Sir, In his diary piece of May 9th, Kevin Myers spends the opening two paragraphs explaining that he knows nothing of the history and politics of Central Africa; he understands it, he writes, as little as he does Tibetan grammar. And to underline this ignorance, he misuses a bantu word. In fact, he understands African history and politics as little as anyone who hasn't bothered to read any of the many books on the subject. Normally, one might expect such remarks to preface a selfeffacing statement that "therefore I will not say anything about it". But no: Kevin Myers goes on to write at length about something of which he is a selfprofessed ignoramus. As an old friend of mine used to say, there's no point in being ignorant if you don't show it.
But he does write to some purpose. And that purpose is to suggest that present events in the region are unconnected to the colonial past. This ignores the fact that the boundaries in the region were fixed at a conference in the late 19th century, and that these colonially invented impositions have since been used to prevent population movements that hitherto occurred with only minimal obstruction. As population growth necessitated new lands, people moved. The greatest single legacy of colonialism and "Western development" to Africa for good or bad, depending on your view - has been exponential population growth. But nowadays, if people try to move, they face armed border guards or armies.
The pre conditions for the Rwandan genocide were indeed a legacy of colonial involvement: this excuses nobody, but it does at least provide a context. As for Mobuto in Zaire, he was kept in power by people who were, to use Myers's phrase, "white and capital owning"; the Americans, to be precise. And while there, he looted everything that came his way. Kabila's campaign is a direct response to this and doesn't, as, yet anyway, seem to have involved "the most terrible massacres" that Kevin Myers attributes to it. There can be little doubt that some awful things have happened: they always do in a way, but most reporters have spoken of a relatively bloodless campaign. Future revelations may belie this, but it might be better to wait until they do.
As for "tribalism", we are told that it was a powerful "engine" in Africa long before the - to use the awful phrase "the white man arrived". The historical evidence suggests otherwise. That ethnic identities predate any such arrival is undoubted, but the evidence also suggests that many of these were relatively loose groupings, and movement between ethnic groups did not necessarily pose problems. The formalising and hardening of ethnic identities into "tribal" structures was certainly in many cases a direct response to external stimulus and requirements; in East Africa British administrative convenience; in Rwanda, religious missionaries. That some of those people who came to power in Africa in the postcolonial period manipulated and exploited these divisions to their own end, is not in question, but the configurations involved were frequently much less ancient that some "white and capital owning" people might suppose. Africans must, of course, take responsibility for what happens on their territories. That, after all, is why they fought wars of liberation. But to ignore the historical and international contest in which they do so is to engage in an act of misrepresentation, intentionally or otherwise.
There is an old adage to the effect that "that of which you know nothing, say nothing". It was always considered good advice: when it comes to African affairs, some people should heed it.
Yours, etc.,
Haddington Road,
Dublin 4