₦airaland Forum

Even without Trump's freeze and suspension of aid, which is virtual termination, and even if all the developed nations doubled and even quadrupled their assistance to African countries, our countries will still be in a deplorable condition because of rotten leadership.

Things are so bad, and have been bad for so long since independence, that many Africans - out of desperation - wish our former colonial masters were back to rule us again. As James Katamba states in his book "End of American foreign aid to African countries: Shock therapy for Africans":

"Our performance has been dismal since independence. Out of desperation, some Africans wish our colonial masters had never left and want them to come back to rule us again – and should continue ruling us because colonial rule was better than leadership under our own black African leaders; they are despicable lot.

That is how desperate hundreds of millions of our people are in a continent of more than 1.3 billion. And that explains why millions have left the continent in search of greener pastures elsewhere and why they continue leaving every year from every country and in all parts of the continent.

Professor Henry Louis Gates Jr., an African American teaching at Harvard University, recalled a heart-breaking incident in the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC) involving Congolese – men, women and children – who were getting ready to celebrate the return of their former colonial masters, the Belgians, to rule them again.

He was on a boat on the Congo River and had arrived in Kisangani, formerly Stanleyville, when he saw a crowd of Congolese singing and dancing and wondered what was going on, with all that singing and dancing when the boat arrived. It was a celebration.

He found out that they were celebrating the return of the Belgians to rule them again and were waiting to welcome them as soon as they got off the boat. They were waving leaves and tree branches waiting to embrace and hug them, shake hands with them, and thank them, “Thank you for coming back to rule us again. Thank you for coming to save us.”
They kept on waiting, and waiting. They saw no Belgians getting off the boat. It was all a rumour. There were no Belgians who had come back to rule them again.

Someone started the rumour and it spread like a wildfire.

They were heart-broken, some of them teary-eyed, others with tears streaming down their cheeks.

That's how desperate Africans are under black African leadership since independence.

The incident in Kisangani, Democratic Republic of Congo, took place in the 1990s more than 30 years after Congo's independence. And it was emblematic of the rot that Africa had become since the end of colonial rule in the sixties.

Many Africans, undoubtedly the vast majority, are painfully aware of that. As best-selling author, British historian Keith Lowe stated in his book, "The Fear and The Freedom: How the Second World War Changed Us":

“In 2006 the Tanzanian intellectual Godfrey Mwakikagile wrote despairingly about how some Africans, disillusioned by years of poverty, violence and corruption, had begun to look back on their colonial past with a kind of warped nostalgia.

He described how one political party in Gabon even campaigned for a return of European rule in the 1990s, because their own African leaders had failed them so badly. People all over the continent, he said, were begging for help, telling Western reporters that 'It's only you white people who can save us.'

According to Mwakikagile, large parts of his continent had resigned themselves to a future of handouts from Western donors and global agencies, none of which were working according to an African agenda:

'We have, in a way...been reconquered and recolonized; our perpetual dependence on other countries being the most searing indictment against our claim that we are genuinely independent. We hate to admit it, but we know it is true.'” – (Keith Lowe, The Fear and The Freedom: How the Second World War Changed Us, New York: St. Martin's Press, USA, 2017, p. 306).

No self-respecting African is proud of depending on foreign assistance. African leaders are responsible for the mess we are in. They're selfish and sellouts. They don't care about our well-being. We have had no economic development we can be proud of, as a people, since independence, sharply contrasted with the prosperity of Asian tigers. As James Katamba states in his book "End of American foreign aid to African countries: Shock therapy for Africans":

"When Trump used the term “shithole countries” to describe African countries and Haiti – all black, of course, since they're the ones that are in the worst condition, hence the racist implication of the term – only one African leader, President Yoweri Museveni of Uganda acknowledged Trump told the truth. He is the same leader who years ago admitted Uganda was more developed under British colonial rule than it was under African leadership after independence when he compared his country with South Korea, a country that made quantum leaps in terms of development in only a few years since the end of World War II when Japan surrendered. As he stated in a speech to the UN General Assembly in 1997, in 1965 Uganda was “more prosperous than South Korea and Nigeria more prosperous than Indonesia”. – (Yoweri Museveni, in a speech to the UN General Assembly, February 1997, quoted by Tom Stacey, “African Realities,” in "National Review," New York, May 19, 1997, p. 30).

In 1965, Uganda was richer than South Korea. In 1967, South Korea had a per capita income of $120. Zambia had a per capita income of $200. After 30 years, South Korea made tremendous progress. Its gross domestic product per person was $10,000 in 1998, Zambia's was $400, and Uganda's only $235.

Now, if you ask African leaders what happened, why is there such a huge gap between their countries and those of Asia which are also developing countries and won independence roughly around the same time theirs did, they will probably say it's because of American imperialism, British imperialism or French imperialism. They never accept responsibility for their own mistakes. They always blame outsiders. It has nothing to do with their dark skin. Darkness of their skin does not mean darkness of their mind.

That has been the tragedy African people have had to endure since independence more than 60 years ago in the majority of cases; most African countries won independence by 1968.

When President Museveni made that comparison in his speech at the UN General Assembly, he knew exactly whose fault it was, why his country and the rest on the continent lagged so far behind other Third World countries, especially Asian, the so-called Asian tigers. In the case of his home country Uganda, he knew it was not the British who were responsible for that during the post-colonial era. They no longer ruled Uganda; they no longer ruled Zambia, either. But Uganda was more developed
under their rule than it was under African rule after independence. African countries have been ruled by Africans since independence. And almost all the countries have been going downhill since then because of bad leadership more than anything else.

Even post-apartheid South Africa, a beacon of hope on this 'dark' continent, has lost its appeal and become just another African country after the end of white minority rule, going down the tubes. Many black South Africans, desperate for jobs and better living conditions, say life was better under apartheid than it is now under black majority rule. One of their biggest complaint, besides lack of employment, is lack of law and order.

That is in a country where life is supposed to be better than in most of the other African countries, drawing tens of thousands of immigrants from other parts of the continent every year, some of them from as far away as Ghana and Nigeria in West Africa, drawn by 'opportunities' all the way down to the southern part of the continent, what they call 'Our New York.' That is what Africans from other parts of Africa call South Africa – 'Our New York.'

South Africa is not going to to solve unemployment problems of other African countries and should not be expected to." - (James Katamba, "End of American foreign aid to African countries: Shock therapy for Africans," pp. 11 - 13).

omoredia:
Good one. Nigerians should hold their own leaders responsible

African countries have enough resources to be self-reliant and economically independent instead of depending on the United States and other industrialized nations to provide them with economic aid.
Even critics of Trump admit that.

It is African leaders who are responsible for the deplorable condition in which tens of millions of people live across the continent. Trump's decision to suspend and freeze - and probably eventually end all American aid to Africa during his presidency - should motivate Africans to pursue self-reliance in order to achieve economic independence.

That is why some of them want industrialized countries to cut off all aid to Africa. Dambisa Moyo, author of "Dead Aid" and other works, is just one of the well-known African critics of foreign aid to Africa. Add unknown ones such as James Katamba, author of "End of American foreign Aid to African countries: Shock therapy for Africans," who states that there should be no more foreign aid to African countries, the United States and other developed countries should not even allow Africans to immigrate to those countries but should tell them to stay in their home countries to exert pressure on African leaders to bring about fundamental change, and much more.

Even Uhuru Kenyatta, former president of Kenya, publicly stated that it is not the responsibility of Americans to take care of Africans with their tax dollars and Trump made the right decision. As he stated at a conference in Mombasa, Kenya, 29 January 2025:

"I saw some people the other day crying 'Oh, Trump has removed money, he's not giving us any more money.' People are crying, why are you crying, it's not your government, it's not your country. He has no reason to give you anything. Why? You don't pay taxes in America. He's appealing to his people. It's up to you folks. This is a wake-up call for you to say ‘OK, what are we going to do to help ourselves?’

Instead of crying, ask yourselves, what are we going to do, he has stopped funding, what are we going to do to support ourselves? Because nobody is going to continue holding out a hand there to give you – it's time for us to use our resources for the right things. We are the ones who are using them for the wrong things.”

Nigerians have been attacked and killed in India by Indians through the years in what are clearly racist attacks. The victims have mostly been students. Other Africans also have been attacked and killed by Indians in India. What has the Nigerian government done in response to that? Nigerian professor, Jideofor Adibe, has suggested some retaliatory measures against India by Nigeria. He has also stated that other African countries are capable of retaliating against India for this brutal treatment of African students and other Africans in India.

A Nigerian diplomat at the Nigerian High Commission in India bluntly, and publicly, stated that there are more than one million Indians in Nigeria and they could end up in the streets and face retaliation by Nigerians because of what their people are doing to Nigerians in India. Tit for tat, as happened in the Democratic Republic of Congo where Indians were attacked after a Congolese who was teaching French in India was lynched by Indians in that country.

“Attacks on Africans in India are not isolated incidents. They may be independent of each other. But they reflect a pattern of hate and prejudice against black people across India. Afrophobia is a phenomenon that has virtually become a permanent feature of life among Indians who belong to numerous ethnic groups but are united by their hatred of Africans. As Professor Jideofor Adibe of Nasarawa State University in Nigeria stated in his article, “Impact of Xenophobic Attacks against Africans in India on Afrro-India Relations,” Journal of African Foreign Affairs, June – December 2017:

“'Afrophobia' – fear or hatred of Africans – is perhaps an extension of the xenophobia that has been part and parcel of the Indian social structure. This appears to be on the increase as the African population in the country increases. For instance in March 2017 five Nigerians were beaten and badly wounded by a mob in Greater Noida....

In 2016, a 23-year-old Congolese national was beaten to death in Delhi's Vasant Kunj following an argument with about three or four Indians, which degenerated into a violent fight that led to the African being chased and beaten with stones.....

Earlier in the same 2016, a mob had barged into a Nigerian man's house in Dwarka, north-western India. The man, who was a football coach, had lived in Delhi for years. He was beaten up with hockey sticks and cricket bats and was only lucky to survive the attack.

In February 2016, a mob attacked and stripped a female Tanzanian student naked in Bangalore, capital of India's southern Karnataka state....

In May 2016, about 12 Africans were attacked in the same South Delhi over what their traducers called their 'free life style'....

In October 2014, a mob attacked African students at a central Delhi metro station, one of India’s largest metro stations. The men were forced to climb up on top of a station police booth as the baying mob thrashed at them with sticks and tried to pull them down....

In response to the mob attack on five Nigerian students in March 2017, envoys from African nations in the Indian capital, Delhi, condemned the handling of the attacks by Indian authorities. In a statement the African Heads of Mission said the attacks were 'xenophobic and racial' and accused Indian authorities of failing to 'sufficiently condemn' the attacks or take 'visible deterring measures'....

Elizabeth Soumya had the following to say in her report about racism against Africans in India, “Africans Decry 'Discrimination' in India,” Aljazeera, 2 December 2013, a phenomenon still prevalent, and just as deadly, more than ten years later I write this book in 2024: “Ties between India and Nigeria have hit a new low in the aftermath of the recent murder of a Nigerian in the western Indian state of Goa.

The killing led to angry demonstrations by other Nigerian nationals in the state, besides triggering an ugly spat between Indian politicians and Nigerian envoys in the country.

Several senior Goa politicians have described Nigerians in unsavoury terms. Goa’s Art and Culture Minister Dayanand Mandrekar claimed Nigerians were a 'cancer,' while parliamentarian Shantaram Naik accused them of indulging in drug trade.

With xenophobia sweeping parts of Goa, signs saying 'No to Nigerians, No to Drugs' have sprung up in several neighbourhoods.

Following the murder and the subsequent arson, the authorities in Goa have embarked on a drive to detect and deport Nigerians living without valid visas.

The drive has angered Nigerian embassy officials in New Delhi and evoked angry response.

'There are only 50,000 Nigerians living in India, but there are over a million Indians living in Nigeria. Thousands of Indians living there will be thrown out on the streets if the forcible eviction of Nigerians in Goa does not stop,' Jacob Nwadibia, an administrative attaché of the Nigerian High Commission (Embassy) in New Delhi, said....

In 2013, a minister in the state government of Goa was criticized for referring to Nigerians as a 'cancer.' The following year, a mob assaulted a group of young men from Gabon and Burkina Faso in New Delhi....

The Indian as well as international media have recently reported extensively on atrocities towards the sub-Saharan Africans in India, including the murder of a Nigerian in Passa in Goa in broad daylight on 2 November 2013.

This horrible event was followed by other violent incidents; in July 2013, a Chadian national was assaulted in broad daylight by a mob in Bangalore.” - Willie Molesi, “Africans and Indians: The Gulf Between,” pp. 13 – 14, 30, 81, 154.

