it is-a subtle and debilitating form of colonial domination which can carve up Africa as effectively as anything achieved by the Great Powers in the late nineteenth Century.¹⁹⁹

The issue of foreign aids to underdeveloped nations constitute the third obstacle to the unity of African states. Apart from the fact that these aids are usually small, there is the general position that the receiving nations should have no say in or about these aids, since they are meant as charity. “A collective version of the penny given to beggar or the coin dropped into the collection box, and by definition charity is supposed to be unplanned, spontaneous and businesslike”.²⁰⁰ This brings out the unpredictability which surrounds foreign aids, a reason it is difficult to be incorporated into any long-term economic planning development of the receiving nation. Besides, this unpredictability raises the tendency for the donor nations to employ aids as means of directing the path of the economic development of the poor nations. To this end, they usually grant aids in piecemeal, tied to specific projects, and, only, granted to their chosen favourite nations. For this reason, Kaunda advocates the need to “get rid of the concept of foreign aid as a form of charity offered by the rich to the poor”.²⁰¹ Instead, he argues that aids

147

should be instituted to express a form of economic interdependence of our one world.

The concept of aids has moral implication which he postulates thus:

The obligation of the rich to help the poor is partly a matter of morality but can also be justified on the grounds of enlightened self-interest. The political instability which is a consequence of economic distress in the underdeveloped country has its effect in shrinking the market for the products of the advanced nation. Rationally applied economic aid is good business sense because it will provide scope for private investment and help create an ever-larger world market.²⁰²

The nature of our world is such that upheaval or revolution in one part is felt in another.

And economic distress being the major cause of these in smaller nations, makes a moral demand that foreign aids be institutionalized as the very minimum the world owes to every part of it. Yet, this does not remove the fact that the greater responsibility for aids falls on the alliance of African nations; that is, African states owe each other this duty more, no matter the capacity of the donation. “The offer of a handful of maize from a virtually empty storehouse, though derisory as a solution to a poor neighbor nation’s problem compared with the avalanche of aid from the West, is symbolic both of mature nation hood in the donor, and of an identification which will bode well for Africa’s future Unity”.²⁰³

Kaunda argues that the evolution of African Union should not take the pattern used by the colonialists in the mapping out of national boundaries; the colonial masters had brought many races on the continent into alliance without regard for national or tribal differences. The fact of this is obvious in the sense that majority of African nations are still coming to terms with the understanding that they have become independent states.

As such Kaunda avers that, “African States can no more be expected to abandon national sovereignty immediately to a United States of Africa than European nations can be expected to form the United States of Europe”.²⁰⁴ He believes that this is because, “the

148

more successful we are in sharpening a people’s consciousness of being a nation, the less likely they are to take kindly to submerging that new-found identity in a wider union”.²⁰⁵ However, he, also, accepts that there are indications in the above that point to the feasibility of strong African Unity. First is the institution of economic and communication ties between neighbouring African states, necessitated by the international and continental politics. For instance, there is the fact that Zambia was forced to build its economic road through Tanzania in the East of the continent rather than through its Southern neighbours, because of the apartheid regime in Southern Africa. Second is that there are still some African nations under colonial administration.

In other words, “the urge to free them has become the basis of a common African foreign policy”.²⁰⁶ This is because the political domination of any part of Africa is an indication that the whole of the continent has not truly achieved its freedom. Third is the endorsement of the charter of African Unity by the summit of African Heads of State in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia. This charter, in Kaunda’s view, “like every similar document is a most potent force for achieving large scale goals of the human race. It testifies to the fact that individual nations are prepared to place themselves under the goad of some larger good and acknowledge that they are not laws unto themselves”.²⁰⁷ Fourth, and flowing from the fore on, is that the Unity of Africa embodies the diversity and wealth of ideology within the continent. This for Kaunda depicts that the “eventual unity will not be the result of the imposition of one dominating national personality but will result from dialogue amongst many leading to a growing consensus to which political and economic shape can be given”.²⁰⁸ Finally, Kaunda emphasizes that the youth must be the vehicle for the transition to African Unity. This according to him is because majority of African peoples and leaders are youths. To achieve this, he argues that, “our young men must be educated to see Africa whole and to see it steadily”.²⁰⁹ He believes that all this ideal, at the initial stage, may appear intellectualist and a talking point of few, however, it would gradually get to that point where it assumes the basis for popular mandate. In other words, one would require it to win elective position. At this stage, it would assume practical significance.

149

The discussion on the possibility of continental unity, for Kaunda, invariably envisages greater and wider unity in terms of international and intercontinental alliances. An instance of this is found in terms of the Commonwealth alliance; association of nations that were formerly British colonies and Britain itself. Kaunda describes this as a

“transformation of Britain’s Empire into a friendly groupings of nations, who voluntarily enter into a relationship which in no way hinders their individual freedom of action or thought”.²¹⁰ According to him, this dispels the fear that the Commonwealth could be a subtle move by Britain to perpetuate its colonial influence over these nations, or that this constitute obstacle in the path of African Unity. The fact is that the Commonwealth impresses on each member nation the need to recognize and accept the equality and freedom of each other. This in Kaunda’s words teaches this lesson:

Without under-valuing the sentiment which attaches to this tradition-rich symbolism, my own view would be that responsible Commonwealth leaders find in the challenge to live in amity with other members from whom they differ radically in foreign or domestic policy a minuscule version of the ultimate challenge-the possibility of world government. Our feeling is that unless we can grow in community with nations whose attachments are grounded in the same tradition of British tutelage, there is little hope of accommodation on a world scale being achieved. When serious attempts are made to create the first tentative structures of government, it is the Commonwealth which will have most to contribute by way of experience and knowledge.²¹¹

However, Kaunda, still, feels that the high morality, which Britain espouses by leading other nations into the Commonwealth alliance would make little meaning if she fails to openly condemn the racial discrimination and domination on the African continent, particularly that which existed in the Southern Africa at the time. The Ian Smith government in Northern Rhodesia (now Zimbabwe) had opted for Unilateral Declaration of Independence, and this had deepened the racial antagonism in that country, even as much as this affected Zambia politically and economically. Also there was the operation of apartheid policies by the white government further south of the

150

continent. Britain was indicted for complicity with the policies of both regimes, because of its liberal stance on apartheid issues on African continent. Consequently, Kaunda opines that, “Britain can lead the Commonwealth by moral influence along paths which will enrich every member only if her bona fides on the racial equality is beyond reproach. There can be no compromise as far as the independent States of Africa are concerned on the issues of smashing the residual racist regimes on the continent and freeing millions of Africa from the scourge of white domination”.²¹² If Britain fails to align with, and pursue this continental need, the independent African States would have the sole option of mobilizing towards this aim, alone or in another alliance. This is because, their leaders had eloquently agreed to unify the Continent, as is obvious from the gathering of African Heads of States in Addis-Ababa, and their signing of the Summit’s Declaration.