PREFACE In presenting this second enlarged edition of Pan-Africanism and Neo-colonialism by our comrade Elenga M’buyinga, we feel that one question, above all others, calls for an answer: what course is now open to us; what is to be done? What is to be done? The O.A. U. is bankrupt. We need a Revolutionary Pan-African Organization! Raised around various issues, this slogan has been at the heart of all our party’s work on Pan-Africanism and the prospects for an African Revolutionary Movement during the last five years. The bankruptcy of the Organization of African Unity (O.A.U.) is a plain and undeniable fact. Yet few people bother to point it out, for the simple reason that the present state of affairs suits the present rulers perfectly. But what is a Revolutionary Pan-African Organization? How can it be created? Why is it now, more than ever, an historical necessity? These questions demand a fuller explanation, especially today. A Revolutionary United Front of the African Peoples The creation of a Revolutionary United Front of all African Peoples has, in our opinion, become the most important and most urgent task facing progressive African militants. This task is not reducible to promoting a vague solidarity or even to adopting a common strategy of struggle. A Revolutionary United Front of African Peoples can only be viable and impose itself as the necessary historical alternative to the O.A.U. quagmire if it assigns itself, as its central goal, the task of establishing a Union of .Socialist Republics of Africa. In many respects, the African people enjoy fewer freedoms and civil rights in the era of the O.A.U. than they did under colonialism. But they have acquired considerable experience and reached a higher level of political consciousness: it has now become possible to create a Revolutionary United Front of the African Peoples, just as, under colonialism, it was possible to launch the R.D.A. (Rassemblement Democratique Africaine).* * The Rassemblement Democratique Africain (R.D.A.) was a united front of all the Black African French-dominated territories, launched just after World War Two. Its first Congress took place in Bamako (now the capital of Mali) in 1946. Houphouet-Boigny was elected President. But three years later he and his friends decided to surrender to French colonialism and, apart from its Cameroonian branch (the U.P.C.), the Rassemblement failed to carry on its fight for genuine independence. Publisher’s Note: Mobutu made this propagandist – and never validated – claim in order to whip up Western military support for his corrupt regime during the repeated risings in Shaba Province in the late 1970s. Those who describe the call for a Union of Socialist Republics of Africa as Utopian and who do so while pretending to express the feelings of the African people are hardly trustworthy realists. Let us recall that, following the Second World War, it was exactly this kind of pseudo-representatives of the people, corrupt feudal chiefs and bootlicking petty officials, who thought that independence was also so absurd as to be out of the question. Today, they have become the pillars of neo-colonialism. The first step in understanding the importance and historical necessity of a Revolutionary United Front of the African Peoples is to get rid of a myth which is still widely taken as the starting point for every attempt at political analysis of events in our continent. This simplistic myth, wrapped around a neologism, is that East and West are struggling to ‘destabilize’ Africa. Most of the manipulation of public opinion and misleading analyses of African affairs are in some way connected with this myth. It is a catch-all theory which lends itself well to the most reactionary propaganda uses. South African racists invoke it in their hysterical invective when they claim to be ‘defending the West’. Arab reaction and all those who get embroiled in its strategy use it, and it is the basis for Mobutu’s blatantly untrue claim that his army has captured Soviet soldiers. The People’s Republic of China also pretends to be resisting Soviet attempts at destabilization when it allies itself with the imperialists and other forces most hostile to the liberation struggles of the African peoples. One of the top African puppets of imperialism, Houphouet-Boigny, charged by his masters with the defence of imperialist military interventions in Africa, constancy proclaims that ‘he who holds Africa will dominate the world’. It never occurs to this ‘great African’ that Africa might belong to itself rather than to someone else. Nothing at all can be understood today about any African problem unless one starts from the realization that the one and only force which is ‘destabilizing’ Africa is the impoverished African peoples’ rejection of the inhuman dictatorial regimes to which they are subordinated. This rejection cannot be either neutralized or diffused. The Western countries are obviously not seeking to ‘destabilize’ Africa. Since formal independence has done virtually nothing to limit the domination, exercised by these countries over Africa, their policy is naturally one of consolidation and defence of the neo-colonial status quo. As in all Third World countries, this policy aims to keep the people in a constantly worsening state of destitution and oppression, by means of dictatorial puppet regimes. The subversive actions directed by certain imperialist countries, such as France, against some African progressive regimes or even occasionally regimes merely putting up a show of anti-imperialism, are only tactical operations which fit into this broader overall strategy. Indeed, those regimes which have caved in under harassment and accepted