4. Dezember 2024 Coloniality in international cooperation and the way forward

Check against delivery!

Honorable Minister, State Secretary, and Director General,
distinguished guests and colleagues and friends,

It’s a really great privilege to join you today in addressing a topic as complex and urgent as coloniality in international cooperation.

I really commend BMZ and the Honorable Minister, Svenja Schulze, for your willingness to engage in a conversation that demands honesty, courage and intellectual rigor.

Such dialogues are quite rare in their challenging the systems and practices so many of us have grown comfortable with, yet they are indispensable if we’re to forge a path towards genuine partnership rooted in recognition of the distressed neighbour’s humanity and its connection to ours.

What we’re doing here together is an essential step toward reshaping the systems of international cooperation that define our collective future.

It is a pleasure to be in Berlin despite it being grey and rainy. It’s a city I so admired that as a doctoral student I once even tried to identify a real estate agent to find me an apartment in what was then a relatively affordable Mitte, which is no longer affordable I’m told. My admiration came from witnessing this city’s courage in publicly and prominently examining its history. Unlike the pomp and glorification of colonial conquest and adventures that is so prominent when you visit cities like London or Paris, Berlin stands apart.

Here there is an acknowledgment, a recognition that the pursuit of glory and dominance extracts an unbearable cost in the suffering and oppression of those on the other side of the bullet and the bayonet.

The shadow of the Berlin conference, not to mention the signed document just outside, a conference that kicked off just over 140 years ago looms heavily over us all. That meeting was far removed from the lives it would devastate, divided a continent into territories to be governed, extracted from and controlled. Its legality, its appeal to peace and reason, to free trade and progress, when in reality it was the start of violent dispossession is precisely why its legacy endures so powerfully to this day.

It was multilateralism in action, crafting and embedding structures that would later shape the League of Nations and ultimately the United Nations. This legacy, profoundly exclusionary in its denial of African representation and in its design to formalise domination rather than equality, endures to this day.

The League of Nations mandates were a direct extension of Berlin’s colonial logic, categorising territories based on their supposed readiness for self-rule and placing them under the „tutelage“ of advanced nations.

This system institutionalised the belief that non-European populations were incapable of self-governance, reinforcing a paternalistic framework that prioritised control and resource extraction over self-determination.

Between these two milestones the concept of „development“ evolved as a calculated tool. After Berlin it was tied to extraction, like I have said, and it was cloaked in rhetoric about bringing order and progress to Africa through actually its exploitation.

This ideology hardened under the League of Nations mandates where development became a justification for governance systems designed to marginalise local agency, weaponise the politics of the colonised against their own aspirations for freedom and entrench exploitative tax and trade regimes.

To understand the persistence of coloniality to this day we need to appreciate its intellectual origins. Colonialism was more than geopolitical manoeuvring. It was a product of the pseudo-scientific ideas that dominated European thought at the time. The racial science and eugenics movements sought to establish hierarchies among human populations using deeply flawed methodologies to legitimise colonial expansion.

Figures like Eugen Fischer from right here in Berlin measured skulls, cataloged physical features, measured lengths of fingers and drew conclusions about the supposed superiority of certain races.

One day in a different forum I will tell you more about my archival relationship with Eugen Fischer whose name rings very loudly in history.

African nations and peoples and much of what we call the Global South today were not regarded as holding rich histories and governance systems of their own but as blank slates. A resource-rich expanse free of politics and civilisation awaiting European intervention.

This racialised worldview justified the dispossession of African peoples and the imposition of foreign governance structures, framing these actions as a benevolent civilising mission. The violence that underpinned colonial rule was obscured by these paternalistic narratives that continue to echo in so much contemporary development discourse.

The connection, the interconnection between colonial and metropolitan racial ideologies highlights the pervasive nature of coloniality. The same intellectual currents that informed the governance of colonised territories shaped policies in Europe, from the Nuremberg laws to the apartheid systems that were then transported through southern Africa. This grim continuity underscores the need to confront coloniality as a global challenge, one that transcends geographic and historical boundaries.

As Faulkner wrote, „the past is never dead, it’s not even past.“ Coloniality is not a relic of history, it is an active logic that dictates how nations engage, how development is conceived and why inequity continues to define our world today.

For a long time I have been deeply interested in how colonialism, racial segregation and white supremacy, systems of power that are embedded in our social relations transform everyone they touch.

Victims, perpetrators and even bystanders are marked in ways that make this system so enduring and so difficult to uproot. Sustainability in development is often reduced to environmental balance or economic viability, but we must broaden it. True sustainability demands healing the psychological and relational damage these systems have wrought.

Frantz Fanon argued that colonialism dehumanises the colonised, embedding in them self-doubt, dependency and internalised oppression, while also corrupting the coloniser with illusions of superiority and dominance. And he saw this in a psychological, psychiatric manner.

James Baldwin took it further, revealing how white supremacy traps the oppressor in moral paralysis, cutting them off from their own humanity.

