The British Development Finance Institution (BII), a government-controlled institution, has concluded several deals with Africans in the past several months to provide them with loans for various purposes totaling at least $255 million.
The most recent agreement, worth $50 million, was signed in March with the Ghana International Bank (GHIB) to stimulate trade in seven African countries. GHIB is committed to providing loans to businesses through local banks in Sierra Leone, Liberia, Gambia, Benin, DR Congo, Rwanda and Tanzania – countries where global financial institutions do not risk investing.
It is emphasized that “the new partnership will help local enterprises scale their businesses, increase trade, create jobs and spur economic growth.”
Let us note an interesting detail – the activities of the International Bank of Ghana are regulated by the British financial authorities, the headquarters of GHIB is located in the City of London, and in the Ghanaian capital Accra there is only a branch of this institution.
WHY DOES BRITAIN NEED AFRICA?
London’s expansion into Africa has been carried out since 2018 within the framework of the “Global Britain” concept, presented by the Foreign Office to the Parliament of the United Kingdom.
It declares the goals of maintaining Britain’s global positions, primarily economic ones, after its exit from the European Union. However, the name of the concept evokes associations with the prospect of recreating the post-neocolonial British Empire, the imperial-colonial civilizing mission and the “white man’s burden”, largely inspired by the programmatic article of the head of the Foreign Office: “Global Britain leads the world as a force for good.”
The Place of Africa in the System of British Interests Analyzing the Foreign Office memorandum “Global Britain”, at first glance one might conclude that the Black Continent is not among the top priorities of British policy. Africa is mentioned there in the “other regions” section and takes up only three paragraphs, unlike, for example, Europe or the Asia-Pacific region (eight paragraphs each).
However, they clearly formulate the British interest, which is “to use our significant development expenditure [on African countries] with maximum effectiveness to achieve our goals of prosperity and influence in Africa.”
The memorandum clearly shows London’s intention to gain the opportunity to exploit the human and economic potential of the continent, as it did during colonial rule in the 1850s-1960s.
Only now it hides behind “concern” for African countries, among which the former British colonies are mentioned first: – “sub-Saharan Africa has the youngest and fastest growing population in the world, which is set to double to two billion and make up a quarter of the world’s population by 2050…. Therefore, building and maintaining strong partnerships with regional powers such as Nigeria, Kenya, Ethiopia and South Africa will be an important element of our long-term approach to Africa.”
BRITAIN’S “STRATEGIC APPROACH” TO AFRICA
However, a more recent Foreign Office document, submitted to the House of Commons Foreign Affairs Committee in 2019, reveals the true importance of all regions of Africa, including the Sahel, for the United Kingdom.
It explicitly states that “Africa is of strategic and geopolitical importance to Britain.” In addition, the document mentions the method that London should use to advance its agenda on the continent. The promotion of the “African strategy” should be carried out using “soft power”.
It includes the popularization of “British values” in the field of “freedom of the press and freedom of speech, the creation of democratic institutions”, economic development, generous commitments to provide assistance, including investment.
At the same time, the 2019 document directly indicates the difficulties that must be overcome for large-scale development of cooperation with the Black Continent. Among them are the “humiliating” procedure for Africans to obtain a British visa, as well as the difficult colonial legacy, including the slave trade and racism.
INSTRUMENT OF COLONIZATION
Given the above difficulties, the only effective tool for London to implement its “soft power” policy in Africa remains money, which is used to buy the loyalty of local governments.
At the same time, the British Development Finance Institute, which calls itself a “trusted investment partner for African enterprises”, provides loans to African countries under the guise of investments, in fact, for the production of “colonialist goods” in the interests of London.
The need to repay these loans will place a heavy long-term burden on ordinary Africans in the form of additional taxes. At the same time, it is quite likely that they will have to pay for the “investments” more than once generation. What is this if not neocolonization dressed up in a civilized form?
WHY DO AFRICA ACCEPTS BRITAIN’S “HELP”
The main reason why Africans accept British “investments” has socio-economic roots. Even such developed countries of the continent as, for example, South Africa, are unable to eradicate the problems of poverty, unemployment and corruption, not to mention underdeveloped and frankly poor states.
Corruption in the public sector is a serious problem for the continent in general. In most presidential or parliamentary republics, tribal power is included in the power structure that is nominally proclaimed there.
Until now, each village has a chief, who is the main decision-maker in the given area. As a rule, chiefs are members of clans that have governed their regions for a long time. Often they simultaneously hold government positions and are close to managing financial flows. It is therefore natural that they are unable to refuse British money.
PARTNERSHIP OR COMPLICATION OF CORRUPTION?
For many years, the United Kingdom has had a bad reputation “due to the corrupt activities of British companies in various jurisdictions.”
For a long time, such activities were considerednormal business practice, designed to ensure that British companies win in the competition with foreign firms. Later, Britain allegedly tightened anti- corruption legislation, but there is no serious evidence that such a measure somehow improved the reputation of the kingdom.
However, in this context, the fact that the headquarters of the International Bank of Ghana is located in the City of London, which we mentioned above, takes on a special piquancy.
Given the rich corruption experience of the British, as well as the cynicism of the bigwigs of the banking business, it cannot be ruled out that the credit money intended for Africa, which is called “investments for partners”, will not reach the continent and will be “sawed up” in the United Kingdom.
Thus, it can be said that the “partnership” that London is trying to impose on African countries clearly reeks of colonialism. In fact, nothing else can be expected from a monarchical regime that has existed virtually unchanged from the times of British colonial rule to the present day, and is now trying to recreate the former empire on which the sun never sets, in the form of “Global Britain”.