British Empire

British Empire Exposed As Leading The African Slave Trade

Lawrence , , , , ,

July 18, 2026

My long time friend and colleague Ed Spannaus, has recently authored, Busting the Myth of the “Abolitionist” British Monarchy. A fascinating historical essay on the history of the British Empire’s involvement in the slave trade, excerpted below. I would add, that my research on this topic indicates that the British continued to deport Africans into the second half of the nineteenth century. In other words, continued the slave trade while preaching “abolition” of slavery.

Excerpts follow:

Whenever my late wife Nancy would give a talk on her 2023 book Defeating Slavery, someone in the audience would invariably ask a question such as: “Well, weren’t the British ahead of the United States in abolishing slavery?” or “Weren’t the British more progressive than us when it came to opposing slavery?”

Those type of questions were, unwittingly, the product of a carefully cultivated image – especially by promoters and publicists of the Royal Family — that the Monarchy and the British in general were almost mere bystanders in the slave trade, abolitionists at heart, who got rid of that horrid institution as soon as they could possibly do so.

This myth of the benign, passive British monarchy is blown to pieces by a new book, The Crown’s Silence: The Hidden History of the British Monarchy and Slavery in the Americas, written by Dr. Brooke Newman, a Professor of History at Virginia Commonwealth University, and also a Fellow of the Royal Historical Society in London.[i]

The liner notes for the book’s cover set the stage very succinctly:

For centuries, Britain has told itself and the world that it is an abolitionist nation, one that, unlike the United States, rejected human bondage and dismantled its Atlantic slave empire without tearing itself apart in violence.  An abolitionist nation headed by a just, humane monarch who liberated enslaved Africans and recognized their descendants as free and equal subjects of the British Crown. As Prince Willam put it recently, “We’re very much not a racist family.”

This is the myth that Dr. Newman dismantles, receipt by receipt, royal charter by royal charter. While then-Prince Charles claimed in 2023 to have opened the Royal Archives to make slavery records more accessible, Newman points out that this did not involve any new release of records.  The record of the Crown’s sponsorship and investment in the slave trade is not to be found in one set of archives, but is widely dispersed, fragmented, and deliberately designed to obscure the truth by “commodifying” enslaved human beings.

Ellizabeth I: The Beginnings

Newman takes this sordid story back to the reign of Queen Elizabeth I in the mid-16th century, when British traders attempted to break into the Spanish and Portuguese near monopoly of the slave trade. In 1563, John Hawkins, a Plymouth-based merchant-adventurer, had kidnapped Africans from Portuguese slaving ships, and taken them across the Atlantic to be sold in the Spanish Caribbean. When Hawkins returned to England with his ships’ holds bursting with gold, jewelry, sugar, and other commodities, cash-strapped Elizabeth immediately understood the potential, and eagerly provided one of her largest warships in return for a share of the profits of his next slaving venture.  His second trip was wildly successful, with Elizabeth and other investors reaping an estimated 60% return on their investment.  As Newman puts it, Queen Elizabeth thus secured her legacy as the first English monarch – but certainly not the last – to profit directly from the transatlantic slave trade.

The Stuarts Expand the Slave Trade

The next significant expansion of transatlantic trade, and with it, the slave trade, is under the Stuarts. The English established a series of plantation colonies in the Caribbean in the early 17th century, and the planters, facing a shortage of indentured servants, quickly realized that enslaved Africans could be the solution to their labor shortage.

King James I, who had granted a monopoly to the Guinea Company is 1618, died in 1625, leaving a substantial Crown indebtedness to his successor, Charles I.  Charles tried to handle this debt with revenue from Virginia tobacco and other crops which were raised in the Caribbean. Despite complaints from traders and merchants, Charles granted a 31-year monopoly to the Guinea Company in 1631.  The first English colony to engage in the widespread use of slave labor was, ironically, the Puritan-founded colony of Providence off the coast of Nicaragua.

Cromwell’s “Western Design”

The Commonwealth period did not represent any pulling-back from England’s imperial aspirations. On the contrary, Oliver Cromwell played a critical role in the expanded use of England’s naval power to undergird an enlarged slave-labor empire in the Americas; this was known as Cromwell’s “Western Design” to challenge Spain’s colonial empire. The royal-chartered Guinea Company was re-oriented toward the slave trade from its previous concentration on gold and precious commodities.  One of the Commonwealth’s “crowning” achievements was bringing Jamaica under English control.  Jamaica’s eventual success in sugar production, along with the rise of Barbados, says Dr. Newman, “transformed the English Crown’s Atlantic Empire into a slave empire.”

The Stuart Restoration Invests in the Slave Trade

When Charles II succeeded to the throne in 1660 in the Stuart Restoration, he inherited enormous Crown debts accumulated by his late father, Charles I, and he embraced the imperial expansionism undertaken by Cromwell and the Commonwealth.  Newman says the Restoration marked a decisive, aggressive shift into the monarchy’s direct financial and institutional investment into the slave trade and slave labor.