the role of serving imperialist interests unconditionally are increasingly allowed by their appreciative masters to retain the use of a more or less radical rhetoric. As for the socialist countries, they are certainly not seeking to ‘destabilize’ Africa either, as the instigators of the propaganda which presents these countries as fiery internationalists are well aware. The socialist countries’ actions in Africa conform to the requirements of peaceful co-existence, their own self-interest and, often, to the best rules of realpolitik. Inasmuch as they are Marxist, these countries take into account the historically irreversible character of the people’s liberation movement and the popular revolt against inhuman social systems. Their active participation in the consolidation of what has been won by popular struggles in Africa thus fits into the normal framework of relations between states. It enables them to deploy an internationalist policy which, for all its limitations and whatever its motives, remains a precious and irreplaceable contribution to the process of liberating the African peoples. How could it be otherwise, when the West shows such a total lack of imagination and bases its policy in Africa on crowning joke emperors and sending mercenaries to save utterly corrupt regimes? Consequently, and happily, the struggles of the people themselves continue to be the determining factor in Africa’s evolution, whatever outside interests may be involved. The future of Africa is no more in the hands of the imperialist West than in those of the socialist countries. The former offer no alternative to neo-colonialism, desperately shore up discredited regimes and strive in vain to conceal their alliance with the present racist South African rulers; their ship is sinking, and all they can do is patch a few holes. As for the socialist countries, they do not wish to smash the structure • of co-existence; their support for popular struggles is selective and a function of their strategic and economic interests. African revolutionary militants struggling against contemporary neo-colonialism must be fully aware of the immense potential and decisive role of popular struggles. Above all, they must rid themselves of a whole range of illusions about aid. Today, the most reactionary position vis-a-vis Africa’s political problems is the one which denies the very existence of popular struggles and explains everything in terms of ‘hegemonic interventions’. It is quite obvious that Africa is one of the regions of the world whose future evolution will gradually modify the global strategic balance, even without a major crisis. But anybody who recognizes this obvious fact should be able to understand that this is precisely why nobody can (or intends to) ‘systematically export revolution’ to the continent, just as nobody can lastingly repress the revolutionary struggle of the masses. The French neo-colonialists, for instance, will find it increasingly difficult to use their legionnaires and mercenaries, and such operations will have more and more disastrous consequences for their perpetrators, as they provoke an ever more radical consciousness and anti-imperialist opposition amongst the African masses. It is in this context that one can grasp why it is so important and necessary for African progressives to create a Revolutionary United Front of the African Peoples. Two kinds of factors underline this urgency: those which are to do with the difficulties faced by militants and organizations struggling against bourgeois neo-colonial dictatorships, and those which flow from the inexorable decadence and growing impotence of the so-called Organization of African Unity. An increasing number of African revolutionary militants and leaders endorse the project of creating a Revolutionary United Front of the African Peoples. The complex interplay of state interests frequently leaves them with only two alternatives: either they can abandon the struggle, or they can concert their efforts to find concrete solutions to their concrete problems. Now that the neo-colonial bourgeoisie is operating quite openly on a continental scale, within the O.A.U. framework, the call to create a Revolutionary United Front brings home to every serious African revolutionary that the same continental scale of operation is just as relevant to the development of the struggle against the neo-colonial bourgeoisie. The Bankruptcy of the O.A.U This book demonstrates the bankruptcy of the O.A.U. with scientific rigour. Its conclusions are constantly being borne out by current events in Africa. The O.A.U. can still waffle on about Southern Africa for a while, but it is already incapable of playing any real part in the major political problems and crises we face in Africa today. The O.A.U. has absolutely no perspective on Africa’s fundamental contemporary problem, the problem of neo-colonialism, precisely because it is itself a product of neo-colonialism. It is no coincidence that the unification of Africa is so rarely on the agenda at the O.A.U.! The peoples of Africa cannot but react to such a betrayal of their aspirations. Yet the O.A.U. is not short of champions. Indeed, there have never been so many people hurrying to defend it. This may at first seem mystifying, but if one stops to consider two simple facts, everything becomes clear. Firstly, those who defend the O.A.U. have little else in common. They certainly have different motivations. Secondly, and more crucially, none of the O.A.U.’s champions, beginning with its own members, is at all put out by its bankruptcy. On the contrary, an O.A.U. which dared to concern itself genuinely with African unification would immediately be viewed