These are not just abstract theories, they are living realities that shape the field of development today and the people touched by it, whether as practitioners or beneficiaries. There is no small number of aid givers who often mirror colonial hierarchies while recipients are left navigating the scars of dependency and diminished agency.

It resides in an unspoken assumption that the Global North holds the solutions while the Global South remains a passive recipient of knowledge, capital and expertise. This is why development often reinforces dependency instead of fostering self-reliance. Aid flows conditioned on compliance with foreign priorities, technical assistance framed as expertise despite detachment from local realities and policies shaped by foreign experts.

All these are echoes of a colonial logic that values control over collaboration. In Africa, these damaging dynamics are compounded by the legacy of colonial governance structures. Most African states were never designed to serve their populations. They were built with no regard for the well-being of those that they governed or ruled. Independence may have brought sovereignty but it did not erase the foundational weaknesses of these institutions.

The challenges we see today, weak state capacity, fragile legitimacy and economic vulnerability are not merely the result of mismanagement by African leaders, they are also the result of them governing states that are direct descendants of colonial structures.

Perhaps it was the dangers of the Cold War or the culture and psychology of the elites who inherited the reins of power, but very few of them succeeded in transforming the state into something fundamentally new, something fit for purpose.

Many in fact sought to benefit from the same colonial logic that had subjugated their people.

Today the African state is beset by fiscal and environmental stresses and is still grappling with the fragility of the social contract it holds with its citizens, can it be rehabilitated into a practice of equity and healing, instead of one that reinforces hierarchies, unjust and crushing hierarchies?

The answer does not lie in small adjustments but in a willingness to confront this history and reimagine the systems and relationships that sustain it.

So colleagues I think you will agree that I have sufficiently admired the problem at hand, so you may now be wondering what I believe the solution to be after casting aspersions all over the place.

Well my answer is twofold. First we must strive to do what we already do better, pursuing reforms that I am certain many of you have already begun as evidenced by the thoughtful invitation for me to deliver this address.

And we must revolutionise international cooperation, transforming it into a framework capable of achieving deep strategic aims while remaining firmly rooted in mutual respect and win-win outcomes.

Let me come to Germany’s role. For the second part of that strategy, going beyond just doing better at what we do to undertaking fundamental transformation, we can begin casting international cooperation as a response to Germany’s role in a changing world.

I am suggesting that Germany take on the burden of addressing coloniality in international cooperation as both a moral obligation and a strategic necessity.

As you all know we are living through an era of profound geopolitical shifts. Multi-polarity is no longer an emerging trend, it defines our reality today. In this volatile and dangerous environment, Europe’s ability to assert its autonomy and influence amid the pressures of American and Chinese power is precarious.

Europe needs an ace in the hole.

Germany as Europe’s wealthiest nation faces challenges to its export-driven economy, shifting global supply chains, shrinking markets and the looming impact of declining fertility on labor force participation. Germany needs a new growth model.

Africa, with its youthful population, rapid urbanisation and vast economic potential, offers a pathway to mutual renewal and growth. Not just for Germany but for Europe as a whole. But this pathway cannot follow the same old patterns. It must break free from the present limited stakes of development as currently practiced and the confines of coloniality and reach instead for genuine partnership.

This is not about virtue, though there will be plenty of virtue to win. It is about a bold, visionary strategy for Germany to secure economic resilience and geopolitical relevance in a rapidly shifting global order.

Africans will applaud such a move because they are no longer content to serve as a resource frontier or as passive recipients of aid, nor are they able to understand a Germany whose development priorities are not clear and attached to Germany’s key interests.

Such a strategy, of course, cannot be pursued with all countries that receive German assistance. For the majority, the first option may have to apply, reforms to the existing model to make it better. The big bets should be on a small number of promising countries.

Imagine identifying two or three and going all out by leveraging German capital and technology to partner to unlock transformative growth. Nigeria, South Africa, Kenya — these are examples that are all benefiting to some extent from the present development focus.

But it is still hugely insufficient as a leading way of engaging them. Their needs are for at-scale investment. If Germany genuinely commits to such a strategy, it would be a game changer. It would also be robust enough to be embraced by a spectrum of domestic political parties, some of whom are rightly or wrongly very sceptical of traditional approaches to aid.

And well, such a strategy would not need to be labelled as decolonisation but framed in terms of Germany’s national interest. Now, of course, this does not only depend on German leadership.

The vision that I’m urging on our leaders here, and some of them are here, such as Minister Schulze, need to be matched by equally visionary leadership from the African side and from the Global South.

Otherwise the two can never meet. I’ll have a few more suggestions before I leave the stage. In the changes that need to be made to international cooperation, two critical insights or principles in addressing coloniality should be constantly at hand.

For too long, development and modernisation have been conflated with Westernisation. The implicit message has been that success requires replicating European models of governance, economics and society.