The restored King almost immediately granted exclusive trading rights on the West African coast to the aptly named Company of Royal Adventurers, a joint-stock company whose investors included a virtual “Who’s Who” of the Royal Family and its courtiers. Although the company’s charter was silent on the subject, secret instructions to the company from the King’s brother James (the Duke of York, and the Lord High Admiral) included trafficking in enslaved Africans; the slaves were to be sold to Spanish and Portuguese planters in Africa or Europe. But the slave trafficking quickly became trans-Atlantic, with the Royal Adventurers transporting large numbers of slaves to Jamaica and Barbados.

When the Royal Adventurers company was rechartered in 1663, its charter was explicit in giving the company exclusive rights – a royal monopoly — over the “buying and selling bartering and exchanging of for and with any Negro Slaves Goods wares and Merchandize whatsoever.”  The monopoly was to be enforced by the Royal Navy.  Half of the proceeds of any seizures – including slaves – was to go to the King, and the other half to the company’s subscribers or shareholders. James was appointed Governor of the Company.

The Company provided enslaved Africans to both English colonies in the Caribbean, and, by contract, 3000 Africans a year to the Spanish colonies.

Figure 1: The seal of “The Company of Royal Adventurers of England Trading into Africa” featured the coat of arms of the Duke of York, an elephant, and two Africans naked from the waist up. The Latin inscription is the company’s motto, Regio floret patrocinio commercium, commercioque Regnum, meaning “By royal patronage trade flourishes, by trade the realm.”

The Royal African Company Takes over the Slave Trade

In 1671, the Company of Royal Adventurers was reorganized, and the next year it was chartered as the Royal African Company (RAC).  The RAC was granted exclusive control of all trade in African commodities (including “Negro Slaves”) for the modest term of one thousand years. The RAC was given state-like powers and privileges, including the power to declare war against any of the “heathen nations” along the African coast, and the power to erect Admiralty courts.

For a time, the Royal African Company dominated the trans-Atlantic slave trade.  In the first decade of its existence, its share of the trade jumped from 33 percent to 74 percent. In fact, during the entire period of the trans-Atlantic slave trade, according to an historian quoted by Dr. Newman, the RAC “shipped more enslaved African women, men, and children to the Americas than any other single institution.”

Seal of the Royal African Company

During the reigns of Charles II and James II (1672 to 1688), the RAC is estimated to have shipped 100,000 slaves to the Americas, the vast majority to the English Caribbean colonies. Approximately 76,000 survived the passage. By the early 1720s, the RAC had transported more than 150,000 enslaved Africans across the Atlantic.

The proceeds and profits flowed directly to the Royal Family, especially to James, first as the Duke of York, and then as James II. To emphasize the point, the Duke’s initials, “DY” were branded onto the bodies of hundreds of slaves, including children, who were owned directly by the RAC and held at the company’s headquarters as “Castle Slaves.”…

George I and the South Sea Company

The new Hanoverian King, George I, immediately proved to be an enthusiastic backer of the SSC, including providing naval support, and displayed great optimism for the future of the slave trade to Spanish America. His eldest son George, now the Prince of Wales, requested SSC shares, and became its Governor.  Documents survive to this day which demonstrate the extensive links between George I, George II, and the slave-trading South Sea Company.

Despite their efforts, the SSC fell short of meeting its quota under the asiento. Between 1714 and 1718, the SSC shipped 13,102 enslaved African to Spanish America – of which only 10,521 survived the trans-Atlantic journey. This fell well short of the 19,200 healthy enslaved Africans the SSC was obliged to supply.

Meanwhile, the contraband slave trade flourished, among Jamaican smugglers and others, and this cut into the SSC’s efforts. To attempt to stem this “illegal” trade, SSC directors ordered their agents to brand African men, women, and children with the SSC company mark (see illustration). These royal symbols encouraged people to buy shares, i.e. “invest,” in the South Sea Company.

Figure 3: South Sea Company Mark. Source: The Crown’s Silence, p. 167.

A Bubble Floating on the Slave Trade 

With the King and the Prince of Wales ostentatiously pouring investments into the SSC, the public eagerly snapped up SSC shares, driving up their price.  But in August 1720, share prices began to drop sharply; between August 17 and Sept. 28, SSC shares fell from £1000 to £190, bankrupting many who had borrowed money to buy SSC stock.

In her recent talk at the Library of Virginia, Dr. Newman emphasized that the SSC “was not just a Ponzi scheme, even though that’s typically how we think about it now.”

She reported that the company had transported a total of about 43,000 Africans to the Americas. In her book, she notes the importance of the monarchy-sponsored slave trade in providing revenues used to increase the government’s surplus, and for building up the military capacity undergirding the rise of the British Empire.

George II and the “King’s Negroes”

When the Prince of Wales succeeded to the throne in 1727, he was already deeply immersed in the SSC and the slave trade, and it was a simple matter for him to continue as Governor of the SSC. George II became the first British monarch to directly buy and own slaves, when his Royal Navy began to purchase “seasoned Negroes, boys and men,” to labor in the naval shipyards in Jamaica. These men and boys, and later women and girls, became known as the “King’s Negroes.”

It was during the reign of George II that Britain came to dominate the trans-Atlantic slave trade, surpassing Portugal.

As Dr. Newman puts it, “Britain’s eighteenth-century empire was a slave empire and the Caribbean colonies its linchpin.”  Slave-produced sugar became the most important commodity in Britain’s world trade, and taxes on sugar imports grew into the largest single source of revenue to the Crown.

