Project Desertec:
The Berlin Conference revisited

By Phumza Mphehle
The story of black holocaust victims is rarely spoken about
By A. Tolbert. III

On November 15 1884, in Berlin, Germany, European powers sat around the table to start the discussion on how to divide Africa between themselves. The countries represented included Austria-Hungary, Belgium, Denmark, France, Germany, Great Britain, Italy, the Netherlands, Portugal, Russia, Spain, Sweden-Norway, Turkey, and the United States of America. Hosted by German Chancellor Otto von Bismarck, the Conference created rules for the effective occupation of conquered lands using the uti possidetis (as you possess) principle. In international law the principle rules that territory and other property remains with its possessor at the end of a conflict, unless provided for by treaty.

In real terms what the Berlin Conference did was carve Africa into territories with no regard for ethnic, cultural or any other existing boundaries. Rather, Africa’s national borders as we know them today, were determined by the avaricious whims of western powers interested solely in pursuing and/or protecting “their” stake in Africa’s natural resources. Fundamentally, the Berlin Conference sought to ensure that the scramble for Africa would take place peacefully without resulting in war among European powers.

That Africa’s natural wealth is as much a blessing as it is a curse is evident in how imperial powers – today through their hand-picked African leaders – continue to exploit the continent’s resources. Using their intelligence agencies and/or “private” citizens, many civil wars in Africa have been prompted by a western government or company seeking to entrench its access to a resource. A case in point is the failed March 2004 coup plot in Equatorial Guinea. Illustrious figures such as Sir Mark Thatcher, son of former British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher, were named in the attempt to overthrow Equatorial Guinea President Teodoro Obiang Nguema’s government.

Indications are that the attempted coup may have had more to do with the newfound oil riches in the central African state, rather than an altruistic desire for the West to see the small nation rid itself of the “dictator” Obiang. Clearly, the decisions on governing Africa made at the Berlin Conference still affect the continent today, and adversely so. Fast forward to July 13 2009 in Munich, located about 500km south-west of Berlin in the capital city of the German state of Bavaria. On this fateful day, 12 companies signed a Memorandum of Understanding to establish the DESERTEC Industrial Initiative (DII). According to their press statement, the objective of the DII is to “analyse and develop the technical, economic, political, social and ecological framework for carbon-free power generation in the deserts of North Africa”.

The idea behind DII is to use the Sahara desert to develop a sustainable power supply for Europe primarily, and other parts of the world. While lauded for creating greater energy security the project smacks of yet another form of imperialism: solar imperialism. Incidentally, German Chancellor Angela Merkel has endorsed the project. Vice Chairman of Deutsche Bank, Caio Koch-Weser said: “We are pleased to participate in the Desertec Industrial Initiative and explore with our partners the feasibility of this trailblazing project. The initiative shows in what dimensions and on what scale we must think if we are to master the challenges from climate change both in ecological and economic terms”.

Cloaked under the guise of good environmental practices and development for Africa, this trailblazing project applies the uti possidetis principle to a resource that the continent receives plenty of, namely, sunlight. At the cost of €400-billion (see African Diaspora, p ), the project will set up solar-thermal plants across the Sahara Desert. No doubt the cost of capital investment will over time be transferred back to Africans who typically pay for the extraction of natural resources with their lives – as we have witnessed in Sierra Leone, Liberia, the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC) and the Sudan, to name but a few nations.

European businesses once again are scrambling for Africa’s resources. And once again decisions are made in boardrooms and government offices in Europe. The difference between now and then? A small difference in transparency. Today, multi-national corporations openly make decisions about business that governments are expected to rubber stamp without questioning. Big business naturally promises to do their charity through corporate social investment. However, with all the promises of goodwill and the supposed benefits for Africa, if there were real intent to develop the continent through projects like the DII, the continent would not have the most poorest and least developed nations in the world.

And no, blaming the state of despair on the continent solely on African dictators would disregard the fact that many of those dictators have been and are propped up and sponsored by the same western powers that condemn them. Projects like Desertec should alarm Africans across the globe and force them to take off their blinkers: money talks. However prettily western business tries to present their case, in 2009 it is not acceptable to take their trailblazing projects for Africa at face value and simply believe what we are told.

Surely people on this continent have suffered enough in the interest of increasing profit for businesses that have the least bit of interest in human lives? If nothing else moves Africans to action, the death toll in the DRC ought to. Over five million Congolese women, men and children have died. The raping, maiming, and killing of the Congolese people happens as the extraction of vital coltan for computers and cell phones, the export of uranium for Western reactors and nukes, along with diamonds, gold, copper, timber and other Congolese resources continue undisturbed. According to President of the German Association of the Club of Rome, Max Schön: “The establishment of the DII is a giant leap by industry for the lasting protection of human life."

Perhaps the five million dead Congolese would differ on this point. I, for one, would like to hear their opinion on the intersection of extracting natural resources to make profit and the protection of human life. Maybe if we listen close enough we might be able to hear their whispers from their mass graves. Maybe sacrificing their lives for diamonds was actually worth it. And while we are at it, we might also reconsider the maxim “diamonds are forever” and replace it with a more appropriate one: “imperialism lasts forever”.