Yuen Yuen Ang, she’s a political economist at Johns Hopkins, has a principle, a very simple principle of „use what you have,“ which offers a sharp challenge to the legacy of coloniality in development. It rejects the imposition of external models that fail to fit local realities, urging instead the strengthening of existing institutions, however flawed, through use and adaptation.

This stands in stark contrast to the logic of the Berlin conference and the mandate system which undermined local governance structures and entrenched dependency by imposing foreign frameworks.

Today development still largely mirrors these patterns — minus the violence — favouring imported solutions over locally grounded strategies. Ang’s approach demands a shift, recognising and leveraging the strengths within existing systems to drive progress from within. In other words, we don’t have to become like Denmark to become as rich as Denmark.

This is moving from paternalistic aid to real partnerships that invest in local capacity and leadership. By adopting this perspective, development can finally break free from the logics of the past and become a force for sustainable, equitable growth.

I think if you look at the work of Ang, she makes a convincing argument that this has been China’s successful approach and it echoes Germany’s own development history as well. Your post-war reconstruction succeeded because you tailored your strategies to your unique context, you leveraged your strengths and addressed your specific challenges.

Similarly, Africa’s development cannot be about becoming like Germany or Denmark, it must be about modernisation rooted in African realities, drawing on the strengths of our local institutions and adapting global best practices to local needs.

This requires a shift in mindset. But what does success look like? How will the world look if you succeed in addressing coloniality? We have to imagine success to begin to approach it, it’s not enough to critique the present, we must articulate a vision for ourselves in the future.

Success to me would mean the realisation of African Union’s Agenda 2063, its blueprint for integration, prosperity and peace. It would mean economies that are industrialised and resilient, capable of creating jobs and generating wealth for their citizens.

It would mean governance systems that are inclusive, accountable and trusted by the people they serve. That success cannot be built on the traditional model of cooperation.

That is why I recommend you focus on two or three African countries helping their efforts to become examples of transformed economies and states.

The power of a good example cannot be overstated, by concentrating its capital, technology and expertise in nations like Nigeria, Kenya, South Africa or others, Germany can demonstrate what decolonised cooperation looks like and gain enormous soft power from it.

It would inspire others, shift regional dynamics and prove that genuine partnership delivers shared growth and resilience which we all need. But success is not just about outcomes, it is also about process.

A decolonised development paradigm would empower African states to set their own priorities, design their own policies and implement their own solutions. It would recognise that expertise exists everywhere, not just in the Global North.

It would replace a hierarchical relationship of the past with genuine partnerships based on mutual respect.

At the heart of this challenge lies the question of state competence and many, many countries that are recipients of German international cooperation have weak and sometimes even failing states.

The governance structures as I said that were imposed by colonial powers were designed for extraction and control, not for inclusivity or effectiveness.

And today’s post-independent states inherited these structures and largely speaking many of the political classes in those states are not willing to question the very basis of the state that they dominate and utilise.

That is why this speech actually needs to be mirrored, not just to this audience but to an audience of African political leaders as well, because if they don’t get it there shall be no decoloniality in international cooperation.

And what’s going to happen if we do not decolonise these systems is that in many countries in Africa the state shall come under such enormous stress that there shall be instances of state collapse and other extensive political instability.

For the last dozen years or so, from the Tahrir Square to the wave of coups across the Sahel Belt to the revolution in Sudan and even to the popular youth-led protests in different parts of the continent from Kenya to Mozambique, it is very clear that young people in Africa will not stand to be governed by post-colonial states that have embraced the logic of coloniality and are unable to deliver the public goods that young people demand.

So we have to move forward together.

I will close by saying coloniality in international cooperation is a challenge that belongs to all of us. As I have said, even the psychological underpinnings of these colonial continuities belong not just to European ex-colonial powers but to the ex-colonies themselves.

We have to do a mutual work of psychological recovery together. Because we are all damaged deeply by our relations with one another and how we have built an entire practice of development with so much of that damage not addressed yet.

So the most natural demand after this speech is of course for me to move to specifics—reform sectors and investments that align with Germany’s strengths and actionable proposals for building new partnerships and executing them effectively.

I would be more than honoured to continue this conversation to accompany you in this tremendous moment of possibility for Germany to undertake the pragmatic work of escaping coloniality, and I will remain available enthusiastically so, and happy and open to helping your focused research agenda in support of such a transformative and worthwhile endeavour.

I want to just say in closing that to have this conference, to livestream it, I didn’t know, Minister, that you were going to livestream it, is really to me an indication of intellectual honesty and integrity.

There is so much that has happened that is so negative, there is so much hurt and violence and injustice that has happened— it has happened — but the choice to sit and look at it and address it and begin to ask how can the future be different, this is a fundamentally inspiring choice, and I’m very grateful and respectful of BMZ for having this kind of vision and I really hope that it comes to be reflected in Germany’s leadership in the area of freeing us all from the damage, the lasting damage, the continuing damage of colonial forms of power relations.

Thank you.