In the first half of the 18th century alone, British ships took 975,000 captives from African shores, of which 167,000 died during the Atlantic crossing. Most of the survivors landed in the Caribbean slave colonies, primarily Jamaica and Barbados; others were taken to Britain’s North American colonies and sold there.[ii]

French expansion in the Caribbean and North America threatened all this, and the British public favored an aggressive policy toward France, leading to the outbreak of war in 1756 (known as the Seven Years War in Europe, and as the French and Indian War in North America).

The above map, showing the volume and direction of the Trans Atlantic Slave Trade, can be found on p. 12 of Nancy Spannaus’s Defeating Slavery book, and was reproduced by permission of Yale University Press.

George III: The Empire fractures

In 1760, George III inherited the British slave empire as well as the global war that was launched to defend it.

As a teenaged Prince of Wales, George had expressed reservations about slavery, but as King, he cast whatever compunctions he had aside, and quickly came to regard slavery as a necessary evil.  Newman says he went further, utilizing enslaved people for his benefit. He attempted to consolidate the British territorial gains during the war, by using slave labor to transform these new colonial territories into profitable agricultural colonies using the model of Jamaica.

An example of how aggressively King George III pursued this policy is Cuba. In 1762, Spanish Havana fell to the British. At the end of the war, Cuba was returned to Spain as part of a deal in which Spain ceded all of Spanish Florida east of the Mississippi to Britain.

But meanwhile, in the just ten months during which Britain occupied Cuba, its enslaved population increased by 80 percent!  This was accompanied by a rapid growth of Cuba’s emerging sugar industry, based on slave labor. The legacy, historians have noted, was a lasting one.

Dr. Newman points to something that Nancy Spannaus stressed in her Defeating Slavery book –- that the Crown repeatedly rejected, and vetoed, efforts by Virginia and other colonies to regulate and curtail the slave trade. This was one of the major grievances cited by American patriots during the period leading up to the Declaration of Independence.  And what angered the colonists even more, was that the same monarch who had perpetuated the slave trade was now encouraging those slaves to rise up against the Americans in support of the King – Virginia’s weakened and desperate Governor Dunmore being a prime example of this.

British “Abolition:” Slavery by Another Name

After the Revolutionary War in America, a strong and articulate movement for the abolition of slavery took hold in England, led in part by two former enslaved men. But the monarchy dug in its heels in opposition, with one of the royals, William, the Duke of Clarence, being particularly outspoken in the House of Lords against abolition and in support of enslavers. The sole exception to the Royal Family’s rock-solid unanimity on the subject of slavery and the slave trade was cousin Frederick William, the Duke of Gloucester, who sided with the abolitionists. King George III privately saw his own priority as defending and expanding the British Empire, which he saw as threatened by an end to slavery. In public, he of course stayed above the fray, as required by his position.

In 1807, over Royal opposition, Parliament passed the Act for the Abolition of the Slave Trade.  While prohibiting British ships from carrying out the slave trade as of January 1, 1808, Brooke Newman points out, “this made little impact on the lives of the seven hundred thousand individuals who remained enslaved in the Caribbean.”

The pro-abolition Duke of Gloucester was quickly recruited to the “African Institution,” a group formed by William Wilberforce and other abolitionists to bring “civilization and improvement” to Africa. But this actually meant (in Dr. Newman’s words), “the imposition of British norms and economic ambitions” upon Africa, which the Institution regarded as “sunk in ignorance and barbarism.”  They also held the view that if Africans rejected the Institution’s civilizing mission, this would itself prove the necessity and worthiness of British intervention.

The Africa Institution saw as one of its highest priorities, ensuring the enforcement of the Abolition Act.  What did this mean?

The Abolition Act declared slave ships and their cargo contraband, eligible for capture and seizure.  To reduce its own expenses and to enforce the law, the Crown “incentivized” anti-slave-trade activities, by demanding the conscription of Africans freed from slave ships into indentured servitude, involuntary apprenticeships, or military service. “Liberation” was no such thing.

African men, women, and children who were seized from slave ships by the Royal Navy were, in legal terms, “condemned as prize of war, or as forfeited, to the sole use of his Majesty, his heirs, and successors” — as stated in official Colonial Office documents.

And, to further “incentivize” such practices, British military officers were awarded financial rewards for each man (£40), woman (£30), and child under age 14 (£10), who were captured and handed over to colonial authorities.

In other words, Africans “liberated” from slavery lost any freedom of choice and action, for the rest of their lives. As Dr. Newman puts it, “this was essentially slavery by another name.”

The same practice was enshrined in the 1833 Emancipation Act, to which King William IV gave his assent, after Parliament passed the bill under enormous public pressure.

The Emancipation Act supposedly abolished slavery in the British Empire. But, as with the earlier Abolition Act, the bill simply established a new form of bondage in the Caribbean colonies, in order to preserve the plantation system.   £20 million in compensation was paid to slave owners out of the public treasury – what one might call “reparations for the enslavers” — while “freed” slaves got nothing.  And worse, they were apprenticed to their former enslavers for four to six years; the apprenticeship system meant working up to 45 hours per week without pay.  Infractions by “former” slaves would result in floggings, whipping, and hard labor in workhouses or penal gangs.  They remained destitute and propertyless. (There were obvious parallels to what happened with emancipated blacks in the defeated Confederacy after the U.S. Civil War and the failure of Reconstruction.)

