As the Ebola epidemic ravages West Africa, a familiar act with troublesome connotations is playing out. The international response to the conjoined public health crises in Liberia, Sierra Leone and Guinea is following imperial patterns of tutelage and patronage, wherein each of these three countries has been exclusively taken over by its respective former master from America and Europe through targeted humanitarian aid.
An erstwhile colony established by American citizens freed from slavery, Liberia is back to being literally a ward of the US, which faces no competition from any other Western donor there. Washington is deploying up to 4,000 military personnel to set up hospitals, medical laboratories and treatment centres on a war footing. This mission, codenamed “Operation United Assistance”, is being overseen by the controversial US Africa Command (AFRICOM).
Hitherto, not a single African country except Djibouti had agreed to host AFRICOM’s bases owing to the destructive legacy of American military interventions in the continent. The unconstitutional pressure that American military bases would exert on the politics of the host nation, and suspicions among African governments and people that AFRICOM is a stealth mechanism to counter China’s rising economic power, had stymied Pentagon’s designs in Africa.
However, with the Ebola virus scalping nearly 3,500 lives, AFRICOM has found the perfect pretext to launch itself on African terrain for a long-term stay. Just as economists maintain there is no such thing as a free lunch, political scientists know there is no such thing as altruistic military aid.
Sadly, not much debate has occurred as to the pros and cons of sending in the American military vis-a-vis highly skilled American civilian medical professionals and logisticians to counter Ebola in Liberia. Nor has there been critical examination of why the bulk of US relief aid for Ebola, estimated to be close to $800 million, has been assigned to Liberia, with negligible crumbs being thrown at Sierra Leone and Guinea.
The open secret is that Sierra Leone is an ex-British colony and is the preserve of London, while Guinea is a former French colony and hence left to France’s benevolence. As of September 2014, Sierra Leone received maximum Ebola-related aid from a single source, the UK. Siobhan O’Grady noted in Foreign Policy that “despite a larger Ebola breakout in Liberia, the UK sent its government less than $1 million — a fraction of what they contributed to Sierra Leone.”
British Prime Minister David Cameron has hosted an international conference of donors focused on “rallying support” solely for Sierra Leone. Like the Americans in Liberia, London feels a sense of entitlement and privilege in Sierra Leone, which was founded by freed British slaves.
Such vast British economic investments are at risk in Sierra Leone due to the Ebola outbreak that the stock values of companies like London Mining and African Minerals, which secured sweetheart deals from Sierra Leonean governments, have dipped southwards.
Therefore, Sierra Leone is an obvious choice for London to assume the role of lead “humanitarian” actor. On the other hand, China has donated almost $40 million to contain Ebola without picking favourites because there’s Chinese FDI in iron ore mining, energy and infrastructure in all three countries — Sierra Leone, Liberia and Guinea.
In Guinea, the “Anglo-Saxon” powers (USA or UK), did not bother to meddle in what is known as “Francophone Africa”, i.e. the domain of former French colonies whose fates are tied to Paris through an elaborate network of development and humanitarian aid, corporate stakes in mining, military-to-military mentoring, and patrimonial linguistic heritage.
French President Francois Hollande has assured his Guinean counterpart Alpha Condé of “total solidarity” to counter Ebola and claims to have committed $44 million in aid specifically for Guinea.
One big factor facilitating the reproduction of neo-imperial bonds in the name of fighting Ebola is the grooming of post-colonial African politicians by the former mother countries as a strategy to buy access and retain influence.
France is notorious for enabling Francophone African dictators and their progeny to stash away billions stolen from their people in plush overseas properties and banks. The gratitude that African rulers in the grip of Ebola are expressing for Europe and the US today is a reflection of the warmth they feel for their former masters who secure their personal power bases and act as their cashiers.
One might ask why poor and desperate African governments with broken healthcare systems should stare a gift horse in the mouth instead of unquestioningly accepting the munificence of their former colonial lords to tackle Ebola.
The answer is simple: African elites who grossly failed in building robust health and sanitation systems are being divided, weakened and rendered dependent by Washington, Paris and London. Instead of the holistic Mano River Union (a regional alliance of Liberia, Sierra Leone and Guinea) joining hands to beat back Ebola, we are seeing piecemeal efforts aimed at demonstrating which African country falls within which Western power’s sphere of domination.
If the US, UK and France were driven by humanitarian motives, why did they not contribute to the multilateral UN Ebola response fund that would have distributed the funds more equitably among the three worst-hit West African countries? Thus far, only India and Australia have made sizeable donations of $10 million each to the UN Ebola fund that is woefully undersubscribed.
Far from strengthening regional bodies like the African Union and less partisan entities like the UN, Western powers have chosen to seek leverage in their African bastions through uncoordinated and selfish aid.
In contrast, Cuba — an early responder to Ebola that dispatched a contingent of its famed volunteer doctors and nurses to Liberia, Sierra Leone and Guinea — is a shining example of medical diplomacy based on genuine needs of Africans with no ulterior impact.
It is time we recognised champions of African liberation from disease, like Cuba, and called the bluff of Western media and governments which are projecting themselves as Africa’s saviours.
The writer is a professor and dean at the Jindal School of International Affairs
