Freeze France out of ECOWAS economies
E.
Ablorh-Odjidja
August
28, 2020
In
December of last year, France and eight members of her former
West African colonies commandeered the ECO currency idea and
turned it into something it was not meant to be.
For some,
this was no big deal.
But it was.
It was a big deal as was the Berlin Conference of 1884, when
European powers, including Britain and France, sowed the
untenable divisions in Africa.
Just when
a common currency, the ECO, could have unified West Africa,
there came France, again, ready to disrupt the plan, with an
unsettling Berlin-Conference-like move to keep the same
advantages and benefits the Berlin enforcement plan brought.
This
French move requires an immediate response.
Africa must call for a total boycott of France - all her
goods and services - because of this deceitful move.
Sadly, the same must be applied to its West African
partners in the ECO deal.
ECOWAS
countries had planned for years to use the ECO name as a common
currency, an amalgamation of all the myriad currencies of the
region to include the CFA, a colonial legacy currency that has
been pegged to the French Franc since the end of WWII.
The
formation of the CFA franc has since been a boon to the French
economy but also a political liability.
It had faced “calls
for a fundamental overhaul from African leaders;”
a call to which French President Emmanuel Macron had recently
agreed.
Instead
of doing what the African leaders had expected, Macron managed
to come out with a sleight-of-hand arrangement.
Macron
was aided by partners of the old French colonial system.
President Ouattara of the Ivory Coast, and seven others,
in one fell swoop, co-opted the common name ECO, which ECOWAS
had planned to use for the entire region, as a reformed CFA
currency only.
The news
release on the issue said:
“The ECO
will remain pegged to the euro, but the previous requirement
that African nations using the CFA franc deposit 50% of their
foreign exchange reserves with the French treasury has been
abolished.”
The
abolishment of the 50% deposit meant nothing to what was under
intent for the entire West African region, except there was a
deception in the statement. ECOWAS had originally desired a
free-floating currency.
The French-designed ECO was not a free-floating currency,
as it would be pegged to the Euro, with a guarantee by France, a
similar arrangement as the CFA was under the French Franc.
Not
surprisingly, this trick bought immediate approval from the IMF
for the new Franc ECO as it would keep the African partners in
currency bondage to the Euro.
Georgieva
Kristalina Georgieva, Managing Director of IMF happily said the
approval was based on “The announced measures build on WAEMU’s
(CFA countries in West Africa) proven track record in the
conduct of monetary policy and external reserve management.”
What
changed in the arrangement?
Nothing, except the external reserve management
mentioned, was the same CFA colonial arrangement.
But the Managing Director of the IMF refused to recognize
it as such.
And
nothing was mentioned either in this newsletter to support the
original views and intentions of the ECOWAS countries and the
reasons for wanting a common currency.
They didn’t ask for their currencies to be made
subservient to the European economy nor did they desire the name
ECO to be misappropriated.
But the French did.
Here was
France; with a 69 million population count in 2019, and a land
size of 248,572 sq. miles, wanting to drag the benefits of the
overall ECOWAS economy, a population size of about 386.91
million people with a total land area of 1,974,589 sq. miles,
into her domain, but the IMF refused to recognize this plan as
one of a grand theft.
The shame
must not be on IMF alone.
Africa has had the experience of this theft in the Berlin
arrangement. Not a
single bullet was fired for the conquest, yet the spoils were
again locked in place in distant Europe, thanks to the former
French minions in West Africa and the other clueless African
leaders in the region.
France,
for all her braggadocio and pretense projection of power, has
never won a war since her defeat in Haiti in 1804.
After
France’s defeat by Haiti, she still managed to get the latter to
pay her some 150 million francs in indemnification for the loss
of her slave colony.
It took Haiti almost 125 years to pay off this extortion.
As one
writer said, Haiti “is the only case in world history where the
victor of a major war paid the loser reparations.”
No legal or moral basis for the payment. But the world
stood silently aside and allowed poor Haiti to be impoverished
by France.
When
Guinea Conakry said ‘NO’ in 1958, after decades under France,
instead of departing gracefully, President de Gaulle chose to
strip the new country of every capacity for administration; just
to handicap Guinea’s development growth.
With
French civilian public servants pulled out overnight in Guinea,
“infrastructures, schools, hospitals (destroyed) and the new
country’s coffers left empty,” it took the generous loan of
GBP10 million (British pound) from Nkrumah’s Ghana in 1958 for
Guinea to survive.
No wonder
Guinea was not part of the new Franc ECO group.
But French depravity in Rwanda, however, was the saddest
of all.
Though
designated as a Belgian trustee territory after WWI, France
became the de facto foreign power in Rwanda in 1962.
In 1994, the genocide happened.
And within a matter of 100 days, some 800,000 Tutsi
Rwandans were murdered.
France
did nothing for Rwanda.
Asked about the genocide during a France-Africa summit in
Biarritz, in 1994, Mitterrand the then-French president feigned
ignorance when it was already known that the Hutus were killing
mostly Tutsi.
"What
genocide are you talking about, Sir, that of the Hutus against
the Tutsi or the Tutsis against Hutus?" He said.
France
could have shaped a speedy UN response. Instead, it produced a
misguided view of genocide for this world body.
In
reality, said Guillaume Ancel, a French army veteran, who served
in Rwanda during the period of the genocide and author of
"Rwanda, la fin du silence," wrote, “France portrayed its
military operation as a humanitarian mission to hide its support
of the genocidaires.”
France’s
interest in Africa hinges on its hunger for power and influence.
And no other prominent French leader knew more than
Francois Mitterrand.
He was to state that "Without Africa, France will have no
history in the 21st century.”
Hijacking
a brand name like ECO is a master strategy for domination of the
currencies and economies of these poor, clueless former French
colonies. It is also
a clear indication that France would not allow any of her former
colonies, supposedly now independent, to override its interest
to still dominate the region.
This ECO
was the same as the extortion of indemnities from Haiti in 1804
and is what has kept this country in dependency status to this
day.
By
hijacking the name ECO France placed a stranglehold on part of
the West African economy that the West African countries would
find hard to break.
In addition, the preemptive move by France makes it harder for
all the countries in the region to rally to find a new common
currency.
How
France was allowed in this business of negotiating for a common
West African currency must remain a troubling concern.
In the end, it emerged as the winner by harnessing the
ECO to the EURO.
This is as good a bet as when the ECO was hooked to the French
Franc.
Not only
did France win in the naming game.
By high jacking the ECO name, France has essentially
split ECOWAS into two camps; former British colonies on one side
and the French on the other.
This move
should have been expected.
But it is still shocking to think how ECOWAS could have
allowed itself to be caught so flatfooted in dealing with a
duplicitous nation like France.
E.
Ablorh-Odjidja, publisher, www.ghanadot.com, Washington, DC,
August 28, 2020
Permission to publish: Please feel free to publish or reproduce,
with credits, unedited. If posted on a website, email a copy of
the web page to publisher@ghanadot.com. Or don't publish at all.
|