(British taxpayers – not the monarchy – remained on the hook for at least 175 years for the loans that the British government took out to fund the £20 million compensation paid to enslavers. Taxpayers didn’t finish paying off these loans – worth billions in today’s money — until 2015.)…

Read Ed Spannaus’ entire article: Busting the Myth of the “Abolitionist” British Monarchy

Read below my earlier posts on this topic.

Everyone Should Know The Truth About Slavery in America

Slavery rips hearts, souls, and minds out of Africa

Lawrence Freeman is a Political-Economic Analyst for Africa, who has been involved in economic development policies for Africa for 35 years. He is a teacher, writer, public speaker, consultant on Africa, and an analyst of global strategic relations. Mr. Freeman strongly believes that economic development is an essential human right. He is the creator of the blog: lawrencefreemanafricaandtheworld.com, also publishes on: lawrencefreeman.substack.com, “Freeman’s Africa and the World, and on X @lkfreemansafrica

British Colonial Legacy Still Plaguing African Nations Today

Lawrence , , , , , , , , , , , ,

(courtesy of npr.org)

September 22. 2022

The British Empire should have expired an ignoble death after World War II, and the monarchy disbanded. I believe that if President Franklin Roosevelt had his druthers, that was his intention.

In her article below, my colleague, Nancy Spannaus, creator of the website, americansystemnow.com provides a glimpse of President Roosevelt’s displeasure with British imperialism. President Roosevelt was especially distressed by British treatment of people in the underdeveloped sector, especially Africa. He wanted to develop Africa with American System policies of economic growth after the war. Sadly, President Roosevelt died, before he could implement his Grand Design.

FDR versus the British Empire

During recent weeks, much of the world was focused  on the death of Queen Elizabeth II and the coronation of King Charles III. While people were subjected to nonstop media coverage of ceremonial pomp and celebration of the British monarchy, Africans and true friends of Africa have nothing to celebrate. There should be nothing but shame for the horrific inhumane practices by the British monarchy in Africa.

The British Empire did no good for the Africa, which it dominated through its imperialist power. Its repulsive brutality in conquering and maintaining its rule in Kenya, South Africa, Zimbabwe (Rhodesia), Ghana, and Nigeria to name a few nations, is well documented. Its divide and conquer tactics are infamous. This included its promotion of ethnicity and manipulating ethnic groups against each other to keep nations divided as a means to prevent them from achieving sovereignty. The ugly legacy of British colonialism is evident in Africa today, where Nigeria, Kenya, and South Africa are still suffering internal political discord resulting from British rule, as evidenced in recent elections.

As colonialism dominated Africa in the twentieth century following the Berlin Conference, the British Empire became the foremost imperialist force on the continent. It murdered African people, plundered their resources, intentionally thwarted industrialization, and set up structures to prevent Africans from realizing their full economic sovereignty after the Winds of Change swept through the continent.

Is it not nobler for us today, to advocate for the dismantling of the British monarchy instead of mourning the death of Queen Elizabeth, who oversaw the barbaric treatment of Africans in the twentieth century.

This post is not meant to provide a detailed history of British Colonialism in Africa. Additional articles on this subject are available on this website.

Read my earlier posts:

Roosevelt: Last Great American Statesman With A Grand Vision for Africa

For the Development of Africa: Know and Apply Franklin Roosevelt’s Credit Policy

Lawrence Freeman is a Political-Economic Analyst for Africa, who has been involved in economic development policies for Africa for over 30 years. He is a teacher, writer, public speaker, and consultant on Africa. He is also the creator of the blog: lawrencefreemanafricaandtheworld.com. Mr. Freeman’s stated personal mission is; to eliminate poverty and hunger in Africa by applying the scientific economic principles of Alexander Hamilton.

Commemorating the Death of Franklin Roosevelt: Last Great American Statesman With A Grand Vision for Africa

Lawrence , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
President Roosevelt in May 1933, signed legislation creating the Tennessee Valley Authority -TVA, and transformed the U.S. with his Grand Infrastructure Design

April 13, 2022

April 12 marked the seventy-seventh anniversary of the 1945 death of Franklin Delano Roosevelt (FDR), the 32nd President of the United States. FDR is revered for rescuing America from the Great Depression using Alexanders Hamilton’s economic principles, and saving the world from fascism with U.S. industrial might. Matthew Ehret in his article, The Anniversary of FDR’s Death, examines the underlying  philosophical and strategic thinking of FDR, which without doubt qualifies him not only as a great U.S. President, but the last authentic American statesman.

It is no exaggeration to assert that the world would not be in the condition it is in today if President Roosevelt did not die before the end of his fourth term in office, or by some medical miracle, were still alive. Sadly, for the USA, and the world, none of his most significant policies survived his death, with the exception of the accomplishments of John Kennedy during his three short years as U.S. President. As soon as FDR died on April 12, the world changed dramatically, and not for the better.