Nyerere, "The Nigeria-Biafra Crisis":

"The Internal Domino Theory

The argument is being advanced that if Biafra is allowed to exist, Nigeria cannot exist. Nigerian leaders themselves have advanced this argument. If the Ibos are allowed to go, so the argument runs, Nigeria will break up completely, for the others will also go.
To deal with this argument seriously, let us assume the worst: let us assume that, if the Biafrans leave the Federation, all the others will also secede and set themselves up as separate States. What this argument amounts to is that only two things bind the Hausa and the Yorubas (these being the major elements) together. These two facts are, firstly, the recent historical accident that all (plus the Ibos) were conquered by, and then governed by, the British; and secondly, the more recent historical fact that, when the British left, they left these Peoples as one Nation.
If these accidents of history were in fact the only reason for Nigeria, and if there is no feeling of mutual benefit arising from the political unity, then the secession of the Biafrans would certainly and inevitably lead to the break-up of the Federation as the Yorubas - and the Hausas? - secede. In using this argument, therefore, we are in effect saying: "The Yorubas, the Hausas (and the others) cannot remain together without the Ibos; we want the Yorubas and the Hausas to remain together; therefore we must forcibly prevent the Ibos from breaking away - even if this attempt to prevent them, together with their stubborn resistance, may lead to their extermination."
This is an extremely logical and nice argument. But it must be directed to people other than the Biafrans. They cannot be asked to sacrifice their freedom in order that two Peoples, who are not otherwise willing to attempt the building of a nation together, may carry on a precarious united existence. It is bad enough to force the Biafrans to make immense sacrifices for their own freedom; it would be worse than absurd to expect them to surrender the freedom for which they are dying in order to maintain a precarious unity among other Peoples - whose own commitment to that unity must be very slight if this argument has any validity at all.
In fact, the argument "If you allow the Ibos to go, the others will also go," inevitably provokes the question: "Who are these others, and where will they go?" For properly considered, this argument is an Imperialist argument. I can well imagine Winston Churchill saying: "If I allow India to go, the others will go, and I was not appointed the King's First Minister in order to preside over the liquidation of the British Empire." But how can this kind of thing be said of Nigeria - most all by Nigerians? Who in the Nigerian issue represents Churchill? And who represents the "Others" who would break away if the Ibos are allowed to go? And who is the imperialist metropolitan power in Nigeria?
Those who advance this argument assume the Hausas to be the Churchill and the "others" to be the Yorubas in particular, and also the smaller groups. They assume that the Hausas would like to complete their conquest of the South, which was interrupted by the British, and are saying that the only way the Hausas will be able to continue to dominate the Yorubas and the smaller ethnic groups is if they succeed in dominating the Ibos.
If this is the basis of the argument, and if it stated the actual position, I would be amazed at Africa's reaction to an African Imperialism abetted and supported by British Imperialism. Indeed, it would be very shameful if Africa, which is still groaning from the yoke of European Imperialism, was to make a cynical distinction between that and an internal African Imperialism. Such an argument must be rejected by the whole of Africa. Not only would it make nonsense of the principles we have been proclaiming; it is also an insult to the people of Nigeria - the Hausas, the Yorubas, and the others.
Let us reject the Internal Domino Theory in relation to the Nigerian question. For it assumes that the people now in the Federation of Nigeria are, and wish to be, imperialists. I cannot believe that.
I still believe that they are capable of recognizing the tragedy which has caused one part of the Federation to break away, and of acknowledging that very different tactics are necessary if the old Nigeria is ever to re-created. For surely they could decide to leave the Biafrans to go their own way and, by the kind of Nigeria which they create, to show the Biafrans what they are losing by remaining separated from their brethren. For if the other peoples of Nigeria decide to work together, they will continue to be a strong and powerful force in Africa; they really have the opportunity to build a good nation of which every Nigerian - indeed every African - can be proud. Then it may be that at some time in the future the Biafrans will wish to rejoin the peoples from whom they now wish to part; if this happens, it will be the accession of a free people to a large and free political unit. For if the secession of Biafra is a setback to African Unity - as of course it is - no one is suggesting that we should consequently stop working for African Unity on the basis of willing commitment.
Why then are we suggesting that our Nigerian brethren have a different conception of unity, and that they want a unity of conquest only? I am not making such an argument: I am saying that, although our Nigerian brothers want to maintain one Nigeria, including Biafra, on the basis of equality of citizenship, they are wrong in thinking that this can be done now. I refuse to impute bad motives to General Gowon; I believe he is mistaken in his judgment and that Africa must not make the same mistake.

The African Domino Theory

There is another Domino Theory which relates to the rest of Africa. We are told that, if we allow "tribalism" to break up Nigeria, no African country would be safe; for every African nation consists of tribes which find themselves in the same country by an accident of history and by the grace of the Imperialists. I fully accept the danger of tribalism in Africa. When we started TANU (Tanganyika African National Union) in 1954, the first of the objectives of our Party was preparation for independence, and the second was "to fight against tribalism." We have not completely succeeded in eradicating tribalism from our society; indeed I was recently forced to remind our people of this objective, and to warn them about certain tendencies.
But the dangers of tribalism are so well-known that, although I would never wish to minimize them, I do not think it is now necessary to expound them afresh. There is, however, a different fact which can be equally dangerous. Sometimes, indeed very often, the spectre of tribalism is raised by the enemies of Africa against Africa. It is dangerous for Africa to accept the argument of tribalism without examining its relevance in every given case. Indeed to the extent that we need to learn from Nigeria's "tribalism,' I have a feeling that Africa is being bamboozled or mesmerized into learning the wrong lesson.
But first, what is a Tribe? And how comparable is Nigeria's position to that which exists elsewhere in Africa? Are the Hausas a tribe? Are the Yorubas a tribe? Are the Ibos a tribe? It may be said that they are not "Nations"; but are they Tribes? There are Scottish clans, but the Scots are not a Tribe simply because of the fact that they are not a Nation. The Welsh: are they a Tribe? Are the Protestants of Northern Ireland a tribe? The Hausas, the Ibos, and the Yorubas, are not Nations in the legal sense; but they are not Tribes either. Each one of them is a "People" which could easily become a very coherent Nation. Each one of these "Peoples" of Nigeria has a better chance of forming a really viable and stable Nation than many of the legal Nations of Africa and other parts of the world.
Indeed, those who glibly compare Nigeria with other African countries show that they did not begin to understand the immense significance for the rest of Africa of the Nigerian experiment. Nigeria was trying (and if they do not allow themselves to be convinced by the internal Nigerian Domino Theory, they may continue trying) to build a Nation which incorporates several Peoples who could have become Nations on their own.
Had Nigeria succeeded (and Nigeria can still succeed if she rejects the argument of all or none), Africa would have a great example before it. We would be able to say: "Within Nigeria there are several Peoples, each conscious of itself and conscious of its ability to be a Nation on its own. If they have nevertheless succeeded in submerging their natural unity into a larger artificial unity, for the greater benefit of them all, then the rest of Africa can submerge its smaller artificial units into that greater artificiality (indeed that more natural unit of all Africa) which holds greater promise for all the peoples of Africa." In other words, any success in Nigeria - even if partial - is a demonstration of the practicability of our declared aim of African Unity - even though a Nigerian failure would not make this aim impossible of achievement. This, I repeat, is Nigeria's real significance to Africa.
No other political unit in our continent has the same significance for Africa; not even the Sudan, although the two cases are similar in one respect. Both have a basic problem of "Peoples" in the sense that the North of Sudan is different from the South, racially, religiously, culturally, and socially - although the one "People" of the South are divided into several different tribes. The Sudan's problem, therefore, is very serious - just as Nigeria's problem is.
But fortunately for Sudan, and for Africa, Southern Sudan is not blessed (or cursed) with immense mineral wealth. As a result, foreign economic interests are not involved in this conflict (until years later when oil was discovered in significant quantities in the South after Nyerere wrote this pamphlet).
However agonising the problem may be for the authorities in Khartoum - and for the people of the country - the former Colonial Power is most unlikely to pour arms into the Sudan to help maintain Sudanese unity. It is also unlikely to intervene in support of any attempt at secession. This situation will continue irrespective of the ideological leanings of the Government in Khartoum, and irrespective of what Russia does. In this case Sudanese leaders, and African leaders, have a real chance of solving the problem provided we do not make the same mistake as we made in Nigeria and act as if there is no genuine problem to be solved.
The solution, as the present Government in the Sudan has rightly foreseen, lies in a constitution which recognizes both the unity of the Sudan, and the legitimate interests of the South. This is what Eastern Nigeria was asking for before it seceded; this is what the Aburi Agreement was all about. It was the refusal, by Lagos, to accept this necessity that finally led to secession and the present situation.
The fact is that the Peoples of Nigeria have less in common, historically, linguistically, culturally, and as regards religion, than the Peoples of Scandinavia. The only thing that the Peoples of Nigeria hve in common is that they are all Africans and all have been under British rule for a few decades - and Britain governed them virtually separately.
It would be infinitely easier for the Peoples of Scandinavia to form one nation than for the Peoples of Nigeria. Those who do not see this do not understand Nigeria's significance for Africa.
One final point must be made about this tragedy. In spite of attempts on both sides of the quarrel to bring in religion, the conflict between Nigeria and Biafra is not a religious one. Yet if it were, that would be simply an additional complication: it would not justify the war. In fact, however, there are Christians and Muslims on both sides: religion cuts across the divisions between the Peoples.

The True Lesson for Africa

I said earlier that Africa is learning the wrong lesson from the Nigerian tragedy. We are saying that if Biafra is allowed to secede, every country in Africa is going to have its own Biafra. But what we are doing is looking at results without looking at the cause of those results, and then saying that the same results will happen elsewhere without there having been any causes. That is nonsense. But there is a very serious lesson to be learned from the present tragedy.
We should learn that where in any African state there is a dominant group, whether that group is ethnic, religious or otherwise, it must wield its power and influence on behalf of all the elements which go to form that country. In particular, it should be very solicitous of the interests of the minorities, because they are the ones which need the protection of the State. If a dominant group does not act in this protective manner, then civil strife and consequent Biafras become inevitable. That is the lesson Africa should learn from the Nigerian tragedy.
We African leaders had a golden opportunity at the OAU Summit Conference in Kinshasa (in September 1967), but we missed it because we were confused by the tribal domino theory. At that time the whole of Africa, including those countries which now recognize Biafra, supported the territorial integrity of Nigeria. Yet I believe that all States had some sympathy for the Easterners, who had already experienced a massacre of some 30,000 of their brethren, and who were trying to absorb nearly 2 million refugees in the Eastern Region.
Previous to secession the Ibos were simply asking for a loosening of the constitutional structure so as to maintain the Unity of Nigeria and still meet the understandable fears of the Peoples from that Region. Africa should have accepted the legitimacy of this demand. Since we were all supporting Nigeria in its main objective of maintaining national unity, we should have used our moral strength to urge Nigeria to listen to those demands. We should have pointed out that under the circumstances of the two coups and the massacres, what they were asking for was not only understandable but was also justifiable. Since we were supporting the Nigerian authorities in their efforts to keep Nigeria one, and since by that support we were rejecting any claim by the East to secede, we were in a very strong position. We did not have to worry about Domino Theories and the Charter of the OAU. But we were so obsessed, bewitched and terrified by the Domino Theory that we did not dare raise a voice for the Ibos even when we all supported the Federal Authority.
That opportunity was lost. But we must not therefore even appear to acquiesce in the present situation of war and suffering. The least we can do is now ask our brethren in both Nigeria and Biafra to stop fighting and to begin talking about their future relations. It is being said that the situation has changed from what it was two years ago, and that Biafrans need no longer fear for their future. If that is the case, we should ask Nigeria to convince the Biafrans of it at a conference table. You cannot convince people that they are safe while you are shooting and starving them.
The OAU was established by the Heads of African States. But it is intended to serve the Peoples of Africa. The OAU is not a trade union of African Heads of State. Therefore, if it is to retain the respect and support of the People of Africa, it must be concerned about the lives of the People of Africa. We must not just concern ourselves with our own survival as Heads of State; we must even be more concerned about peace and justice in Africa than we are about the sanctity of the boundaries we inherited. For the importance of these lies in the fact that their acceptance is the basis for peace and justice in our continent, and we all have a responsibility to the whole people of Africa in this regard.
Many African Governments, some of them very good governments, have been overthrown through coups. Some countries have had more than one coup; but none of them has broken up. Only the Nigerian Federation is in danger, and this from the effects of a failure to meet the legitimate interests of the Easterners, not directly because of the coups. And the fall of African Governments, however regrettable, is not the same thing as the disintegration of African countries. we must not be like the French monarch who said: "L'etat c'est Moi" - "I am the State." The OAU must sometimes raise a voice against those regimes in Africa, including independent Africa, who oppress the Peoples of Africa. In some countries in Africa it might be the only voice that can speak on behalf of the people. If we dare not do that, even in private, we shall deserve the scorn of those who accuse us of double standards.
In this connection we could learn a good lesson from our former masters. For European Governments are not often very polite to European regimes which fail to show respect for basic human rights within their own countries. Europeans do care about what happens to Europeans. (Sometimes, as in the case of Stanleyville, we are reminded of that fact rather unpleasantly). I think that is a lesson worth learning.
Thus, for example, European Governments do not invade Greece, for they respect the territorial integrity of fellow European States; but they have not left, and will not leave, the Greek regime in any doubt at all about what they think of it. Yet what have the Greek Colonels done? They have carried out a military coup against a constitutionally established government, and are detaining and persecuting the supporters of the constitution - an occurrence so familiar in young Africa that is hardly considered wrong anymore.
If we do not learn to criticise injustice within our continent, we will soon be tolerating fascism in Africa, as long as it is practised by African Governments against African Peoples. Consider what our reaction would have been if the 30,000 Ibos had been massacred by whites in Rhodesia or South Africa. One can imagine the outcry from Africa. Yet these people are still dead; the colour of those who killed them is irrelevant. We must ask Nigeria to stop more killing now, and to deal with the problem by argument, not death.
Justice is indivisible. Africa, the OAU, must act accordingly.”

reprinted in Godfrey Mwakikagile, "Nyerere and Africa: End of an Era," pp. 303 - 309.

Nyerere, "The Nigeria-Biafra Crisis":

The American Civil War

What, then, about the analogy which is sometimes drawn to the American Civil War?
Like the Nigerian Civil War, it was about secession. Like that in Nigeria it caused very dreadful suffering. But we do justify wars, or condemn them, because of what they are about. And in America, the South was not trying to break away because Southerners had been rejected in the North, and had been massacred in their thousands with the connivance or the assistance of the forces of law and order. The Southern States were not swarming with millions of refugees who had fled from the North, leaving their property behind, in order to save their skins. Of course it is true that Lincoln fought to save the Union. But he believed, even before the war, that the Union could not last half free, half slave. He was concerned to make it what it had proclaimed itself to be - a society of free and equal men. Had there been a Lincoln in Nigeria, he would have fought the prejudices which led to that inordinate and almost pathological hatred of the Ibos which made secession inevitable and justifiable.