with suspicion, even hostility, by its own members, notably the lackeys of France, whom that country continues to summon to endless ‘Franco-African Conferences’, just like in the good old days of the Communaute*. * Publisher’s Note: The short-lived French Community was set up by de Gaulle after 1958 in an attempt to stave off demands for formal independence in France’s African colonies. In short, the O.A.U. is a Pan-Africanism without Pan-Africanists, the Pan-Africanism of the anti-Pan-Africanists. Everybody knows that the very idea of continental unification has always terrified most O.A.U. members. Even those who based their empty demagogy on the ‘African Democratic Revolution’ are now weary of the pretence. What really appeals to most O.A.U. members is the splendour of its Summit meetings, which provide such a marvellous opportunity for mystification and propaganda. The O.A.U. is also the ideal diplomatic framework within which to cement the active solidarity of the neo-colonial state bourgeoisies and to clinch endless deals, to the greater detriment of the people of Africa and their struggles. In its present form, the O.A.U. is perfectly suited to the role assigned to it by imperialism. No amount of hypocrisy can hide the fact that the imperialists were the real sponsors of the formula adopted, despite all Kwame Nkrumah’s isolated efforts, in 1963 at Addis Ababa. How delighted these same imperialists must be with their creation, a faithful replica of the equally enfeebled Organization of American States, dominated by a substantial majority of dictators who reign by terror j who are manipulated by the Western powers and who are fiercely hostile to any notion of genuine African unification. Although more surprising, the support which the socialist countries and certain parties anxious to demonstrate their ‘statesmanship’ give to the OA.U. is no less logical. For the former, the defence of the O.A.U. seems to be the best way of showing respect for the young independent states’ of Africa. Unfortunately, this attitude leads them to endorse the neo-colonial status quo blindly. For the latter, support for the O.A.U. is a manifestation of their will to act as serious patriots by defending the colonial interests of their own countries, even if these are not essentially proletarian. In this domain, as in many others, the Chinese have displayed an appalling cynicism, collaborating openly with the imperialists and the worst reactionaries. But they are not alone in behaving like an unscrupulous whore vis-a-vis the decrepit O.A.U. There are those who think that even to point out the undeniable evidence that the O.A.U. is bankrupt is a manifestation of pure ultra-leftism. Our Party will shortly be publishing an analysis of the relations between the socialist countries and Africa. When some Communists are reduced to saying that they would not hesitate to work against the interests of the African peoples if in doing so they could intensify the co-operation between their government and the O.A.U. states, irrespective of the policy of those states, it is hardly surprising that anybody should be reluctant to investigate the true nature of the Organization. Not long ago, the French social democrats declared themselves in favour of the African intervention force sponsored by President Giscard and his neo-colonial collaborators. Yet their proclamations on the Third World — especially concerning areas where the interests of French imperialism were not at stake, of course — might have led one to believe that they were well and truly cured of their old delusions, which in the past made them such ardent political proponents of French colonialism. So much esteem for the O.A.U. plunges the African petty bourgeoisie into total disarray. On the one hand, they cannot ignore the undeniable and blatant failure of this heads of state trade union. On the other, they are seized with vertigo at the prospect of proposing an alternative. They thus sink into a delirium of empty phrases about ‘saving’, ‘reforming’ or ‘democratizing’ the O.A.U., endowing it with endless new commissions, etc. But if any possible reform could still save the O.A.U., in other words give it even some meaning connected with the name that it bears, that reform would paradoxically have to consist in creating a commission which would (at last!) deal with the problem of unifying Africa. Let it be said that those African progressives who automatically align their opinions with the diplomacy of this or that socialist country flounder about in equal confusion when it comes to the O.A.U. Economic Co-operation: A Non-Solution Could not a few progressive African states, within the O.A.U. or on the margins of the inoperative structures of the Organization, open up some new: perspectives? Can we not advance towards genuine independence and a real unification of Africa by establishing agreements on economic co-operation, and notably by setting up an African Common Market? Unfortunately, the answer is no, for the following reasons. Current events in Africa do not just highlight the bankruptcy of the O.A.U. They also bring home the collapse of Pan-African ideology in most African states. All concrete proposals for unification have gone by the board and nearly every state has opted unequivocally for narrowly nationalist development strategies. At best, African states retain a cautious notion of ‘solidarity’. All this represents a considerable step backwards compared to the 1960s. It is now undeniable that the final elimination of the old colonialism will in no way modify the way things are moving and will open up no new perspectives, even for the limited number of relatively progressive states. We