We are still living through the terrible consequences of his death, especially regarding U.S. strategic relations with Russia and China. Rather than treating both these superpowers as geopolitical enemies in a falsely portrayed zero-sum world, President Roosevelt viewed both nations as allies against British colonialism. In his creation of the United Nations, FDR had Russia, and China join the U.S. and Britain as leading political powers. However, only President Kennedy, emulated FDR’s common interest approach to Russia, by proposing collaboration in a joint space program, despite the Cuban Missile crisis.

President Roosevelt’s firm opposition to British colonial practices, especially in Africa, is highlighted in Ehret’s citation of Elliott Roosevelt‘s revealing 1946 book, ‘As He Saw It’. A must read for all who oppose colonialismand desire to understand Roosevelt’s grand vision for a world of prosperous sovereign nations.

In ‘As He Saw It,’ Elliot Roosevelt quotes extensively from his father’s lecturing of Prime Minister Winston Churchill about the evils of British Colonialism, at their January 24,1943 Casablanca Conference in Morocco.

“Of course,” he [FDR] remarked, with a sly sort of assurance, “of course, after the war, one of the preconditions of any lasting peace will have to be the greatest possible freedom of trade.”

 He paused. The P.M.’s head was lowered; he was watching Father steadily, from under one eyebrow.

“No artificial barriers,” Father pursued. “As few favored economic agreements as possible. Opportunities for expansion. Markets open for healthy competition.” His eye wandered innocently around the room.

Churchill shifted in his armchair. “The British Empire trade agreements” he began heavily, “are—”

Father broke in. “Yes. Those Empire trade agreements are a case in point. It’s because of them that the people of India and Africa, of all the colonial Near East and Far East, are still as backward as they are.”

Churchill’s neck reddened and he crouched forward. “Mr. President, England does not propose for a moment to lose its favored position among the British Dominions. The trade that has made England great shall continue, and under conditions prescribed by England’s ministers.”

“You see,” said Father slowly, “it is along in here somewhere that there is likely to be some disagreement between you, Winston, and me.

“I am firmly of the belief that if we are to arrive at a stable peace it must involve the development of backward countries. Backward peoples. How can this be done? It can’t be done, obviously, by eighteenth-century methods. Now—”

“Who’s talking eighteenth-century methods?”

“Whichever of your ministers recommends a policy which takes wealth in raw materials out of a colonial country, but which returns nothing to the people of that country in consideration. Twentieth-century methods involve bringing industry to these colonies. Twentieth-century methods include increasing the wealth of a people by increasing their standard of living, by educating them, by bringing them sanitation—by making sure that they get a return for the raw wealth of their community.”

The P.M. himself was beginning to look apoplectic.” (emphasis added)

President Roosevelt’s commitment to foster economic growth in underdeveloped nations has been greatly misunderstood by the vast majority of people inhabiting both the advanced and less-advanced regions of the world . The Bretton Woods institutions: the International Monetary Fund, and the International Bank For Reconstruction and Development created by FDR in 1944, were not intended to be the perverse drivers of monetarist policy they have become today. As a result of decades of deliberate mis-information, it is virtually unknown that FDR instructed his representative at the Bretton Woods conference, Harry Dexter White, to create an institution that would foster economic growth for all nations, contrary to the intention of British representative, John Maynard Keynes.

I will be writing more about the Bretton Woods Conference and President Roosevelt’s Reconstruction Finance Corporation in the near future. Until then, Ehret’s article provides a useful broad backdrop to FDR’s policy. Read: The Anniversary of FDR’s Death

Lawrence Freeman is a Political-Economic Analyst for Africa, who has been involved in economic development policies for Africa for over 30 years. He is the creator of the blog: lawrencefreemanafricaandtheworld.com. Mr. Freeman’s stated personal mission is; to eliminate poverty and hunger in Africa by applying the scientific economic principles of Alexander Hamilton.

Trump’s Aid Cut Harmful to Ethiopia and All of Africa

Lawrence , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Artist rendition of the completed Grand Ethiopian Renaissance Dam

August 6, 2020

Trump’s Aid Cut Harmful to Ethiopia and All of Africa

By Lawrence Freeman

President Donald Trump has instructed Secretary of State, Mike Pompeo to pull back from a commitment to provide $100 million in security related aid to Ethiopia, a leading developing nation on the African continent. According to the New York Times, the State Department indicated this would be a “temporary pause” on some aid in response to “Ethiopia’s unilateral decision to begin to fill [its] dam before an agreement was reached…” This action by the Trump administration is more than an outrageous encroachment of Ethiopia’s sovereignty. It is an assault on the right of emerging nations to take actions to improve the living conditions of their people.

In response to the decision by the State department, Eyob Tekalign, Ethiopia’s state  finance minister said correctly, “We don’t think that the U.S. has thought this through carefully…We are hopeful that they will reconsider because Ethiopia is doing what is absolutely right and in all senses of the word legally, morally as well.”

The Ethiopian people have funded the $4.6 billion Grand Ethiopian Renaissance Dam (GERD) themselves. This fulfills a bold vision to develop their nation with the 6,200 megawatts (MW) of electricity that the dam will generate when completed. Ambassador Fitsum Arega aptly expressed the desire of the Ethiopian population, when he tweeted, “we will pull Ethiopia out of the darkness,” which is literally and metaphorically true.

Trump’s Bias

All indications are that President Trump acted on the insistence of Egyptian President el Sisi, who has claimed “historical rights” to the Nile River. In truth he is asserting “colonial rights” to the Nile bestowed on Egypt by the British Crown.