Katanga as a Comparison

A politically more serious comparison, however, is made between the secession of Biafra and that of Katanga. Tanzania, in particular, is accused of the most blatant inconsistency because it opposed Katanga and recognizes Biafra. I know that there are similarities between Katanga and Biafra. But these similarities can be grouped into those which are superficial and irrelevant and those which are real and crucial. An examination of the real and crucial similarities reveals some apparently unnoticed facts.
First, let me acknowledge the similarities which are advanced by the opponents of Biafra, but which I believe to be superficial and irrelevant to the main issue. Katanga was part of a United Congo; Katanga decided to secede; the Centre objected; a war then broke out between secessionist Katanga and the Centre. (Notice that I am not trying to say "why" Katanga decided to secede; I am merely stating the fact of secession). Similarly, Biafra - or the Eastern Region of Nigeria - was part of a federated Nigeria; Biafra decided to secede; the Centre objected; (this is not quite correct, but I must admit a few similarities); a war broke out between secessionist Biafra and the Centre.
Now, for a different and more fundamental group of similarities. Katanga had vast copper resources; the former colonial power was very much interested in this vast amount of wealth; her economic interests were threatened by Lumumba at the Centre; when war broke out between Katanga and the Centre, Belgium supported one side in an effort to safeguard her economic interests; she joined the side supported by the copper companies. No need to go further.
Now, for the conflict in Nigeria. Biafra had vital oil resources; the former colonial power was vitally interested in this vast amount of oil; her interests were threatened in the conflict; (the really vital matter was the threat, not whether the threat came from the Centre or the periphery; this is only important in deciding who is going to be ally and who enemy); but in this case, due to relations between the British and the Ibos, the threat came from the secessionists. When war broke out between Biafra and the Centre, Britain, like Belgium, was on the same side as the Foreign Companies - in this case the Oil Companies.
Let those who love the superficial similarities of secession have the courage and honesty to accept this unpleasant fact also. In Katanga, Belgium and the Copper Companies were on one side; in Nigeria, Britain and the Oil Companies are on one side. This is the one constant and crucial factor in both cases, around which everything else can be variable. In both cases, the former colonial power and the vested economic interests are on one side.
Tshombe was a stooge of the Copper Interests. They filled his coffers with their vast financial resources. Ojukwu is not a stooge of these interests; they refuse to pay him a penny from the wealth they derive from Biafran oil. This vital contrast is the corollary to the decision to support the Centre instead of secession.
In the one case it was the Centre under Lumumba which was the threat to the economic interests if the Congo remained united; and therefore it was the Centre which had to be starved of Revenue. In the other case it was a separate Ibo state which was the threat, and it was Biafra, therefore, which had to be strangled. Is this really so difficult to see? Only great simplicity - or even extreme naivety - could lead anyone to accept that Britain is defending the unity of Nigeria, or African Unity in general. She is defending her own economic interests. That may be natural and even understandable, but it is as well that it should be understood and not camouflaged by talk of a particular principle.
The Netherlands decision to stop the supply of arms to Nigeria after the capture of Port Harcourt and its oil-rich surrounding areas is a reflection of her assessment that the oil supplies were then assured. But the British wish to be more certain. I am told that Britain expects to get 25 per cent of her oil supply from Nigeria by 1972. With her traditional Middle East suppliers being (in her view) unreliable, this is a very serious matter indeed for industrial Britain.
From Britain's point of view, what is vital is her oil interests; as she decides on her own policy, this is what the war is about. The Biafrans are fighting a most unequal war, and if they go on fighting, God alone knows what their end will be. Completely blockaded as they are, Nigeria no longer needs to shoot them into submission. Starvation and disease can fight for Nigeria, and Britain can go on explaining to the world that this is inevitable and justifiable because it is part of warfare.
Those who want peace before the Biafrans are wiped out must convince the British of one of two things. They have to be convinced that, in their present helpless position, the Biafrans are no longer a threat to British interests. And truly, the Biafrans know how weak they are; they are less interested in the oil than in their lives. This is the relatively easier thing to try and convince the British. The more difficult one is to try and convince Britain that her oil interests would be safe in an independent Biafra. But how could they know that Russia would not help Federal Nigeria to win total victory against the Biafrans? And if that happened, where would Britain be?
These are the vital issues, and those who are saying that the OAU can solve this problem are being fooled, or are conveniently fooling themselves. Britain is the vital force in this conflict; more important even than Federal Nigeria. The Biafrans believe they are fighting for their very survival; they are fighting to live in freedom and security. The Nigerian people are not quite sure what they are fighting for. Some of their leaders hate the Ibos; some may have ambitions of being Lincolns; some may even believe that they can force others into a United Nigeria and still have a meaningful nation. But that is all.
Without Britain's military and - in particular - her diplomatic support, the Nigerians would have no hope of winning against the Biafrans. The Soviet Union would not have been able to help them secure victory. Indeed, without Britain, the Soviet Union would have become a huge diplomatic embarrassment to the Nigerians; (and Nigeria would have become a wee embarrassment to Russia). For if Russia had supported Lagos and Britain did not, most of the Western world would have been anti-Lagos; and since there is so much popular sympathy for Biafra in many Western countries, it is hard to think of a reason which would have prevented Western Governments from supporting Biafra. After all, they would be fighting against communism.
Under these circumstances it would not have mattered whether African Heads of Government had continued to fear the effect of an example of successful secession; the Western powers, the only ones who have real power in Africa, would be fearing a different example, and one more vital to their own interests.
But if this argument is not convincing, those who believe that there is a direct and valid comparison between Katanga and Biafra must be able to answer some few questions.
Which tribe in Katanga is the equivalent of the Ibos? Azikiwe, an Ibo at the Centre, was trying hard, under very difficult circumstances, to co-operate with the dominant North to build a United Nigeria: who was his equivalent in the Congo? The Ibos, because of their education, industry, enterprise (and consequent arrogance?) were almost universally hated in Nigeria. Who in Katanga represented this educated, industrous, enterprising, arrogant and almost universally hated People? Who in the Congo represented the 30,000 massacred Easterners? Who in Katanga represented the 1.5 or 2 million refugees? What in the Congo represented the National Council for Nigeria and the Cameroons (NCNC), a party led mainly by Ibos it is true, but one which was nevertheless truly aimed at Nigerian Unity? Who in the Congo was the equivalent of the Sardauna of Sokoto, so powerful that he did not even bother to go to the Centre but governed the Federation through lieutenants while he himself governed the vital North? What in Katanga was the equivalent of the Northern People's Congress (NPC)?
Or again, who is Biafra's Tshombe? Who in Biafra represents the Copper Companies? Africa appealed to the United Nations to support Patrice Lumumba; why are we not appealing to the United Nations to support General Gowon, who in this analogy would be Nigeria's Lumumba? Perhaps the true answer is that it is not necessary; he already has strong support. But why is not necessary? Because the Ibos are simply fighting for their own survival and therefore have no strong supporter. That is their strength and weakness: it is the major difference between Katanga and Biafra.
In the one case, foreign economic interest was on the side of the secessionists and that made them very strong; in the other case, foreign economic interest is on the side of the Federalists, and makes them too very strong. They can even quote the OAU Charter on non-interference in the internal affairs of a member state. The devil can quote Scripture - when it suits him. In the one case, a despicable African stooge allowed himself to be used as a tool of foreign economic interests; in the other case, a brave African people are fighting against immense odds purely and simply for their own survival and their own self-respect and dignity. How does this analogy stand up to examination?
The break-up of Nigeria is a terrible thing. But it is less terrible than that cruel war. Thousands of people are being shot, bombed, or seeing their homes and livelihood destroyed; millions, including the children of Africa, are starving to death. (It is estimated that possibly more people have died in this war in the last two years (since 1967) than in Vietnam in the last ten years). We are told that nothing can be done about this. It is said that the sufferings of the Biafrans in the war are regrettable, but that starvation is a legitimate war weapon against an enemy. Yet by this statement you have said that these people, the Nigerians and the Biafrans, are enemies, just as Britons and Germans in Hitler's war were enemies.
If that is the case, is it rational to imagine that, once a Federal victory is obtained, they can immediately be equal members of one society, working together without fear? Or is the logic of being enemies not a logic which leads to conquest and domination when side is victorious?
We are told that Ojukwu should end the terrible sufferings of his people by surrender. We are told that he should reason thus: "The Nigerians are stronger than we are and they have stronger friends than we could ever hope to get. If we go on resisting, a combination of bombing, starvation and the inevitable epidemics, would exterminate us." Perhaps he should add, kindly: "Even if the Nigerians never intended to exterminate us." He should then convince the Biafran people about the wisdom of surrendering and then duly send the appropriate notice to the Nigerians. When the Federal Government gets this note, they presumably say: "At last you have come to your senses. As you rightly say, we never intended to exterminate you; but had you gone on resisting we would have continued the bombing and the blockade and the result would have been exactly the same as if we had intended to exterminate you." Perhaps they would add, kindly: "But, of course, the fault would have been yours." Then the Biafrans surrender and all is well.
Historically and logically, however, surrender on such terms as these - with the alternative being extermination - is for the purpose of creating empires. Surrender to an implacable enemy on his own terms, with the only condition being that you should not be killed, cannot lead to any kind of friendship, or even toleration. If it is a battalion which surrenders, the soldiers become prisoners-of-war; if it is a People, they become a colony, or an occupied territory, or something like that. Those who surrender cannot become an integral part of the conqueror's territory because they did not do so of their own free will; they did so as the only alternative to death."

Reprinted in Godfrey Mwakikagile, "Nyerere and Africa: End of an Era," pp. 299 - 303.

Nyerere, "The Nigeria-Biafra Crisis"

“In arguments about the Nigeria/Biafra conflict, there has been a great deal of talk about the principles of national integrity and of self-determination; many analogies have been drawn with other conflicts in the world, and particularly in Africa; and finally, there has been a considerable amount of discussion about the role of the OAU and other international organizations in relation to the present conflict. It is my purpose to discuss some of these problems and to examine the lessons which are, and which I believe should be, drawn from the analogies.
Let me look first at the analogies and their relevance to the principles which are under discussion.


Gibraltar

The British give three reasons for their opposition to the demand for the incorporation of Gibraltar into the Spanish State. First is the Treaty of Utrecht 1713 - to which the Gibraltarians were not a party; second is the opposition of the Gibraltarians; and third is the dictatorship in Spain.
It is the second reason which Britain mostly uses to justify her position, and indeed it is the more important one. For if the Gibraltarians wished, they could say: "To hell with the Treaty of Utrecht: we were not a party to it anyway." If, after that, the territory were incorporated, Britain would not be able to do anything about it, unless she was to come out openly in favour of imperialism.
Yet I believe that Britain is simply using the fact of the Gibraltarians' opposition to incorporation, just as she is using the legalities of the Treaty. When Britain feels that it is in her interests to come to terms with Spain, I doubt that either the Treaty or the Gibraltarians' feelings will prevail - indeed this doubt is buttressed by the fact that Britain will not accept the "integration with Britain" policy. But this is not the point I want to argue.
My point is that two quite separate arguments are used by Britain in this dispute: one, an imperialist Treaty between several powers, including Britain and Spain; and two, the feelings of a group of people who were the object of that Treaty.
In the political climate of the modern world, the opposition of the Gibraltarians is the more important matter for winning world support for Britain's cause. But the Treaty argument also has an importance.
Look now at the analogy with the Nigeria/Biafra issue. Britain appears to be arguing that she is helping Nigeria to stop the Ibos from unilaterally breaking the "Treaty" under which all the peoples of Nigeria agreed to accept independence as a single Federation. In this case, in other words, she is leaving out the question of self-determination, although it is the main plank of her argument on the Gibraltar question.
But in the case of Nigeria and Biafra, the issue is not some minor, technical issue about the legalities or morality of a Treaty. It is an issue of life and death, involving a massacre by one party to that Treaty of more people among another party to the Treaty than all the inhabitants of Gibraltar. After the failure of several serious attempts to secure reassurance for the resultant fears, the People who had been the victims decided to break away to form their own State. If the principle of self-determination is relevant in the case of Gibraltar - as it is - then surely it is relevant under these circumstances? But the rest of Nigeria objects, and says: "These Ibos must remain part of Nigeria." Surely we should be saying to Nigeria: "Get their consent." Instead, what we are saying is: "Shoot and starve them into submission."
It may be argued that all those involved in a Treaty should be consulted about any change in it, and that therefore in this case the Nigerians should be consulted as well as the Biafrans. That is not actually my argument, but let us look at it in these two cases.
Consult the People of Spain about the incorporation of Gibraltar: I do not know what their verdict would be. Consult the People of Britain: they will vote against Spain - not because of the Treaty of Utrecht but because the Gibraltarians do not want to be part of Spain. They would vote, I hope - indeed I am sure - in support of the self-determination of the people of Gibraltar as it has been so freely expressed, not for Spain's claims.
Then ask the Nigerians about the forcible incorporation of the Ibos. At worst their answer would be equivalent to that of the Spanish Government, and of their own Government now: "Keep them part of Nigeria, even against their will." Ask the people of Britain about this issue: in this case I am not sure what their verdict might be, in spite of the clear determination of the 8 million Biafrans to be left alone. But neither is (British Prime Minister Harold) Wilson sure, so we shall never know.
What we do know is that the 29,000 Gibraltarians have been asked their opinion about the dispute in which they are involved, and they have given their answer. The 8 million Biafrans have not been asked, and will not be asked their opinion on their conflict; but they have given their answer nevertheless - with their blood.
Britain invokes the principle of self-determination in the case of Gibraltar, because it serves her interests to do so. She must justify her stand on some acceptable principle - international law, plus self-determination - because she still wants the Rock. Nevertheless, the principles she advances are valid. I am not going to say that they are not valid because they are advanced by Britain. In the case of Nigeria, Britain invokes a different principle - the principle of territorial integrity - because it suits her own interests to do so. The choice of principle is the result of a decision taken on the basis of British interests, not because one principle is more valid than another. If British interests had been different, we would have self-determination being advanced as a reason for supporting Biafra.
If the dictatorship of General Franco is an additional reason for supporting the Gibraltarians, one may rightly ask for similar consideration to be given to the people of Biafra. They object to incorporation because before secession 30,000 Easterners were massacred without anyone being punished; and the same regime threatens them with complete extermination through starvation unless they surrender. Are not such actions, and the attitudes they reveal, at least as good a reason as Franco's dictatorship for the Biafrans' opposition to being incorporated into Nigeria? Have the Gibraltarians so much reason to fear General Franco?


