Roanoke Times
Copyright (c) 1995, Landmark Communications, Inc.
DATE: SUNDAY, May 16, 1993 TAG: 9305170250
SECTION: EDITORIAL PAGE: F-3 EDITION: METRO
SOURCE: EDWARD A. LYNCH
DATELINE: LENGTH: Long
Even without this stiff competition for the attention of Americans, the birth of Eritrea might have received little notice. Americans are disinclined to follow African politics, preferring to follow African climatic idosyncracies.
In addition, a new country is no longer novel, since the fall of the Soviet empire and the breakup of Yugoslavia. Indeed, with the new National Geographic map of Europe including 18 countries that did not exist two years ago, it seems to be unusual not to hear of some part of the world declaring its independence.
The liberation of Eritrea, however, merits attention, if for no other reason than because it is in Africa. Its independence could set a precedent that will result in radical changes in the way people are governed.
Most African nations gained independence around 1960. Their leaders discovered that the European colonial powers left behind boundary lines with no connection to African ethnic and cultural realities.
Tribes that were traditional enemies found themselves sharing the same country, while other tribes found themselves divided between two or more nations that had been colonies of different European powers.
To prevent a confusing, and probably bloody, redrawing of national border lines, African leaders decided to make the best of a bad situation and accept the European-drawn lines as they were. They opposed any attempt by ethnic minorities to break away and form their own independent state. Most of Africa refused to help Biafra's bid for independence in the '60s, and even refused to recognize the new state. The United States and the Soviet Union also contributed to its defeat at the hands of Nigerian forces.
Since 1960, not one separatist movement in Africa has succeeded. African leaders feared, along with the superpowers, that any secession, anywhere, would lead to perhaps dozens of others, and threaten the stability of the entire continent.
There are a number of active separatist movements in Africa. Biafrans still want out of Nigeria. Katangans tried twice in the '70s to leave Zaire, and will try again, and probably succeed, as the Zairian government implodes. Zanzibar has seen its promised autonomy disappear, and its people dream of regaining their independence. Separatist movements also exist in Angola, Cameroon, Mali, Morocco, Senegal, Somalia and Sudan. No part of Africa is immune. Eritrea is not even the only part of Ethiopia demanding independence.
Why do so many Africans wish for new political arrangements?
Besides leaving behind artificial boundaries, the European colonialists also left behind the ideology that economic growth, development and happiness all naturally come from the government. The governments that most of Africa's independence leaders created, while utterly unable to provide these things, were nevertheless powerful enough to oppress people in the name of economic growth, development and happiness.
The people of Africa, in other words, have suffered from strong states, for the most part staffed by people of a different ethnic group who had no qualms about favoring their own people, and who reserved for themselves the right to redistribute whatever wealth the country produced.
With the Eritreans leading the way, look for Africans to insist on being governed on a more local level, and to insist upon a lot less government interference and oppression than they have had to put up with so far. (Enthusiasm for free-market economics has been spreading across Africa for some time now.)
To be sure, there is great danger here. Strong governments cannot be expected to go quietly. Some will emulate the Serbians, and try to maintain their intrusive and oppressive power by force. For the most part, they will be unsuccessful, but they may cause great suffering.
Africans fighting for their freedom may also be in the process of inventing a new kind of nation, challenging the very idea of the nation-state as the world has known it since the 17th century.
The people of new states like Eritrea, while cherishing their new-found cultural autonomy and personal freedom, are likely to find that their state is not economically viable. Small states usually lack the resources, port facilities (or even coasts) and labor force to engage in profitable trade.
Having discovered their limitations, the leaders of new states will probably create economic unions with other small states. These leaders will be reluctant to give up any more autonomy than is absolutely necessary. Most decisions will continue to be made at the local level.
If the Eritrean example is repeated, we will see a world of interlocking economic relationships, not all of them even government-to-government, and an end to the insistence that government officials have the right, or the wisdom, to run people's lives.
And there is every reason to believe that new nations will continue to appear. The republics of the former U.S.S.R. could further subdivide, and Europe has active separatist movements in Italy, Spain, France and the United Kingdom. In 20 years, we might live in the "world of 1,000 flags." For much of Africa, the flag of freedom will fly for the first time.
Edward A. Lynch is an assistant professor of political science at Hollins College.
by CNB