At the end of 2019, at the request of President el Sisi, President Trump instructed Treasury Secretary Mnuchin to act as an independent broker in discussions with Sudan, Egypt, and Ethiopia. Over four months, several meetings of the three Nile riparian nations were held in Washington DC discussing the “fill rate” of the GERD. There are legitimate concerns about how much water would be withdrawn annually in the next several years to fill the GERD’s reservoir of 74 billion cubic meters (bcm) of water. Technical issues like the rate of which water should be withdrawn from the Nile to fill the reservoir should be resolved by the three nations with the understanding that a functioning GERD will benefit all the people living in the Horn of Africa.

The heavy rains at the beginning of Ethiopia’s rainy season this summer have already filled the GERD with the required 4.5 bcm of water to test two turbines. This was accomplished without any reduction in the flow of the Nile.

As the tripartite discussions, with the US Treasury and World Bank in attendance continued into February 2020, it became clear that the US was “putting its thumb on the scale” for Egypt, in the words of retired US Ambassador David Shinn. By the end of February, Mnuchin secured an “agreement” regarding the Nile with Egypt, without the participation of Ethiopian representatives.  On February 28, 2020, an official statement from the US Treasury Department praised Egypt’s “readiness to sign the agreement,” and instructed Ethiopia that “final testing and filling should not take place without an agreement.” For more information read my earlier post: Africa Requires Ethiopia Fill Its Dam.

Eventually, the unresolved issue of the Nile shifted to the proper venue for African nations to settle disputes, the African Union. The dialogue has continued under the personal supervision of South African President, Cyril Ramaphosa, Chairperson of the African Union.

The GERD is built in Ethiopia on the Blue Nile River, which supplies 85% of the Nile when it joins the White Nile north of Khartoum, Sudan

Bringing Africa Out of Darkness

What President Trump does not understand; is that his “pause” in aid is not only harmful to Ethiopia, but it is detrimental to the entire African continent. Whether he is aware of it or not, is establishing a dangerous precedent in foreign policy, and not just for Africa.

Ethiopia, with a population approaching 110 million, has made a commitment to eradicate poverty. To that end, Ethiopia has embarked on erecting significant infrastructure projects in roads, railroads, and hydro-electric dams. The GERD has the potential to generate over 6,000 MW of power, doubling Ethiopia’s present capacity, and placing Ethiopia only second to South Africa in energy production in sub-Saharan Africa (SSA). Ethiopia would also become an energy exporting nation potentially providing electricity to neighboring South Sudan, Sudan, Kenya, Somalia, and Tanzania.

The root cause of virtually every crisis that African nations are facing today, including ethnic conflicts, can be traced to underdevelopment. This is especially true when one examines the dearth of hard infrastructure in SSA with a population nearing 1.5 billion that is projected to reach 2.5 billion by 2050. Electricity for SSA is estimated between 100,000-130,000 MW. This level of output is criminally deficient for a population over 1 billion, with 600 million Africans having no access to online electricity. The lack of electricity is literally a death sentence for millions of Africans.  Is this not a form of genocide?

Without abundant and accessible electricity Africa will not progress at the level necessary to provide for its present, much less its expanding population. Energy is the sine qua non for economic growth, and to eradicate poverty. It is required for; agriculture, producing fertilizer, pumping water, cleaning water, transportation, lighting hospitals, vaccine production and storage, shipping food in refrigerated cars, powering industry, constructing and lighting modern homes, schools and libraries. For Africans to enjoy the same access to electricity 24×7, as we experience in modern nations, Africa needs a minimum of 1,000 gigawatts or 1 million megawatts of electricity.

Does anyone in the Trump administration, or any individual in the leadership of the Democratic Party think on this level?

President Franklin Roosevelt signed the Tennessee Valley Authority Act-TVA on May 18, 1933. (courtesy inthesetimes.com)

What Roosevelt Would Do?

Rather than being threatened with cuts in aid, Ethiopia should be supported in its bold efforts to build and operate the GERD. A thoughtful US policy would be assisting all African nations in addressing the enormous multi-trillion dollar infrastructure deficit, with long term-low interest loans to finance massive investments in life saving infrastructure. Instead of President Trump and his foolish advisors hurling geo-political condemnations against China, it would be far better for the US to join China’s Belt and Road Initiative, which is building vitally necessary infrastructure in Africa and around the world.

Both the Democratic and Republican Party, including President Trump himself, from time to time utter fond references of President Franklin Roosevelt. However, I have found that no leader in either party has any comprehension of the genius of President Roosevelt’s economic policies. FDR as he is known, understood the importance of infrastructure. This was abundantly evident in his New Deal, his creation of the Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA), and his Good Neighbor policy. During the war he sternly reprimanded Winston Churchill for his Imperial-Colonial policies in Africa. President Roosevelt intended to end the British Empire’s political and financial control in the world. He had a vision to develop Africa, including greening the desert, with the same methods he had successfully implemented in the US: great infrastructure projects. I can assure you, that President Roosevelt would have championed and aided any developing nation that embarked on energy production.

Sadly, in the seventy-five years following the death of President Roosevelt, the only President, who had shown enthusiasm for the economic development of Africa, was John F Kennedy.