Reprinted in Godfrey Mwakikagile, Nyerere and Africa: End of an Era," pp. 296 - 309

Nyerere, “Why We Recognised Biafra,” The Observer, London, 28 April 1968:

“Leaders of Tanzania have probably talked more about the need for African unity than those of any other country. Giving formal recognition to even greater disunity in Africa was therefore a very difficult decision to make. Our reluctance to do so was compounded by our understanding of the problems of unity - of which we have some experience - and of the problems of Nigeria. For we have had very good relations with the Federation of Nigeria, even to the extent that when we needed help from Africa we asked it of the Federation.

But unity can only be based on the general consent of the people involved. The people must feel that this state, or this nation, is theirs; and they must be willing to have their quarrels in that context. Once a large number of the people of any such political unit stop believing that the state is theirs, and that the government is their instrument, then the unit is no longer viable. It will not receive the loyalty of its citizens.

For the citizen’s duty to serve, and if necessary to die for, his country stems from the fact that it is his and that its government is the instrument of himself and his fellow citizens. The duty stems, in other words, from the common denominator of accepted statehood, and from the state government’s responsibility to protect all the citizens and serve them all. For states, and governments, exist for men and for the service of man. They exist for the citizens’ protection, their welfare, and the future well-being of their children. There is no other justification for states and governments except man.

In Nigeria this consciousness of a common citizenship was destroyed by the events of 1966, and in particular by the pogroms in which 30,000 Eastern Nigerians were murdered, many more injured, and about two million forced to flee from the North of their country. It is these pogroms, and the apparent inability or unwillingness of the authorities to protect the victims, which underlies the Easterners’ conviction that they have been rejected by other Nigerians and abandoned by the Federal Government.

Whether the Easterners are correct in their belief that they have been rejected is a matter for argument. But they do have this belief. And if they are wrong, they have to be convinced that they are wrong. They will not convinced by being shot. Nor will their acceptance as part of the Federation be demonstrated by the use of Federal power to bomb schools and hospitals in the areas to which people have fled from persecution.

In Britain, in 1950, the Stone of Scone was stolen from Westminster Abbey by Scottish Nationalists while I was still a student at Edinburgh. That act did not represent a wish by the majority of the Scottish people to govern themselves. But if, for some peculiar reason, that vast majority of the Scottish people decided that Scotland should secede from the United Kingdom, would the Government in London order the bombing of Edinburgh, and in pursuing the Scots into the Highlands, kill the civilians they overtook? Certainly the Union Government would not do this; it would argue with the Scots, and try to reach some compromise.

As President of Tanzania it is my duty to safeguard the integrity of the United Republic. But if the mass of the people of Zanzibar should, without external manipulation, and for some reason of their own, decide that the Union was prejudicial to their existence, I could not advocate bombing them into submission. To do so would not be to defend the Union. The Union would have ceased to exist when the consent of its constituent members was withdrawn. I would certainly be one of those working hard to prevent secession, or to reduce its disintegrating effects. But I could not support a war on the people whom I have sworn to serve - especially not if the secession is preceded by a rejection of Zanzibaris by Tanganyikans.

Similarly, if we had succeeded in the 1963 attempt to form an East African Federation, or if we should do so in the future, Tanzania would be overjoyed. But if at some time thereafter the vast majority of the people of any one of the countries should decide - and persist in a decision - to withdraw from the Federation, the other two countries could not wage war against the people who wished to secede. Such a decision would mark a failure by the Federation. That would be tragic; but it would not justify mass killings.

The Biafrans now feel that they cannot live under conditions of personal security in the present Nigerian Federation. As they were unable to achieve an agreement on a new form of association, they have therefore claimed the right to govern themselves. The Biafrans are not claiming the right to govern anyone else. They have not said that they must govern the Federation as the only way of protecting themselves. They have simply withdrawn their consent to the system under which they used to be governed.

Biafra is not now operating under the control of a democratic government, any more than Nigeria is. But the mass support for the establishment and defence of Biafra is obvious. This is not a case of a few leaders declaring secession for their own private glory. Indeed, by the Aburi Agreement the leaders of Biafra showed a greater reluctance to give up hope of some form of unity with Nigeria than the masses possessed. But the agreement was not implemented.

Tanzania would still like to see some form of co-operation or unity between all the peoples of Nigeria and Biafra. But whether this happens, to what extent, and in what fields, can only be decided by agreement among all the peoples involved. It is not for Tanzania to say.

We in this country believe that unity is vital for the future of Africa. But it must be a unity which serves the people, and which is freely determined upon by the people.

For 10 months we have accepted the Federal Government’s legal right to our support in a ‘police action to defend the integrity of the State.’ On that basis we have watched a civil war result in the death of about 100,000 people, and the employment of mercenaries by both sides. We have watched the Federal Government reject the advice of Africa to talk instead of demanding surrender before talks could begin. Everything combined gradually to force us to the conclusion that Nigerian unity did not exist.

Tanzania deeply regrets that the will for unity in Nigeria has been destroyed over the past two years. But we are convinced that Nigerian unity cannot be maintained by force any more than unity in East Africa could be created by one state conquering another.

It seemed to us that by refusing to recognise the existence of Biafra we were tacitly supporting a war against the people of Eastern Nigeria - and a war conducted in the name of unity. We could not continue doing this any longer.”

Reprinted in Godfrey Mwakikagile, "Nyerere and Africa: End of an Era," Fifth Edition,New Africa Press, Pretoria, South Africa, 2010, pp. 280 - 283.

The brutal treatment of African migrants in the Arab countries of North Africa and the virulent racism they are subjected to, on daily basis, are a product of utter contempt and extreme hatred of black people in Arab societies which are inherently racist.

Arabs have absolutely no respect - let alone compassion - for black people. They want to dominate black African countries and are determined to do so in order to serve their own interests at the expense of Africans. They don't even call themselves "Africans." The term "Africans" or "African" applies only to black people they insist. They say they are "Arab," which they are, and members of the Arab world, not of the African world, which is true.

There are African leaders who have been blunt about Arab intentions to dominate Africa. They have unequivocally stated that Arabs are only concerned about their well-being and don't care about black people. Black African countries are there for them to conquer and take over; with black people working for them as slaves, as they have for hundreds of years. Even today, Arabs still call Africans "slaves," and were they come from, Black Africa, "land of slaves."

The most prominent African leaders who were blunt about Arab bad intentions to dominate Africa were Obafemi Awolowo and Anthony Enahoro. Among African president, it was Dr. Hastings Kamuzu Banda of Malawi, Leopold Sedar Senghor of Senegal, and Yoweri Museveni of Uganda whose position on Arab intentions in Africa is a very strong warning to Black Africa on what will happen if Africans are not careful, very careful, when dealing with Arabs. They are going to take over African countries.

Even Nyerere, who was a close friend of Gamal Abdel Nasser and worked with him as much as he did with Nkrumah and Sekou Toure on African liberation, warned Black Africa not long before he died that Arab North Africa - and other people outside Africa - don't care about their well-being of African countries south of the Sahara. As he out it: "Africa south of the Sahara is on its own."

Nkrumah also was warned by George Padmore, his adviser on African affairs, to be careful in his dealings with Arabs; they couldn't be trusted. Even African Americans who went to live in Egypt when Nasser was president were expelled soon after Nasser died and was succeeded by Anwar Sadat. Among those expelled was Shirley Graham Du Bois, wife of Dr. W.e.B. Du Bois. She was invited by Nyerere to go and live in Tanzania. She became a citizen of Tanzania and died a Tanzanian. Her husband Dr. Du Bois died a citizen of Ghana. Nyerere also invited Nkrumah to go and live in Tanzania after he was overthrown but went to, Guinea, instead, at the invitation of Sekou Toure, saying he wanted to be closer to Ghana to monitor events in his home country after his ouster hoping he would be reinstated.

After Nasser died, Egypt no longer maintained close ties with any black African country and his successor, Sadat, is on record insulting and making fun of African countries. He never had any close ties with Nyerere and Sekou Toure the way Nasser did. His contempt for Black Africa is a matter of record.

Dr. Banda was explicit in his criticism and condemnation of Arabs in Africa. He said they were "foreigners and imperialists" just like the whites in South Africa and there was no difference, none whatsoever, between the two. He went on to say he would have liked to form an army specifically for the purpose of sending the soldiers to Sudan to help blacks fight the Arabs who were oppressing and killing them but couldn't do so because he just didn't have the money.

Like Banda, President Senghor also said Arabs were imperialists but Africans would resist any attempt to conquer them.

Museveni in an interview on Hardtalk, BBC, said Arabs wanted to dominate Africans and that the two were different people.

Here is the position of Awolowo and Enahoro on Arabs in Africa:

"Awolowo and the AG published an official statement on the guiding principles of their foreign policy....The paper, 'Foreign Policy of Independent Nigeria,' included a strong condemnation of encroaching Arab influence in Africa, and particularly Nasser's hegemonic control:

'It is clear that President Nasser will only tolerate an Arab leader for the continent of Africa. He is apparently convinced that the black peoples of Africa are backward and that Egypt has a mission of leadership to fulfil on the Continent of Africa.

The Action Group considers that this is the height of folly and short-sightedness to have close political association with Egypt, so long as President Nasser holds sway in that country.'" - (Quoted in Willie Molesi, Black Africa versus Arab North Africa: The Great Divide, p. 132).

“Obafemi Awolowo...had his disdain for the Arab world....He did not consider Egypt part of Africa and particularly detested the Egyptian leader Gamal Abdel Nasser, whom he accused of 'undisguised totalitarianism at home and territorial ambitions in Africa and the Muslim world.' As Ibrahim Gambari has noted, Awolowo's party spokesman on foreign affairs, Anthony Enahoro, wanted Arab North Africa excluded from any discussion on pan-Africanism.” - (Quoted in Willie Molesi, Black Africa versus Arab North Africa: The Great Divide, p. 133).

“Influential Southern leaders such as Chief Awolowo, head of the third major Nigerian political party, detested Nasser's Egypt and the Arab world. He did not really consider Egypt an African country and accused Nasser of 'undisguised totalitarianism (at home) and territorial ambitions in Africa and the Muslim world.' Chief Awolowo's deputy and main spokesman on foreign affairs, Anthony Enahoro, wanted the exclusion of Arab North African countries from discussions of, and meetings about, Pan-Africanism.” (Quoted in Willie Molesi, Black Africa versus Arab North Africa: The Great Divide, pp. 133 - 134).

Kamuzu Banda:

“In a speech to the Malawi Congress Party in September, 1968, he complained that only a lack of funds prevented him from raising a national army to fight alongside Africans against Arabs in the Sudan because he thought Africans in Southern Sudan were being murdered by the Arabs, yet African leaders did not lift a finger in protest.

'There is no difference whatsoever between the Whites in South Africa and the Arabs in the Sudan. Both are settlers – foreigners and imperialists,' he declared....Dr. Banda declined to attend the OAU Summit Conference in September on the ground of its being held in Algiers.” - Willie Molesi, Black Africa versus Arab North Africa: The Great Divide, p. 134).

Yoweri Museveni:

“Black Africans are humble people, we never impose our views on anybody else, we are not like Europeans or Arabs who want to impose their views.

I normally tell people that when I hear Arabs talking of haram (something that is forbidden), something which is haram, I always tell them that my history of haram is much longer than that one of the Arabs....I don't eat very many of those things you people eat....But I keep this to myself. This is the difference with the black people....

Those jihadists (who killed more than 70 people in the Ugandan capital Kampala in July 2010) are really non-African in their attitudes. I have told you about the attitude of the black people....Our Moslems do not engage in that type of chauvinism. They keep their views to themselves, so do Christians, so do traditional groups. That's how we live in harmony....

We are ready to work together to defeat these foreigners who are coming with these chauvinistic ideas from the Middle East to implant them in our continent. In our continent, we black people, we live and let live. We never try to impose our views on anybody else.” - (Quoted in Willie Molesi, Black Africa verus Arab North Africa: The Great Divide, p. 21).

Nyerere:

“North Africa is to Europe what Mexico is to the United States. North Africans who have no jobs will not go to Nigeria; they’ll be thinking of Europe or the Middle East, because of the imperatives of geography and history and religion and language. North Africa is part of Europe and the Middle East.

Nasser was a great leader and a great African leader. I got on extremely well with him. Once he sent me a minister, and I had a long discussion with his minister at the State House here, and in the course of the discussion, the minister says to me, 'Mr. President, this is my first visit to Africa.'

North Africa, because of the pull of the Mediterranean, and I say, history and culture, and religion, North Africa is pulled towards the North. When North Africans look for jobs, they go to Western Europe and southern Western Europe, or they go to the Middle East.

And Europe has a specific policy for North Africa, specific policy for North Africa. It’s not only about development; it’s also about security. Because of you don’t do something about North Africa, they’ll come.

Africa, south of the Sahara, is different; totally different. If you have no jobs here in Tanzania, where do you go? The Japanese have no fear that you people will flock to Japan. The North Americans have no fear that you people will flock to North America. Not even from West Africa. The Atlantic, the Atlantic as an ocean, like the Mediterranean, it has its own logic. But links North America and Western Europe, not North America and West Africa.

Africa south of the Sahara is isolated. That is the first point I want to make. South of the Sahara is totally isolated in terms of that configuration of developing power in the world in the 21st century - on its own. There is no centre of power in whose self-interest it’s important to develop Africa, no centre. Not North America, not Japan, not Western Europe. There’s no self-interest to bother about Africa south of the Sahara. Africa south of the Sahara is on its own. Na si jambo baya. Those of you who don’t know Kiswahili, I just whispered, 'Not necessarily bad.'

That’s the first thing I wanted to say about Africa south of the Sahara. African leadership, the coming African leadership, will have to bear that in mind. You are on your own....

So that’s the first thing I wanted to say about Africa south of the Sahara. Africa south of the Sahara in those terms is isolated....

The second point about Africa, and again I am talking about Africa south of the Sahara; it is fragmented, fragmented. From the very beginning of independence 40 years ago, we were against that idea, that the continent is so fragmented. We called it the Balkanisation of Africa. Today, I think the Balkans are talking about the Africanisation of Europe. Africa’s states are too many, too small, some make no logic, whether political logic or ethnic logic or anything. They are non-viable....

