Reparations for Africa
Infrastructure, Education, and Industry for Africa are long overdue based on the legal concept of Unjust Enrichment
by C.G. Bateman

The West's horrendous treatment of Africa over the last three hundred years leads to only one conclusion: the African people deserve sustained reparations for their losses. In various corners of the world today, indigenous peoples are now standing up for rights which had been theirs for centuries, and they are demanding, and often receiving, reparations in the form of lands and money. So it should be: the Aboriginal peoples of North and South America, the thousands of Japanese people living in the United States and Canada during the Second World War who were detained and maltreated based on their race, and the merciless killing and sickening treatment of millions of Jewish people at the hands of the Nazis, are just a few examples of how victimized groups within the global community have stood up and had their right not to be abused enforced with some kind of compensation. Those groups which suffered such systematic abuse deserve to have some kind of reparations for their colossal losses.

Likely the most abused group of people in the history of the world are those of Africa. Strangely, Africa is hardly ever talked about in terms of reparations owed. What the West has done over the years is successfully colonize various corners of the African continent, built ports, and then proceeded to funnel extremely valuable resources out of Africa at rates which have only increased as the years have gone by. To take one of the most obvious examples of this practice, one need only look at the life and legacy of Cecil Rhodes, 1853-1902. Cecil found diamonds in Africa and consequently became one of the richest men of his era. The company that was spawned from his efforts and amassments is De Beers, which at one time was responsible for supplying the world with 90% of its rough cut diamonds and is still responsible for a whopping 40%. De Beers was founded in 1888, and is still one of the most powerful companies in the world. Of course a question should strike you at this point, if De Beers has made countless billions, and perhaps into the trillions, then why have the people who belonged to this land not been compensated in any meaningful way in regards to the long-term losses they have sustained? When one thinks of the tragic story of Africa from the late nineteenth century until today, whose European designed nations suffer, in some cases, devastation and loss of life which still remain at a critical level, it is very difficult then to reconcile such a scathing reality with an Africa which has been despoiled of its wealth; wealth, I suggest, a large portion of which, should have gone to infrastructure, education, and industry for native born Africans, and not merely to the white colonials.

To De Beers' credit, they recently allowed an African based group to have 24% of its stock, which is at least remuneration which is headed in the right direction. Further, they are not the only company who has been involved in such conduct; they are merely a recognizable example. My challenge here does not concern the recent 24% profit sharing plan, but, more to the point, the erstwhile losses of Africa which tally in the trillions of dollars. Of course, Cecil himself would say that his land claims were all legally attained and that it was all "above board." Yet the glaring insufficiency of such a "claim," if I may, is that this legal title, so-called, was given under a colonial legal regime, and not by any kind of African law. Simply maintaining a practice was legal when it was being engaged is not a defence in today's world. Slavery, abuse of women, terrible work conditions, etc. ad infinitum, were all once legal according to Western law. Legality is not reality. Legality is about power, it is about who rules and who suffers.

In law, the concept which might fit nicely here for analysis is unjust enrichment. The courts of English speaking countries usually ask: 1. Was there enrichment? 2. Was it at the expense of the victim? 3. Was in unfair? 4. Is there a good reason for it which might excuse it? 5. What remedy should be enforced? Once you have answered these questions and have determined a remedy is in order, one of the concepts brought to bear on the analysis is that if there is money owing, then compound interest is most usually applied, for obvious reasons: if one party has been deprived of, let's say, 100,000 dollars for ten years, then the interest they would have received is then naturally owing to them on top of the 100K. In the case of Africa's financial despoilment, the figures would be "off the charts." If one were to calculate the compound interest on the riches taken out of Africa by force since the seventeenth century until now, the principal with interest would be a figure of astronomical proportions. Compound interest, even at a conservative estimate such as 5%, on the multiple trillions of dollars at issue adds up very quickly indeed. In some manner of speaking, the West owes a debt to the people of Africa it simply cannot pay in full.

Yet what the West can do, is commit to a relationship of reparation which may be financial at various points, but must ultimately be substantive acts of restoration aimed at the people of Africa themselves. Many parts of Africa are still in dire need of hospitals, universities, and basic societal infrastructure, which they would likely have had by now if they had been treated with the human dignity they deserved, and given the largest share of wealth that was theirs to begin with. As to who pays, I think it is clear that those countries that allowed and encouraged the unjust enrichment and/or were party to the systematic abuse of African peoples ought to bear the brunt of the cost. France, Germany, Belgium, England, Spain, Portugal, the Netherlands, and the United States would be some of the main defendants in such a case. Of course, no blame to the current people living in these countries should be inferred, but the fact that no one is alive who perpetrated these abuses is no defence for past and egregious wrongs suffered.

I have supported the work of the Red Cross in Africa for some time, and will continue to do so. I think emergency support for disasters in any part of the world is everyone's responsibility and that organizations like this are essential. Yet, I suggest that the Western countries begin looking seriously at beginning a reparations program aimed at building up the infrastructure of those countries in Africa which are so desperately in need of it. Africans need more than bags of rice to move forward as friends of ours in the international community. Like Somalian Aweis Issa has said, "we don't need handouts, we need technology, education, and our own industries." Africans need to be equipped to have their own industries, such as auto-making, food production, etc. and no longer rely on the West to keep putting these immoral band-aids on the problems. For instance, a great deal of Western built farm machinery has been sent to Africa over the last fifty years, and now in Somalia, for instance, there are acres and acres of old tractor hulls which are rusting away, because no one was there to fix them, or indeed build new ones. You do not give a person a tractor and a tank of gas, you must teach them how to build the tractor and extract the gas from the earth.

As to how such a reparations program might start, it seems there are primarily only two ways. Either one of the nations at fault will spearhead a rebuilding initiative in cooperation with Africa's people which other nations can then join, or, the African people will go to the international courts to plead their case. My hope is for the former, but either way, sustained reparations are long overdue.