Let the Trump administration pause to rethink this wrongheaded policy that not only violates Ethiopia’s sovereignty, but undermines a strong US ally in East Africa. Let us recognize Ethiopia’s endeavors to improve the living conditions of its citizens, and pause again to ask, how would President Franklin Roosevelt respond.  His TVA harnessed the power of the mighty Tennessee River generating electricity to transform the lives of millions of poverty stricken Americans living in seven undeveloped southern States.  Is it not in the strategic interest of the US to support nations working to eliminate poverty in Africa using Rooseveltian methods?

Read: Africa Requires Ethiopia Fill Its Dam

Lawrence Freeman is a Political-Economic Analyst for Africa, who has been involved in the economic development policy of Africa for over 30 years. He is the creator of the blog: lawrencefreemanafricaandtheworld.com

China Eliminated Poverty With Science and Infrastructure. It Can Be Done in Africa Too!

Lawrence , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

China's Long March Out of Poverty | African Agenda – A new ...
Deng Xiaoping, who put China firmly on the path of “reform and opening up.

August 14, 2020

If one examines the long path from the end of China’s disastrous “cultural revolution” in the 1970s to China’s 2020 modern miracle of eliminating poverty for 800 million Chinese, many lessons can be learned. China’s commitment to science and building infrastructure were two essential ingredients for this accomplishment.  William Jones discusses this interesting history in his article below,”China’s Long March Out of Poverty”.

China Employs Hamilton’s Principles of Credit  for Railroads

(EIRNS) —China’s exciting announcement of its plan to increase the pace of development of maglev and its high-speed rail network, is based on its assurance that it knows how to implement that, and to finance it on top-down principles of the type proposed by Alexander Hamilton.

China announced its plans to build a system of 600 kph (373 mph) maglev vehicles, after it successfully conducted its maiden test run of a maglev vehicle at a test track at Tonji University in Shanghai on June 21. Though the train-set did not run at top speed of 600 kph, but at a lower speed, various important features were tested. Prototype vehicles are approved for construction in 2021, and up to nine new maglev lines, totalling over 1,000 km (600 miles), are planned for the future.

Equally impressive, China’s plan to double its existing 35,000 km of high-speed rail already in operation, to 70,000 km by 2035, shows how a Confucian/Hamiltonian economy actually works. Based on estimates by the Lange Steel Information Research Center in Beijing, reported by the Wall Street Journal, China would have spent $180 billion for 35 approved railway projects in 2019, most of them high-speed rail, launching the next phase of HSR development.

In the first half of 2020, according to the Aug. 13 *China Daily), China invested $207 billion in combined railway, highway, waterway and civil aviation infrastructure, of which $46.9 billion was in railways. China’s transportation infrastructure investment alone, is 5-10 times that of every country on Earth. Featured in China’s railway investment is a new, 1700 km high-speed rail system between Chengdu, Sichuan and Lhasa, Tibet; high-speed rail in landlocked Shaanxi Province, etc.

China finances the rail and other critical infrastructure, through two methods of directed credit: China’s four largest state-owned commercial banks—the Industrial & Commercial Bank of China, the Bank of China, the Agricultural Bank of China, and the China Construction Bank—make ample loans directly to the China Railway company, the China Railway Rolling Stock Corporation (CRRC), which builds the rail equipment, etc. This is overseen by China’s three “policy banks.”

Second, the national government and local governments purchase bonds issued by China Railway Corporation, CRRC, and so forth.

China has announced its new rail construction program. The government plans to build 200,000 km of rail by 2035, about 70,000 of which will be high-speed rail. All cities with a population of 200,000 or more will be connected by rail, and all cities with 500,000 people or more will be connected by high-speed rail. China is also working on the next generation maglev train that could travel at speeds of 600 kph.

Pause for a moment from your daily activity. Let your imagination look into the future, and ponder what the nations of Africa would look like if, all cities with 200,000 people or more were connected by railroads. The topology of the continent would be different. China has proved it can be done. It is not a matter of Africa following the China model. Rather, it is comprehending the scientific principles of Alexander Hamilton’s economic system. Read my earlier posts: Alexander Hamilton’s Credit System Is Necessary for Africa’s Development and Nations Must Study Alexander Hamilton’s Principles of Political Economy

 

Click to access 45-54_4726.pdf

In his article below, William Jones provide an insightful analysis of the forces behind the anti-China mantra, rampant in the Trump administration.

As the ‘Five Eyes’ gear up to confront China, can anyone say that the British Empire is a thing of the past?

“A recent article published in the China Economic Diplomacy Watch pointed to the “Five Eyes” – the U.S., UK, Australia, Canada and New Zealand – as the key rallying group for Pompeo’s call for a containment policy toward China. The article has indicated a crucial element in the danger the world is facing. The unifying factor in this grouping is, firstly, that the “Five Eyes” are all English-speaking countries, and secondly, that they all at one time or the other belonged to the British Empire.”

Lawrence Freeman is a Political-Economic Analyst for Africa, who has been involved in the economic development policy of Africa for 30 years. He is the creator of the blog: lawrencefreemanafricaandtheworld.com

Celebrating Kwame Nkrumah’s Ghana With Observations from Cape Coast By Donielle DeToy

Lawrence , , , , , , , , , , ,

Please accept an article from my wife, as my belated contribution to the March 6, anniversary of Ghana’s independence from its colonial master, Great Britain.