Africa south of the Sahara is isolated. Therefore, to develop, it will have to depend upon its own resources basically. Internal resources, nationally; and Africa will have to depend upon Africa. The leadership of the future will have to devise, try to carry out policies of maximum national self-reliance and maximum collective self-reliance. They have no other choice....

The small countries in Africa must move towards either unity or co-operation, unity of Africa. The leadership of the future, of the 21st century, should have less respect, less respect for this thing called “national sovereignty.” I’m not saying take up arms and destroy the state, no! This idea that we must preserve the Tanganyika, then preserve the Kenya as they are, is nonsensical!

The nation-states we in Africa, have inherited from Europe. They are the builders of the nation-states par excellence. For centuries they fought wars! The history of Europe, the history of the building of Europe is a history of war. And sometimes their wars when they get hotter although they’re European wars, they call them world wars. And we all get involved. We fight even in Tanganyika here, we fought here, one world war.

These Europeans, powerful, where little Belgium is more powerful than the whole of Africa south of the Sahara put together; these powerful European states are moving towards unity, and you people are talking about the atavism of the tribe, this is nonsense! I am telling you people. How can anybody think of the tribe as the unity of the future?....

Europe now, you can take it almost as God-given, Europe is not going to fight with Europe anymore. The Europeans are not going to take up arms against Europeans. They are moving towards unity - even the little, the little countries of the Balkans which are breaking up, Yugoslavia breaking up, but they are breaking up at the same time the building up is taking place. They break up and say we want to come into the bigger unity.

So there’s a building movement, there’s a building of Europe. These countries which have old, old sovereignties, countries of hundreds of years old; they are forgetting this, they are moving towards unity. And you people, you think Tanzania is sacred? What is Tanzania!

You have to move towards unity.... If we can’t move towards bigger nation-states, at least let’s move towards greater co-operation. This is beginning to happen. And the new leadership in Africa should encourage it....Please accept the logic of coming together.” - (Quoted in Willie Molesi, Black Africa versus Arab North Africa: The Great Divide, pp. 25 - 28).

The brutal treatment of African migrants in the Arab countries of North Africa and the virulent racism they are subjected to, on daily basis, are a product of utter contempt and extreme hatred of black people in Arab societies which are inherently racist.

Arabs have absolutely no respect - let alone compassion - for black people. They want to dominate black African countries and are determined to do so in order to serve their own interests at the expense of Africans. They don't even call themselves "Africans." The term "Africans" or "African" applies only to black people they insist. They say they are "Arab," which they are, and members of the Arab world, not of the African world, which is true.

There are African leaders who have been blunt about Arab intentions to dominate Africa. They have unequivocally stated that Arabs are only concerned about their well-being and don't care about black people. Black African countries are there for them to conquer and take over; with black people working for them as slaves, as they have for hundreds of years. Even today, Arabs still call Africans "slaves," and were they come from, Black Africa, "land of slaves."

The most prominent African leaders who were blunt about Arab bad intentions to dominate Africa were Obafemi Awolowo and Anthony Enahoro. Among African president, it was Dr. Hastings Kamuzu Banda of Malawi, Leopold Sedar Senghor of Senegal, and Yoweri Museveni of Uganda whose position on Arab intentions in Africa is a very strong warning to Black Africa on what will happen if Africans are not careful, very careful, when dealing with Arabs. They are going to take over African countries.

Even Nyerere, who was a close friend of Gamal Abdel Nasser and worked with him as much as he did with Nkrumah and Sekou Toure on African liberation, warned Black Africa not long before he died that Arab North Africa - and other people outside Africa - don't care about their well-being of African countries south of the Sahara. As he out it: "Africa south of the Sahara is on its own."

Nkrumah also was warned by George Padmore, his adviser on African affairs, to be careful in his dealings with Arabs; they couldn't be trusted. Even African Americans who went to live in Egypt when Nasser was president were expelled soon after Nasser died and was succeeded by Anwar Sadat. Among those expelled was Shirley Graham Du Bois, wife of Dr. W.e.B. Du Bois. She was invited by Nyerere to go and live in Tanzania. She became a citizen of Tanzania and died a Tanzanian. Her husband Dr. Du Bois died a citizen of Ghana. Nyerere also invited Nkrumah to go and live in Tanzania after he was overthrown but went to, Guinea, instead, at the invitation of Sekou Toure, saying he wanted to be closer to Ghana to monitor events in his home country after his ouster hoping he would be reinstated.

After Nasser died, Egypt no longer maintained close ties with any black African country and his successor, Sadat, is on record insulting and making fun of African countries. He never had any close ties with Nyerere and Sekou Toure the way Nasser did. His contempt for Black Africa is a matter of record.

Dr. Banda was explicit in his criticism and condemnation of Arabs in Africa. He said they were "foreigners and imperialists" just like the whites in South Africa and there was no difference, none whatsoever, between the two. He went on to say he would have liked to form an army specifically for the purpose of sending the soldiers to Sudan to help blacks fight the Arabs who were oppressing and killing them but couldn't do so because he just didn't have the money.

Like Banda, President Senghor also said Arabs were imperialists but Africans would resist any attempt to conquer them.

Museveni in an interview on Hardtalk, BBC, said Arabs wanted to dominate Africans and that the two were different people.

Here is the position of Awolowo and Enahoro on Arabs in Africa:

"Awolowo and the AG published an official statement on the guiding principles of their foreign policy....The paper, 'Foreign Policy of Independent Nigeria,' included a strong condemnation of encroaching Arab influence in Africa, and particularly Nasser's hegemonic control:

'It is clear that President Nasser will only tolerate an Arab leader for the continent of Africa. He is apparently convinced that the black peoples of Africa are backward and that Egypt has a mission of leadership to fulfil on the Continent of Africa.

The Action Group considers that this is the height of folly and short-sightedness to have close political association with Egypt, so long as President Nasser holds sway in that country.'" - (Quoted in Willie Molesi, Black Africa versus Arab North Africa: The Great Divide, p. 132).

“Obafemi Awolowo...had his disdain for the Arab world....He did not consider Egypt part of Africa and particularly detested the Egyptian leader Gamal Abdel Nasser, whom he accused of 'undisguised totalitarianism at home and territorial ambitions in Africa and the Muslim world.' As Ibrahim Gambari has noted, Awolowo's party spokesman on foreign affairs, Anthony Enahoro, wanted Arab North Africa excluded from any discussion on pan-Africanism.” - (Quoted in Willie Molesi, Black Africa versus Arab North Africa: The Great Divide, p. 133).

“Influential Southern leaders such as Chief Awolowo, head of the third major Nigerian political party, detested Nasser's Egypt and the Arab world. He did not really consider Egypt an African country and accused Nasser of 'undisguised totalitarianism (at home) and territorial ambitions in Africa and the Muslim world.' Chief Awolowo's deputy and main spokesman on foreign affairs, Anthony Enahoro, wanted the exclusion of Arab North African countries from discussions of, and meetings about, Pan-Africanism.” (Quoted in Willie Molesi, Black Africa versus Arab North Africa: The Great Divide, pp. 133 - 134).

Kamuzu Banda:

“In a speech to the Malawi Congress Party in September, 1968, he complained that only a lack of funds prevented him from raising a national army to fight alongside Africans against Arabs in the Sudan because he thought Africans in Southern Sudan were being murdered by the Arabs, yet African leaders did not lift a finger in protest.

'There is no difference whatsoever between the Whites in South Africa and the Arabs in the Sudan. Both are settlers – foreigners and imperialists,' he declared....Dr. Banda declined to attend the OAU Summit Conference in September on the ground of its being held in Algiers.” - Willie Molesi, Black Africa versus Arab North Africa: The Great Divide, p. 134).

Yoweri Museveni:

“Black Africans are humble people, we never impose our views on anybody else, we are not like Europeans or Arabs who want to impose their views.

I normally tell people that when I hear Arabs talking of haram (something that is forbidden), something which is haram, I always tell them that my history of haram is much longer than that one of the Arabs....I don't eat very many of those things you people eat....But I keep this to myself. This is the difference with the black people....

Those jihadists (who killed more than 70 people in the Ugandan capital Kampala in July 2010) are really non-African in their attitudes. I have told you about the attitude of the black people....Our Moslems do not engage in that type of chauvinism. They keep their views to themselves, so do Christians, so do traditional groups. That's how we live in harmony....

We are ready to work together to defeat these foreigners who are coming with these chauvinistic ideas from the Middle East to implant them in our continent. In our continent, we black people, we live and let live. We never try to impose our views on anybody else.” - (Quoted in Willie Molesi, Black Africa verus Arab North Africa: The Great Divide, p. 21).

Nyerere:

“North Africa is to Europe what Mexico is to the United States. North Africans who have no jobs will not go to Nigeria; they’ll be thinking of Europe or the Middle East, because of the imperatives of geography and history and religion and language. North Africa is part of Europe and the Middle East.

Nasser was a great leader and a great African leader. I got on extremely well with him. Once he sent me a minister, and I had a long discussion with his minister at the State House here, and in the course of the discussion, the minister says to me, 'Mr. President, this is my first visit to Africa.'

North Africa, because of the pull of the Mediterranean, and I say, history and culture, and religion, North Africa is pulled towards the North. When North Africans look for jobs, they go to Western Europe and southern Western Europe, or they go to the Middle East.

And Europe has a specific policy for North Africa, specific policy for North Africa. It’s not only about development; it’s also about security. Because of you don’t do something about North Africa, they’ll come.

Africa, south of the Sahara, is different; totally different. If you have no jobs here in Tanzania, where do you go? The Japanese have no fear that you people will flock to Japan. The North Americans have no fear that you people will flock to North America. Not even from West Africa. The Atlantic, the Atlantic as an ocean, like the Mediterranean, it has its own logic. But links North America and Western Europe, not North America and West Africa.

Africa south of the Sahara is isolated. That is the first point I want to make. South of the Sahara is totally isolated in terms of that configuration of developing power in the world in the 21st century - on its own. There is no centre of power in whose self-interest it’s important to develop Africa, no centre. Not North America, not Japan, not Western Europe. There’s no self-interest to bother about Africa south of the Sahara. Africa south of the Sahara is on its own. Na si jambo baya. Those of you who don’t know Kiswahili, I just whispered, 'Not necessarily bad.'

That’s the first thing I wanted to say about Africa south of the Sahara. African leadership, the coming African leadership, will have to bear that in mind. You are on your own....

So that’s the first thing I wanted to say about Africa south of the Sahara. Africa south of the Sahara in those terms is isolated....

The second point about Africa, and again I am talking about Africa south of the Sahara; it is fragmented, fragmented. From the very beginning of independence 40 years ago, we were against that idea, that the continent is so fragmented. We called it the Balkanisation of Africa. Today, I think the Balkans are talking about the Africanisation of Europe. Africa’s states are too many, too small, some make no logic, whether political logic or ethnic logic or anything. They are non-viable....

Africa south of the Sahara is isolated. Therefore, to develop, it will have to depend upon its own resources basically. Internal resources, nationally; and Africa will have to depend upon Africa. The leadership of the future will have to devise, try to carry out policies of maximum national self-reliance and maximum collective self-reliance. They have no other choice....

The small countries in Africa must move towards either unity or co-operation, unity of Africa. The leadership of the future, of the 21st century, should have less respect, less respect for this thing called “national sovereignty.” I’m not saying take up arms and destroy the state, no! This idea that we must preserve the Tanganyika, then preserve the Kenya as they are, is nonsensical!

The nation-states we in Africa, have inherited from Europe. They are the builders of the nation-states par excellence. For centuries they fought wars! The history of Europe, the history of the building of Europe is a history of war. And sometimes their wars when they get hotter although they’re European wars, they call them world wars. And we all get involved. We fight even in Tanganyika here, we fought here, one world war.

These Europeans, powerful, where little Belgium is more powerful than the whole of Africa south of the Sahara put together; these powerful European states are moving towards unity, and you people are talking about the atavism of the tribe, this is nonsense! I am telling you people. How can anybody think of the tribe as the unity of the future?....

Europe now, you can take it almost as God-given, Europe is not going to fight with Europe anymore. The Europeans are not going to take up arms against Europeans. They are moving towards unity - even the little, the little countries of the Balkans which are breaking up, Yugoslavia breaking up, but they are breaking up at the same time the building up is taking place. They break up and say we want to come into the bigger unity.

So there’s a building movement, there’s a building of Europe. These countries which have old, old sovereignties, countries of hundreds of years old; they are forgetting this, they are moving towards unity. And you people, you think Tanzania is sacred? What is Tanzania!

You have to move towards unity.... If we can’t move towards bigger nation-states, at least let’s move towards greater co-operation. This is beginning to happen. And the new leadership in Africa should encourage it....Please accept the logic of coming together.” - (Quoted in Willie Molesi, Black Africa versus Arab North Africa: The Great Divide, pp. 25 - 28).

The brutal treatment of African migrants in the Arab countries of North Africa and the virulent racism they are subjected to, on daily basis, are a product of utter contempt and extreme hatred of black people in Arab societies which are inherently racist.

Arabs have absolutely no respect - let alone compassion - for black people. They want to dominate black African countries and are determined to do so in order to serve their own interests at the expense of Africans. They don't even call themselves "Africans." The term "Africans" or "African" applies only to black people they insist. They say they are "Arab," which they are, and members of the Arab world, not of the African world, which is true.

There are African leaders who have been blunt about Arab intentions to dominate Africa. They have unequivocally stated that Arabs are only concerned about their well-being and don't care about black people. Black African countries are there for them to conquer and take over; with black people working for them as slaves, as they have for hundreds of years. Even today, Arabs still call Africans "slaves," and were they come from, Black Africa, "land of slaves."

The most prominent African leaders who were blunt about Arab bad intentions to dominate Africa were Obafemi Awolowo and Anthony Enahoro. Among African president, it was Dr. Hastings Kamuzu Banda of Malawi, Leopold Sedar Senghor of Senegal, and Yoweri Museveni of Uganda whose position on Arab intentions in Africa is a very strong warning to Black Africa on what will happen if Africans are not careful, very careful, when dealing with Arabs. They are going to take over African countries.

Even Nyerere, who was a close friend of Gamal Abdel Nasser and worked with him as much as he did with Nkrumah and Sekou Toure on African liberation, warned Black Africa not long before he died that Arab North Africa - and other people outside Africa - don't care about their well-being of African countries south of the Sahara. As he out it: "Africa south of the Sahara is on its own."

Nkrumah also was warned by George Padmore, his adviser on African affairs, to be careful in his dealings with Arabs; they couldn't be trusted. Even African Americans who went to live in Egypt when Nasser was president were expelled soon after Nasser died and was succeeded by Anwar Sadat. Among those expelled was Shirley Graham Du Bois, wife of Dr. W.e.B. Du Bois. She was invited by Nyerere to go and live in Tanzania. She became a citizen of Tanzania and died a Tanzanian. Her husband Dr. Du Bois died a citizen of Ghana. Nyerere also invited Nkrumah to go and live in Tanzania after he was overthrown but went to, Guinea, instead, at the invitation of Sekou Toure, saying he wanted to be closer to Ghana to monitor events in his home country after his ouster hoping he would be reinstated.

After Nasser died, Egypt no longer maintained close ties with any black African country and his successor, Sadat, is on record insulting and making fun of African countries. He never had any close ties with Nyerere and Sekou Toure the way Nasser did. His contempt for Black Africa is a matter of record.

Dr. Banda was explicit in his criticism and condemnation of Arabs in Africa. He said they were "foreigners and imperialists" just like the whites in South Africa and there was no difference, none whatsoever, between the two. He went on to say he would have liked to form an army specifically for the purpose of sending the soldiers to Sudan to help blacks fight the Arabs who were oppressing and killing them but couldn't do so because he just didn't have the money.

Like Banda, President Senghor also said Arabs were imperialists but Africans would resist any attempt to conquer them.

Museveni in an interview on Hardtalk, BBC, said Arabs wanted to dominate Africans and that the two were different people.

Here is the position of Awolowo and Enahoro on Arabs in Africa:

"Awolowo and the AG published an official statement on the guiding principles of their foreign policy....The paper, 'Foreign Policy of Independent Nigeria,' included a strong condemnation of encroaching Arab influence in Africa, and particularly Nasser's hegemonic control:

'It is clear that President Nasser will only tolerate an Arab leader for the continent of Africa. He is apparently convinced that the black peoples of Africa are backward and that Egypt has a mission of leadership to fulfil on the Continent of Africa.

The Action Group considers that this is the height of folly and short-sightedness to have close political association with Egypt, so long as President Nasser holds sway in that country.'" - (Quoted in Willie Molesi, Black Africa versus Arab North Africa: The Great Divide, p. 132).

“Obafemi Awolowo...had his disdain for the Arab world....He did not consider Egypt part of Africa and particularly detested the Egyptian leader Gamal Abdel Nasser, whom he accused of 'undisguised totalitarianism at home and territorial ambitions in Africa and the Muslim world.' As Ibrahim Gambari has noted, Awolowo's party spokesman on foreign affairs, Anthony Enahoro, wanted Arab North Africa excluded from any discussion on pan-Africanism.” - (Quoted in Willie Molesi, Black Africa versus Arab North Africa: The Great Divide, p. 133).

“Influential Southern leaders such as Chief Awolowo, head of the third major Nigerian political party, detested Nasser's Egypt and the Arab world. He did not really consider Egypt an African country and accused Nasser of 'undisguised totalitarianism (at home) and territorial ambitions in Africa and the Muslim world.' Chief Awolowo's deputy and main spokesman on foreign affairs, Anthony Enahoro, wanted the exclusion of Arab North African countries from discussions of, and meetings about, Pan-Africanism.” (Quoted in Willie Molesi, Black Africa versus Arab North Africa: The Great Divide, pp. 133 - 134).

Kamuzu Banda:

“In a speech to the Malawi Congress Party in September, 1968, he complained that only a lack of funds prevented him from raising a national army to fight alongside Africans against Arabs in the Sudan because he thought Africans in Southern Sudan were being murdered by the Arabs, yet African leaders did not lift a finger in protest.

'There is no difference whatsoever between the Whites in South Africa and the Arabs in the Sudan. Both are settlers – foreigners and imperialists,' he declared....Dr. Banda declined to attend the OAU Summit Conference in September on the ground of its being held in Algiers.” - Willie Molesi, Black Africa versus Arab North Africa: The Great Divide, p. 134).

Yoweri Museveni:

“Black Africans are humble people, we never impose our views on anybody else, we are not like Europeans or Arabs who want to impose their views.

I normally tell people that when I hear Arabs talking of haram (something that is forbidden), something which is haram, I always tell them that my history of haram is much longer than that one of the Arabs....I don't eat very many of those things you people eat....But I keep this to myself. This is the difference with the black people....

Those jihadists (who killed more than 70 people in the Ugandan capital Kampala in July 2010) are really non-African in their attitudes. I have told you about the attitude of the black people....Our Moslems do not engage in that type of chauvinism. They keep their views to themselves, so do Christians, so do traditional groups. That's how we live in harmony....

We are ready to work together to defeat these foreigners who are coming with these chauvinistic ideas from the Middle East to implant them in our continent. In our continent, we black people, we live and let live. We never try to impose our views on anybody else.” - (Quoted in Willie Molesi, Black Africa verus Arab North Africa: The Great Divide, p. 21).

Nyerere:

“North Africa is to Europe what Mexico is to the United States. North Africans who have no jobs will not go to Nigeria; they’ll be thinking of Europe or the Middle East, because of the imperatives of geography and history and religion and language. North Africa is part of Europe and the Middle East.

Nasser was a great leader and a great African leader. I got on extremely well with him. Once he sent me a minister, and I had a long discussion with his minister at the State House here, and in the course of the discussion, the minister says to me, 'Mr. President, this is my first visit to Africa.'

North Africa, because of the pull of the Mediterranean, and I say, history and culture, and religion, North Africa is pulled towards the North. When North Africans look for jobs, they go to Western Europe and southern Western Europe, or they go to the Middle East.

And Europe has a specific policy for North Africa, specific policy for North Africa. It’s not only about development; it’s also about security. Because of you don’t do something about North Africa, they’ll come.

Africa, south of the Sahara, is different; totally different. If you have no jobs here in Tanzania, where do you go? The Japanese have no fear that you people will flock to Japan. The North Americans have no fear that you people will flock to North America. Not even from West Africa. The Atlantic, the Atlantic as an ocean, like the Mediterranean, it has its own logic. But links North America and Western Europe, not North America and West Africa.

Africa south of the Sahara is isolated. That is the first point I want to make. South of the Sahara is totally isolated in terms of that configuration of developing power in the world in the 21st century - on its own. There is no centre of power in whose self-interest it’s important to develop Africa, no centre. Not North America, not Japan, not Western Europe. There’s no self-interest to bother about Africa south of the Sahara. Africa south of the Sahara is on its own. Na si jambo baya. Those of you who don’t know Kiswahili, I just whispered, 'Not necessarily bad.'

That’s the first thing I wanted to say about Africa south of the Sahara. African leadership, the coming African leadership, will have to bear that in mind. You are on your own....

So that’s the first thing I wanted to say about Africa south of the Sahara. Africa south of the Sahara in those terms is isolated....

The second point about Africa, and again I am talking about Africa south of the Sahara; it is fragmented, fragmented. From the very beginning of independence 40 years ago, we were against that idea, that the continent is so fragmented. We called it the Balkanisation of Africa. Today, I think the Balkans are talking about the Africanisation of Europe. Africa’s states are too many, too small, some make no logic, whether political logic or ethnic logic or anything. They are non-viable....

Africa south of the Sahara is isolated. Therefore, to develop, it will have to depend upon its own resources basically. Internal resources, nationally; and Africa will have to depend upon Africa. The leadership of the future will have to devise, try to carry out policies of maximum national self-reliance and maximum collective self-reliance. They have no other choice....

The small countries in Africa must move towards either unity or co-operation, unity of Africa. The leadership of the future, of the 21st century, should have less respect, less respect for this thing called “national sovereignty.” I’m not saying take up arms and destroy the state, no! This idea that we must preserve the Tanganyika, then preserve the Kenya as they are, is nonsensical!

The nation-states we in Africa, have inherited from Europe. They are the builders of the nation-states par excellence. For centuries they fought wars! The history of Europe, the history of the building of Europe is a history of war. And sometimes their wars when they get hotter although they’re European wars, they call them world wars. And we all get involved. We fight even in Tanganyika here, we fought here, one world war.

These Europeans, powerful, where little Belgium is more powerful than the whole of Africa south of the Sahara put together; these powerful European states are moving towards unity, and you people are talking about the atavism of the tribe, this is nonsense! I am telling you people. How can anybody think of the tribe as the unity of the future?....

Europe now, you can take it almost as God-given, Europe is not going to fight with Europe anymore. The Europeans are not going to take up arms against Europeans. They are moving towards unity - even the little, the little countries of the Balkans which are breaking up, Yugoslavia breaking up, but they are breaking up at the same time the building up is taking place. They break up and say we want to come into the bigger unity.

So there’s a building movement, there’s a building of Europe. These countries which have old, old sovereignties, countries of hundreds of years old; they are forgetting this, they are moving towards unity. And you people, you think Tanzania is sacred? What is Tanzania!

You have to move towards unity.... If we can’t move towards bigger nation-states, at least let’s move towards greater co-operation. This is beginning to happen. And the new leadership in Africa should encourage it....Please accept the logic of coming together.” - (Quoted in Willie Molesi, Black Africa versus Arab North Africa: The Great Divide, pp. 25 - 28).

The brutal treatment of African migrants in the Arab countries of North Africa and the virulent racism they are subjected to, on daily basis, are a product of utter contempt and extreme hatred of black people in Arab societies which are inherently racist.

Arabs have absolutely no respect - let alone compassion - for black people. They want to dominate black African countries and are determined to do so in order to serve their own interests at the expense of Africans. They don't even call themselves "Africans." The term "Africans" or "African" applies only to black people they insist. They say they are "Arab," which they are, and members of the Arab world, not of the African world, which is true.

There are African leaders who have been blunt about Arab intentions to dominate Africa. They have unequivocally stated that Arabs are only concerned about their well-being and don't care about black people. Black African countries are there for them to conquer and take over; with black people working for them as slaves, as they have for hundreds of years. Even today, Arabs still call Africans "slaves," and were they come from, Black Africa, "land of slaves."

The most prominent African leaders who were blunt about Arab bad intentions to dominate Africa were Obafemi Awolowo and Anthony Enahoro. Among African president, it was Dr. Hastings Kamuzu Banda of Malawi, Leopold Sedar Senghor of Senegal, and Yoweri Museveni of Uganda whose position on Arab intentions in Africa is a very strong warning to Black Africa on what will happen if Africans are not careful, very careful, when dealing with Arabs. They are going to take over African countries.

Even Nyerere, who was a close friend of Gamal Abdel Nasser and worked with him as much as he did with Nkrumah and Sekou Toure on African liberation, warned Black Africa not long before he died that Arab North Africa - and other people outside Africa - don't care about their well-being of African countries south of the Sahara. As he out it: "Africa south of the Sahara is on its own."

Nkrumah also was warned by George Padmore, his adviser on African affairs, to be careful in his dealings with Arabs; they couldn't be trusted. Even African Americans who went to live in Egypt when Nasser was president were expelled soon after Nasser died and was succeeded by Anwar Sadat. Among those expelled was Shirley Graham Du Bois, wife of Dr. W.e.B. Du Bois. She was invited by Nyerere to go and live in Tanzania. She became a citizen of Tanzania and died a Tanzanian. Her husband Dr. Du Bois died a citizen of Ghana. Nyerere also invited Nkrumah to go and live in Tanzania after he was overthrown but went to, Guinea, instead, at the invitation of Sekou Toure, saying he wanted to be closer to Ghana to monitor events in his home country after his ouster hoping he would be reinstated.

After Nasser died, Egypt no longer maintained close ties with any black African country and his successor, Sadat, is on record insulting and making fun of African countries. He never had any close ties with Nyerere and Sekou Toure the way Nasser did. His contempt for Black Africa is a matter of record.

Dr. Banda was explicit in his criticism and condemnation of Arabs in Africa. He said they were "foreigners and imperialists" just like the whites in South Africa and there was no difference, none whatsoever, between the two. He went on to say he would have liked to form an army specifically for the purpose of sending the soldiers to Sudan to help blacks fight the Arabs who were oppressing and killing them but couldn't do so because he just didn't have the money.

Like Banda, President Senghor also said Arabs were imperialists but Africans would resist any attempt to conquer them.

Museveni in an interview on Hardtalk, BBC, said Arabs wanted to dominate Africans and that the two were different people.

Here is the position of Awolowo and Enahoro on Arabs in Africa:

"Awolowo and the AG published an official statement on the guiding principles of their foreign policy....The paper, 'Foreign Policy of Independent Nigeria,' included a strong condemnation of encroaching Arab influence in Africa, and particularly Nasser's hegemonic control:

'It is clear that President Nasser will only tolerate an Arab leader for the continent of Africa. He is apparently convinced that the black peoples of Africa are backward and that Egypt has a mission of leadership to fulfil on the Continent of Africa.

The Action Group considers that this is the height of folly and short-sightedness to have close political association with Egypt, so long as President Nasser holds sway in that country.'" - (Quoted in Willie Molesi, Black Africa versus Arab North Africa: The Great Divide, p. 132).

“Obafemi Awolowo...had his disdain for the Arab world....He did not consider Egypt part of Africa and particularly detested the Egyptian leader Gamal Abdel Nasser, whom he accused of 'undisguised totalitarianism at home and territorial ambitions in Africa and the Muslim world.' As Ibrahim Gambari has noted, Awolowo's party spokesman on foreign affairs, Anthony Enahoro, wanted Arab North Africa excluded from any discussion on pan-Africanism.” - (Quoted in Willie Molesi, Black Africa versus Arab North Africa: The Great Divide, p. 133).