 Akwaaba: You Are Welcome in Ghana by Donielle DeToy

 I have just completed seven weeks of my teaching internship at Mary Queen of Peace Catholic School in Cape Coast, Ghana. Living in the tropical region of Cape Coast and learning about Ghanaian culture was a unique and transformative experience that I shall always cherish. I loved everything about Ghana, the culture, people, climate- Cape Coast was welcoming and beautiful.

This is not my first adventure onto the large continent of Africa. In 2011 and 2012, I traveled to Sudan visiting Khartoum, Darfur, and the Nuba Mountains. In 2014, I had the honor of accompanying my husband to Ndjamena, Chad. He is a scientific adviser to the Lake Chad Basin Commission (LCBC). We attended a conference addressing the complex dangers of Lake Chad evaporating and made proposals for workable solutions. We then explored Ethiopia both Addis Abba and the Rift Valley region. Of all my travels to Africa, Ghana was the absolute best!

There is a phrase the Ghanaian population speak when greeting visitors, “Akwaaba” which means “you are welcome” or “happy to have you visit.” Ghanaians definitely “Akwaaba” visitors and make you feel very relaxed. That welcoming spirit shines in every classroom at Mary Queen of Peace Catholic School.

If you don’t like warm weather or tropical creatures, you won’t like Ghana, but I loved it! Ghana is close to the equator and the sun sets very quickly. Cape Coast is on the ocean and it is often hot and humid. However, there is a cool and refreshing breeze throughout the night.

As for the tropical creatures- I shared my room with 4 (probably more) Geckos and no they don’t have funny Australian accents. These creatures are EVERYWHERE!! Outside, inside, under, over, above, absolutely everywhere. I learned to live with them (I didn’t really have a choice). I was outnumbered AND in that tropical climate there is an advantage of having roommates who eat bugs. I gave some of them names which personified them and discovered where they “live” within our house and school. There are two other common lizards in this region, the first is a slower moving Agama Lizard, there is one that lives on the school campus, he is nicknamed “Charlie.” The other managed to evade my camera- it is called a Monitor Lizard; my students call them “dragons” probably because they can weigh up to 200 pounds.

Are there cultural differences?? Absolutely. One of the amusing and challenging tasks was trying to explain winter temperatures, snow, and ice to my kindergarten age school children. They have never experienced temperatures below 70 degrees and only know two seasons; raining and dry. I taught a unit on weather and showed pictures and videos of Maryland’s bitter cold, but it was still too abstract. Finally, I made a huge block of ice and asked each student to hold her/his hand on it for as long as possible. They loved it!! Although most could not keep their hands on the ice for more than 30 seconds.

My students were very respectful and greeted us by our first names, but with the pre-fix “Teacher”, so I am “Teacher Donielle.” Education is universal, all children love to laugh, discover, and learn. The more fun I can have teaching my lessons, the better their learning experience.

In Ghana, Friday is Africa dress day, everyone wears traditional African attire. I decided to join the fun and wore a lovely African dress. All the teachers at my school were very happy that I joined in the tradition. I believe when visiting (and teaching) in another country one needs to participate in cultural activities. The teachers appreciated it and my students loved the fact that I got dressed up for their special day.

One of the saddest moments was my visit to the infamous slave castles/dungeons. I toured two different ones. The first, was in Elmina, this is the largest slave castle, built by the Portuguese in 1482. It had been sacred land for the people, but the European empires were callous and erected a hideous structure of death over this revered area. This “castle” was used as an export point for African men and women for over 400 years. The brutality in which the Europeans treated the people of Africa is revolting and horrifying. One tour guide estimated that over 20 million slaves were shipped from Africa. The other Castle was in Cape Coast. Our guide briefly locked us in one of the dungeons…the stench of blood and death still lingered, 200 years later. Both castles have a “door of no return” this is a narrow opening where the slaves where forced onto a ship leaving their homeland forever.

During a brief stay in Accra prior to my departure, I visited the museum and mausoleum of Kwame Nkrumah. He was the founding father of Ghana, achieving independence from the British empire in 1957.  He was also a key component in the creation of the OAS- Organization of African States. I was struck at the strong connection between Nkrumah and America. The museum had dozens of artifacts from his 1939-1944 studies at University of Pennsylvania and Lincoln University. During his lifetime he reflected a deep understanding of the true meaning of American System of Economics. This is most evident in his speech at the founding conference of the OAS, which called for a commitment to a scientific and infrastructure renaissance in Ghana and Africa, echoing both Franklin Roosevelt and John F Kennedy.

Two happy Presidents, John Kennedy and Kwame Nkrumah, Washington DC March 1963. Nkrumah was Kennedy’s first Head of State to visit the White House.

After my first week in Cape Coast, I thought the biggest challenge and most difficult adjustment was not being plugged into the internet or access to emails 24 hours a day. But as I prepared for my departure, I realized the most difficult task was saying good-bye. The school theme for Mary Queen of Peace is Shine Forever, and the School Sisters of Notre Dame, students, staff, and community shall Shine Forever in my heart.