“Influential Southern leaders such as Chief Awolowo, head of the third major Nigerian political party, detested Nasser's Egypt and the Arab world. He did not really consider Egypt an African country and accused Nasser of 'undisguised totalitarianism (at home) and territorial ambitions in Africa and the Muslim world.' Chief Awolowo's deputy and main spokesman on foreign affairs, Anthony Enahoro, wanted the exclusion of Arab North African countries from discussions of, and meetings about, Pan-Africanism.” (Quoted in Willie Molesi, Black Africa versus Arab North Africa: The Great Divide, pp. 133 - 134).

Kamuzu Banda:

“In a speech to the Malawi Congress Party in September, 1968, he complained that only a lack of funds prevented him from raising a national army to fight alongside Africans against Arabs in the Sudan because he thought Africans in Southern Sudan were being murdered by the Arabs, yet African leaders did not lift a finger in protest.

'There is no difference whatsoever between the Whites in South Africa and the Arabs in the Sudan. Both are settlers – foreigners and imperialists,' he declared....Dr. Banda declined to attend the OAU Summit Conference in September on the ground of its being held in Algiers.” - Willie Molesi, Black Africa versus Arab North Africa: The Great Divide, p. 134).

Yoweri Museveni:

“Black Africans are humble people, we never impose our views on anybody else, we are not like Europeans or Arabs who want to impose their views.

I normally tell people that when I hear Arabs talking of haram (something that is forbidden), something which is haram, I always tell them that my history of haram is much longer than that one of the Arabs....I don't eat very many of those things you people eat....But I keep this to myself. This is the difference with the black people....

Those jihadists (who killed more than 70 people in the Ugandan capital Kampala in July 2010) are really non-African in their attitudes. I have told you about the attitude of the black people....Our Moslems do not engage in that type of chauvinism. They keep their views to themselves, so do Christians, so do traditional groups. That's how we live in harmony....

We are ready to work together to defeat these foreigners who are coming with these chauvinistic ideas from the Middle East to implant them in our continent. In our continent, we black people, we live and let live. We never try to impose our views on anybody else.” - (Quoted in Willie Molesi, Black Africa verus Arab North Africa: The Great Divide, p. 21).

Nyerere:

“North Africa is to Europe what Mexico is to the United States. North Africans who have no jobs will not go to Nigeria; they’ll be thinking of Europe or the Middle East, because of the imperatives of geography and history and religion and language. North Africa is part of Europe and the Middle East.

Nasser was a great leader and a great African leader. I got on extremely well with him. Once he sent me a minister, and I had a long discussion with his minister at the State House here, and in the course of the discussion, the minister says to me, 'Mr. President, this is my first visit to Africa.'

North Africa, because of the pull of the Mediterranean, and I say, history and culture, and religion, North Africa is pulled towards the North. When North Africans look for jobs, they go to Western Europe and southern Western Europe, or they go to the Middle East.

And Europe has a specific policy for North Africa, specific policy for North Africa. It’s not only about development; it’s also about security. Because of you don’t do something about North Africa, they’ll come.

Africa, south of the Sahara, is different; totally different. If you have no jobs here in Tanzania, where do you go? The Japanese have no fear that you people will flock to Japan. The North Americans have no fear that you people will flock to North America. Not even from West Africa. The Atlantic, the Atlantic as an ocean, like the Mediterranean, it has its own logic. But links North America and Western Europe, not North America and West Africa.

Africa south of the Sahara is isolated. That is the first point I want to make. South of the Sahara is totally isolated in terms of that configuration of developing power in the world in the 21st century - on its own. There is no centre of power in whose self-interest it’s important to develop Africa, no centre. Not North America, not Japan, not Western Europe. There’s no self-interest to bother about Africa south of the Sahara. Africa south of the Sahara is on its own. Na si jambo baya. Those of you who don’t know Kiswahili, I just whispered, 'Not necessarily bad.'

That’s the first thing I wanted to say about Africa south of the Sahara. African leadership, the coming African leadership, will have to bear that in mind. You are on your own....

So that’s the first thing I wanted to say about Africa south of the Sahara. Africa south of the Sahara in those terms is isolated....

The second point about Africa, and again I am talking about Africa south of the Sahara; it is fragmented, fragmented. From the very beginning of independence 40 years ago, we were against that idea, that the continent is so fragmented. We called it the Balkanisation of Africa. Today, I think the Balkans are talking about the Africanisation of Europe. Africa’s states are too many, too small, some make no logic, whether political logic or ethnic logic or anything. They are non-viable....

Africa south of the Sahara is isolated. Therefore, to develop, it will have to depend upon its own resources basically. Internal resources, nationally; and Africa will have to depend upon Africa. The leadership of the future will have to devise, try to carry out policies of maximum national self-reliance and maximum collective self-reliance. They have no other choice....

The small countries in Africa must move towards either unity or co-operation, unity of Africa. The leadership of the future, of the 21st century, should have less respect, less respect for this thing called “national sovereignty.” I’m not saying take up arms and destroy the state, no! This idea that we must preserve the Tanganyika, then preserve the Kenya as they are, is nonsensical!

The nation-states we in Africa, have inherited from Europe. They are the builders of the nation-states par excellence. For centuries they fought wars! The history of Europe, the history of the building of Europe is a history of war. And sometimes their wars when they get hotter although they’re European wars, they call them world wars. And we all get involved. We fight even in Tanganyika here, we fought here, one world war.

These Europeans, powerful, where little Belgium is more powerful than the whole of Africa south of the Sahara put together; these powerful European states are moving towards unity, and you people are talking about the atavism of the tribe, this is nonsense! I am telling you people. How can anybody think of the tribe as the unity of the future?....

Europe now, you can take it almost as God-given, Europe is not going to fight with Europe anymore. The Europeans are not going to take up arms against Europeans. They are moving towards unity - even the little, the little countries of the Balkans which are breaking up, Yugoslavia breaking up, but they are breaking up at the same time the building up is taking place. They break up and say we want to come into the bigger unity.

So there’s a building movement, there’s a building of Europe. These countries which have old, old sovereignties, countries of hundreds of years old; they are forgetting this, they are moving towards unity. And you people, you think Tanzania is sacred? What is Tanzania!

You have to move towards unity.... If we can’t move towards bigger nation-states, at least let’s move towards greater co-operation. This is beginning to happen. And the new leadership in Africa should encourage it....Please accept the logic of coming together.” - (Quoted in Willie Molesi, Black Africa versus Arab North Africa: The Great Divide, pp. 25 - 28).

The brutal treatment of African migrants in the Arab countries of North Africa and the virulent racism they are subjected to, on daily basis, are a product of utter contempt and extreme hatred of black people in Arab societies which are inherently racist.

Arabs have absolutely no respect - let alone compassion - for black people. They want to dominate black African countries and are determined to do so in order to serve their own interests at the expense of Africans. They don't even call themselves "Africans." The term "Africans" or "African" applies only to black people they insist. They say they are "Arab," which they are, and members of the Arab world, not of the African world, which is true.

There are African leaders who have been blunt about Arab intentions to dominate Africa. They have unequivocally stated that Arabs are only concerned about their well-being and don't care about black people. Black African countries are there for them to conquer and take over; with black people working for them as slaves, as they have for hundreds of years. Even today, Arabs still call Africans "slaves," and were they come from, Black Africa, "land of slaves."

The most prominent African leaders who were blunt about Arab bad intentions to dominate Africa were Obafemi Awolowo and Anthony Enahoro. Among African president, it was Dr. Hastings Kamuzu Banda of Malawi, Leopold Sedar Senghor of Senegal, and Yoweri Museveni of Uganda whose position on Arab intentions in Africa is a very strong warning to Black Africa on what will happen if Africans are not careful, very careful, when dealing with Arabs. They are going to take over African countries.

Even Nyerere, who was a close friend of Gamal Abdel Nasser and worked with him as much as he did with Nkrumah and Sekou Toure on African liberation, warned Black Africa not long before he died that Arab North Africa - and other people outside Africa - don't care about their well-being of African countries south of the Sahara. As he out it: "Africa south of the Sahara is on its own."

Nkrumah also was warned by George Padmore, his adviser on African affairs, to be careful in his dealings with Arabs; they couldn't be trusted. Even African Americans who went to live in Egypt when Nasser was president were expelled soon after Nasser died and was succeeded by Anwar Sadat. Among those expelled was Shirley Graham Du Bois, wife of Dr. W.e.B. Du Bois. She was invited by Nyerere to go and live in Tanzania. She became a citizen of Tanzania and died a Tanzanian. Her husband Dr. Du Bois died a citizen of Ghana. Nyerere also invited Nkrumah to go and live in Tanzania after he was overthrown but went to, Guinea, instead, at the invitation of Sekou Toure, saying he wanted to be closer to Ghana to monitor events in his home country after his ouster hoping he would be reinstated.

After Nasser died, Egypt no longer maintained close ties with any black African country and his successor, Sadat, is on record insulting and making fun of African countries. He never had any close ties with Nyerere and Sekou Toure the way Nasser did. His contempt for Black Africa is a matter of record.

Dr. Banda was explicit in his criticism and condemnation of Arabs in Africa. He said they were "foreigners and imperialists" just like the whites in South Africa and there was no difference, none whatsoever, between the two. He went on to say he would have liked to form an army specifically for the purpose of sending the soldiers to Sudan to help blacks fight the Arabs who were oppressing and killing them but couldn't do so because he just didn't have the money.

Like Banda, President Senghor also said Arabs were imperialists but Africans would resist any attempt to conquer them.

Museveni in an interview on Hardtalk, BBC, said Arabs wanted to dominate Africans and that the two were different people.

Here is the position of Awolowo and Enahoro on Arabs in Africa:

"Awolowo and the AG published an official statement on the guiding principles of their foreign policy....The paper, 'Foreign Policy of Independent Nigeria,' included a strong condemnation of encroaching Arab influence in Africa, and particularly Nasser's hegemonic control:

'It is clear that President Nasser will only tolerate an Arab leader for the continent of Africa. He is apparently convinced that the black peoples of Africa are backward and that Egypt has a mission of leadership to fulfil on the Continent of Africa.

The Action Group considers that this is the height of folly and short-sightedness to have close political association with Egypt, so long as President Nasser holds sway in that country.'" - (Quoted in Willie Molesi, Black Africa versus Arab North Africa: The Great Divide, p. 132).

“Obafemi Awolowo...had his disdain for the Arab world....He did not consider Egypt part of Africa and particularly detested the Egyptian leader Gamal Abdel Nasser, whom he accused of 'undisguised totalitarianism at home and territorial ambitions in Africa and the Muslim world.' As Ibrahim Gambari has noted, Awolowo's party spokesman on foreign affairs, Anthony Enahoro, wanted Arab North Africa excluded from any discussion on pan-Africanism.” - (Quoted in Willie Molesi, Black Africa versus Arab North Africa: The Great Divide, p. 133).

“Influential Southern leaders such as Chief Awolowo, head of the third major Nigerian political party, detested Nasser's Egypt and the Arab world. He did not really consider Egypt an African country and accused Nasser of 'undisguised totalitarianism (at home) and territorial ambitions in Africa and the Muslim world.' Chief Awolowo's deputy and main spokesman on foreign affairs, Anthony Enahoro, wanted the exclusion of Arab North African countries from discussions of, and meetings about, Pan-Africanism.” (Quoted in Willie Molesi, Black Africa versus Arab North Africa: The Great Divide, pp. 133 - 134).

Kamuzu Banda:

“In a speech to the Malawi Congress Party in September, 1968, he complained that only a lack of funds prevented him from raising a national army to fight alongside Africans against Arabs in the Sudan because he thought Africans in Southern Sudan were being murdered by the Arabs, yet African leaders did not lift a finger in protest.

'There is no difference whatsoever between the Whites in South Africa and the Arabs in the Sudan. Both are settlers – foreigners and imperialists,' he declared....Dr. Banda declined to attend the OAU Summit Conference in September on the ground of its being held in Algiers.” - Willie Molesi, Black Africa versus Arab North Africa: The Great Divide, p. 134).

Yoweri Museveni:

“Black Africans are humble people, we never impose our views on anybody else, we are not like Europeans or Arabs who want to impose their views.

I normally tell people that when I hear Arabs talking of haram (something that is forbidden), something which is haram, I always tell them that my history of haram is much longer than that one of the Arabs....I don't eat very many of those things you people eat....But I keep this to myself. This is the difference with the black people....

Those jihadists (who killed more than 70 people in the Ugandan capital Kampala in July 2010) are really non-African in their attitudes. I have told you about the attitude of the black people....Our Moslems do not engage in that type of chauvinism. They keep their views to themselves, so do Christians, so do traditional groups. That's how we live in harmony....

We are ready to work together to defeat these foreigners who are coming with these chauvinistic ideas from the Middle East to implant them in our continent. In our continent, we black people, we live and let live. We never try to impose our views on anybody else.” - (Quoted in Willie Molesi, Black Africa verus Arab North Africa: The Great Divide, p. 21).

Nyerere:

“North Africa is to Europe what Mexico is to the United States. North Africans who have no jobs will not go to Nigeria; they’ll be thinking of Europe or the Middle East, because of the imperatives of geography and history and religion and language. North Africa is part of Europe and the Middle East.

Nasser was a great leader and a great African leader. I got on extremely well with him. Once he sent me a minister, and I had a long discussion with his minister at the State House here, and in the course of the discussion, the minister says to me, 'Mr. President, this is my first visit to Africa.'

North Africa, because of the pull of the Mediterranean, and I say, history and culture, and religion, North Africa is pulled towards the North. When North Africans look for jobs, they go to Western Europe and southern Western Europe, or they go to the Middle East.

And Europe has a specific policy for North Africa, specific policy for North Africa. It’s not only about development; it’s also about security. Because of you don’t do something about North Africa, they’ll come.

Africa, south of the Sahara, is different; totally different. If you have no jobs here in Tanzania, where do you go? The Japanese have no fear that you people will flock to Japan. The North Americans have no fear that you people will flock to North America. Not even from West Africa. The Atlantic, the Atlantic as an ocean, like the Mediterranean, it has its own logic. But links North America and Western Europe, not North America and West Africa.

Africa south of the Sahara is isolated. That is the first point I want to make. South of the Sahara is totally isolated in terms of that configuration of developing power in the world in the 21st century - on its own. There is no centre of power in whose self-interest it’s important to develop Africa, no centre. Not North America, not Japan, not Western Europe. There’s no self-interest to bother about Africa south of the Sahara. Africa south of the Sahara is on its own. Na si jambo baya. Those of you who don’t know Kiswahili, I just whispered, 'Not necessarily bad.'

That’s the first thing I wanted to say about Africa south of the Sahara. African leadership, the coming African leadership, will have to bear that in mind. You are on your own....

So that’s the first thing I wanted to say about Africa south of the Sahara. Africa south of the Sahara in those terms is isolated....

The second point about Africa, and again I am talking about Africa south of the Sahara; it is fragmented, fragmented. From the very beginning of independence 40 years ago, we were against that idea, that the continent is so fragmented. We called it the Balkanisation of Africa. Today, I think the Balkans are talking about the Africanisation of Europe. Africa’s states are too many, too small, some make no logic, whether political logic or ethnic logic or anything. They are non-viable....

Africa south of the Sahara is isolated. Therefore, to develop, it will have to depend upon its own resources basically. Internal resources, nationally; and Africa will have to depend upon Africa. The leadership of the future will have to devise, try to carry out policies of maximum national self-reliance and maximum collective self-reliance. They have no other choice....

The small countries in Africa must move towards either unity or co-operation, unity of Africa. The leadership of the future, of the 21st century, should have less respect, less respect for this thing called “national sovereignty.” I’m not saying take up arms and destroy the state, no! This idea that we must preserve the Tanganyika, then preserve the Kenya as they are, is nonsensical!

The nation-states we in Africa, have inherited from Europe. They are the builders of the nation-states par excellence. For centuries they fought wars! The history of Europe, the history of the building of Europe is a history of war. And sometimes their wars when they get hotter although they’re European wars, they call them world wars. And we all get involved. We fight even in Tanganyika here, we fought here, one world war.

These Europeans, powerful, where little Belgium is more powerful than the whole of Africa south of the Sahara put together; these powerful European states are moving towards unity, and you people are talking about the atavism of the tribe, this is nonsense! I am telling you people. How can anybody think of the tribe as the unity of the future?....

Europe now, you can take it almost as God-given, Europe is not going to fight with Europe anymore. The Europeans are not going to take up arms against Europeans. They are moving towards unity - even the little, the little countries of the Balkans which are breaking up, Yugoslavia breaking up, but they are breaking up at the same time the building up is taking place. They break up and say we want to come into the bigger unity.

So there’s a building movement, there’s a building of Europe. These countries which have old, old sovereignties, countries of hundreds of years old; they are forgetting this, they are moving towards unity. And you people, you think Tanzania is sacred? What is Tanzania!

You have to move towards unity.... If we can’t move towards bigger nation-states, at least let’s move towards greater co-operation. This is beginning to happen. And the new leadership in Africa should encourage it....Please accept the logic of coming together.” - (Quoted in Willie Molesi, Black Africa versus Arab North Africa: The Great Divide, pp. 25 - 28).

The brutal treatment of African migrants in the Arab countries of North Africa and the virulent racism they are subjected to, on daily basis, are a product of utter contempt and extreme hatred of black people in Arab societies which are inherently racist.

Arabs have absolutely no respect - let alone compassion - for black people. They want to dominate black African countries and are determined to do so in order to serve their own interests at the expense of Africans. They don't even call themselves "Africans." The term "Africans" or "African" applies only to black people they insist. They say they are "Arab," which they are, and members of the Arab world, not of the African world, which is true.

There are African leaders who have been blunt about Arab intentions to dominate Africa. They have unequivocally stated that Arabs are only concerned about their well-being and don't care about black people. Black African countries are there for them to conquer and take over; with black people working for them as slaves, as they have for hundreds of years. Even today, Arabs still call Africans "slaves," and were they come from, Black Africa, "land of slaves."

The most prominent African leaders who were blunt about Arab bad intentions to dominate Africa were Obafemi Awolowo and Anthony Enahoro. Among African president, it was Dr. Hastings Kamuzu Banda of Malawi, Leopold Sedar Senghor of Senegal, and Yoweri Museveni of Uganda whose position on Arab intentions in Africa is a very strong warning to Black Africa on what will happen if Africans are not careful, very careful, when dealing with Arabs. They are going to take over African countries.

Even Nyerere, who was a close friend of Gamal Abdel Nasser and worked with him as much as he did with Nkrumah and Sekou Toure on African liberation, warned Black Africa not long before he died that Arab North Africa - and other people outside Africa - don't care about their well-being of African countries south of the Sahara. As he out it: "Africa south of the Sahara is on its own."

Nkrumah also was warned by George Padmore, his adviser on African affairs, to be careful in his dealings with Arabs; they couldn't be trusted. Even African Americans who went to live in Egypt when Nasser was president were expelled soon after Nasser died and was succeeded by Anwar Sadat. Among those expelled was Shirley Graham Du Bois, wife of Dr. W.e.B. Du Bois. She was invited by Nyerere to go and live in Tanzania. She became a citizen of Tanzania and died a Tanzanian. Her husband Dr. Du Bois died a citizen of Ghana. Nyerere also invited Nkrumah to go and live in Tanzania after he was overthrown but went to, Guinea, instead, at the invitation of Sekou Toure, saying he wanted to be closer to Ghana to monitor events in his home country after his ouster hoping he would be reinstated.

After Nasser died, Egypt no longer maintained close ties with any black African country and his successor, Sadat, is on record insulting and making fun of African countries. He never had any close ties with Nyerere and Sekou Toure the way Nasser did. His contempt for Black Africa is a matter of record.

Dr. Banda was explicit in his criticism and condemnation of Arabs in Africa. He said they were "foreigners and imperialists" just like the whites in South Africa and there was no difference, none whatsoever, between the two. He went on to say he would have liked to form an army specifically for the purpose of sending the soldiers to Sudan to help blacks fight the Arabs who were oppressing and killing them but couldn't do so because he just didn't have the money.

Like Banda, President Senghor also said Arabs were imperialists but Africans would resist any attempt to conquer them.

Museveni in an interview on Hardtalk, BBC, said Arabs wanted to dominate Africans and that the two were different people.

Here is the position of Awolowo and Enahoro on Arabs in Africa:

"Awolowo and the AG published an official statement on the guiding principles of their foreign policy....The paper, 'Foreign Policy of Independent Nigeria,' included a strong condemnation of encroaching Arab influence in Africa, and particularly Nasser's hegemonic control:

'It is clear that President Nasser will only tolerate an Arab leader for the continent of Africa. He is apparently convinced that the black peoples of Africa are backward and that Egypt has a mission of leadership to fulfil on the Continent of Africa.

The Action Group considers that this is the height of folly and short-sightedness to have close political association with Egypt, so long as President Nasser holds sway in that country.'" - (Quoted in Willie Molesi, Black Africa versus Arab North Africa: The Great Divide, p. 132).

“Obafemi Awolowo...had his disdain for the Arab world....He did not consider Egypt part of Africa and particularly detested the Egyptian leader Gamal Abdel Nasser, whom he accused of 'undisguised totalitarianism at home and territorial ambitions in Africa and the Muslim world.' As Ibrahim Gambari has noted, Awolowo's party spokesman on foreign affairs, Anthony Enahoro, wanted Arab North Africa excluded from any discussion on pan-Africanism.” - (Quoted in Willie Molesi, Black Africa versus Arab North Africa: The Great Divide, p. 133).

“Influential Southern leaders such as Chief Awolowo, head of the third major Nigerian political party, detested Nasser's Egypt and the Arab world. He did not really consider Egypt an African country and accused Nasser of 'undisguised totalitarianism (at home) and territorial ambitions in Africa and the Muslim world.' Chief Awolowo's deputy and main spokesman on foreign affairs, Anthony Enahoro, wanted the exclusion of Arab North African countries from discussions of, and meetings about, Pan-Africanism.” (Quoted in Willie Molesi, Black Africa versus Arab North Africa: The Great Divide, pp. 133 - 134).

Kamuzu Banda:

“In a speech to the Malawi Congress Party in September, 1968, he complained that only a lack of funds prevented him from raising a national army to fight alongside Africans against Arabs in the Sudan because he thought Africans in Southern Sudan were being murdered by the Arabs, yet African leaders did not lift a finger in protest.

'There is no difference whatsoever between the Whites in South Africa and the Arabs in the Sudan. Both are settlers – foreigners and imperialists,' he declared....Dr. Banda declined to attend the OAU Summit Conference in September on the ground of its being held in Algiers.” - Willie Molesi, Black Africa versus Arab North Africa: The Great Divide, p. 134).

Yoweri Museveni:

“Black Africans are humble people, we never impose our views on anybody else, we are not like Europeans or Arabs who want to impose their views.

I normally tell people that when I hear Arabs talking of haram (something that is forbidden), something which is haram, I always tell them that my history of haram is much longer than that one of the Arabs....I don't eat very many of those things you people eat....But I keep this to myself. This is the difference with the black people....

Those jihadists (who killed more than 70 people in the Ugandan capital Kampala in July 2010) are really non-African in their attitudes. I have told you about the attitude of the black people....Our Moslems do not engage in that type of chauvinism. They keep their views to themselves, so do Christians, so do traditional groups. That's how we live in harmony....

We are ready to work together to defeat these foreigners who are coming with these chauvinistic ideas from the Middle East to implant them in our continent. In our continent, we black people, we live and let live. We never try to impose our views on anybody else.” - (Quoted in Willie Molesi, Black Africa verus Arab North Africa: The Great Divide, p. 21).

Nyerere:

“North Africa is to Europe what Mexico is to the United States. North Africans who have no jobs will not go to Nigeria; they’ll be thinking of Europe or the Middle East, because of the imperatives of geography and history and religion and language. North Africa is part of Europe and the Middle East.

Nasser was a great leader and a great African leader. I got on extremely well with him. Once he sent me a minister, and I had a long discussion with his minister at the State House here, and in the course of the discussion, the minister says to me, 'Mr. President, this is my first visit to Africa.'

North Africa, because of the pull of the Mediterranean, and I say, history and culture, and religion, North Africa is pulled towards the North. When North Africans look for jobs, they go to Western Europe and southern Western Europe, or they go to the Middle East.

And Europe has a specific policy for North Africa, specific policy for North Africa. It’s not only about development; it’s also about security. Because of you don’t do something about North Africa, they’ll come.

Africa, south of the Sahara, is different; totally different. If you have no jobs here in Tanzania, where do you go? The Japanese have no fear that you people will flock to Japan. The North Americans have no fear that you people will flock to North America. Not even from West Africa. The Atlantic, the Atlantic as an ocean, like the Mediterranean, it has its own logic. But links North America and Western Europe, not North America and West Africa.

Africa south of the Sahara is isolated. That is the first point I want to make. South of the Sahara is totally isolated in terms of that configuration of developing power in the world in the 21st century - on its own. There is no centre of power in whose self-interest it’s important to develop Africa, no centre. Not North America, not Japan, not Western Europe. There’s no self-interest to bother about Africa south of the Sahara. Africa south of the Sahara is on its own. Na si jambo baya. Those of you who don’t know Kiswahili, I just whispered, 'Not necessarily bad.'

That’s the first thing I wanted to say about Africa south of the Sahara. African leadership, the coming African leadership, will have to bear that in mind. You are on your own....

So that’s the first thing I wanted to say about Africa south of the Sahara. Africa south of the Sahara in those terms is isolated....

The second point about Africa, and again I am talking about Africa south of the Sahara; it is fragmented, fragmented. From the very beginning of independence 40 years ago, we were against that idea, that the continent is so fragmented. We called it the Balkanisation of Africa. Today, I think the Balkans are talking about the Africanisation of Europe. Africa’s states are too many, too small, some make no logic, whether political logic or ethnic logic or anything. They are non-viable....

Africa south of the Sahara is isolated. Therefore, to develop, it will have to depend upon its own resources basically. Internal resources, nationally; and Africa will have to depend upon Africa. The leadership of the future will have to devise, try to carry out policies of maximum national self-reliance and maximum collective self-reliance. They have no other choice....

The small countries in Africa must move towards either unity or co-operation, unity of Africa. The leadership of the future, of the 21st century, should have less respect, less respect for this thing called “national sovereignty.” I’m not saying take up arms and destroy the state, no! This idea that we must preserve the Tanganyika, then preserve the Kenya as they are, is nonsensical!

The nation-states we in Africa, have inherited from Europe. They are the builders of the nation-states par excellence. For centuries they fought wars! The history of Europe, the history of the building of Europe is a history of war. And sometimes their wars when they get hotter although they’re European wars, they call them world wars. And we all get involved. We fight even in Tanganyika here, we fought here, one world war.

These Europeans, powerful, where little Belgium is more powerful than the whole of Africa south of the Sahara put together; these powerful European states are moving towards unity, and you people are talking about the atavism of the tribe, this is nonsense! I am telling you people. How can anybody think of the tribe as the unity of the future?....

Europe now, you can take it almost as God-given, Europe is not going to fight with Europe anymore. The Europeans are not going to take up arms against Europeans. They are moving towards unity - even the little, the little countries of the Balkans which are breaking up, Yugoslavia breaking up, but they are breaking up at the same time the building up is taking place. They break up and say we want to come into the bigger unity.

So there’s a building movement, there’s a building of Europe. These countries which have old, old sovereignties, countries of hundreds of years old; they are forgetting this, they are moving towards unity. And you people, you think Tanzania is sacred? What is Tanzania!

You have to move towards unity.... If we can’t move towards bigger nation-states, at least let’s move towards greater co-operation. This is beginning to happen. And the new leadership in Africa should encourage it....Please accept the logic of coming together.” - (Quoted in Willie Molesi, Black Africa versus Arab North Africa: The Great Divide, pp. 25 - 28).