can therefore state in all confidence that today — and indeed, ever since the first O.A.U. Summit — African unity, the realization of Pan-African ideology in the framework of a Union of Socialist Republics of Africa, will be brought about by the peoples themselves, or it will never happen. As for the disproportionate hopes certain people put in the virtues of economic co-operation, it is worth recalling a few simple facts. We in Africa are used to economistic arguments. The colonialists themselves once dreamed of avoiding all mass struggle in the territories they dominated by paying their houseboys well and improving public sanitation. The Belgians, in particular, were firm advocates of colonial economism, although they were not alone in pushing stupidity to the extreme — remember the French Constantine Plan in Algeria. Following the wave of formal independence in the 1960s, and notably at the first O.A.U. Summit in 1963, similar economistic illusions were widespread. A whole range of inconsistent theories were based on the naive belief that the great economic and social problems of Africa could be solved by purely economic measures and reforms. As Comrade Elenga M’buyinga reminds us in this book, Kwame Nkrumah rightly denounced the erroneous neo-colonial economistic theories which claimed that the real independence and unification of Africa could be achieved or even furthered by invoking the miraculous virtues of an African Common Market or by means of economic agreements amongst neo-colonial states still under the economic and political yoke of international imperialism. As long as we remain under the control of capitalist imperialism and its multinational companies — and in certain African states this control is almost total — no viable strategy for liberation and unification can be based on economistic theses. Let us be blunt: for 15 years the O.A.U. has done nothing but ‘promote the real independence and unity of Africa’ through economic agreements and co-operation. The result? Nil. This book, Pan-Africanism or Neo-Colonialism, makes this abundantly clear. Of course, no serious African patriot will maintain that African states with different political orientations should necessarily live in a state of constant war. In Africa, as elsewhere in the world, economic relations between countries committed or leaning to different social systems are not necessarily reprehensible. It all depends on the political basis for such co-operation. The progressively orientated African states are exposed to constant harassment from the imperialists, and as a matter of principle must develop policies which will ensure their own consolidation and the reduction of avoidable tensions. Even the newly emerged Soviet authorities, under the great Lenin, were forced to sign the Peace of Brest-Litovsk with capitalist Germany in 1918. But one should not underestimate the vigilance of the progressive militants and peoples of Africa by assuming that they are incapable of drawing a very clear distinction between this kind of policy and games of diplomatic poker in which awkward popular struggles are sacrificed. It is certainly less Utopian to work towards the creation of a Revolutionary United Front of the African Peoples and a Union of Socialist Republics of Africa than to hope that neo-colonial economistic theses will ever lead to the slightest concrete result. Let us not forget that the call for an African Common Market was launched 15 years ago by the Guinean, Sékou Touré. It was one of the main batteries used to shoot down Kwame Nkrumah’s radical theses at the first OA.U. Summit. Why have the protagonists of this plan conducted no serious political campaign to implement it during those 15 years? They never believed in it themselves, and now it is they who have lost all credibility. The People’s Republic of the Congo has been outspoken in its rejection of this call for an African Common Market and has denounced the reactionary and neo-colonialist character of such a scheme, given the present African context. In its 16-29 October 1978 issue, the journal, Afrique Asie, reported Congo-Brazzaville’s head of state as saying: It is essential that the African countries should ensure that their, at present, still largely neo-colonial national economies should become independent, before we can even think of creating an African Common Market. Indeed, such a project could easily become a monster. We might end up with a vast institution which we could not master and which would thus become a powerful means whereby the old metropoles could perpetuate or even intensify their imperialist exploitation and re-colonization of the continent. The progressive stance taken by the People’s Republic of the Congo over this suspect call for an African Common Market must be a heavy blow for the strategists of contusion, who no doubt hoped that the Congolese leaders would support them merely to be obliging. It is only to be regretted that the political courage of the Congolese Workers’ Party leaders did not extend to recognizing the real problem for what it was. For nearly 20 years, despite incessant proclamations about ‘the struggle for economic independence \ nearly all the O.A.U. regimes have proved totally incapable of making any progress whatever in this direction, or of providing for the most elementary needs of their populations! It is now perfectly obvious that all the promises of future economic progress the O.A.U. regimes have made over the years to the starving and destitute African masses have done nothing and will do nothing to change the neo-colonial dependence of our countries and of the continent as a whole. Our peoples are uniquely qualified to know this: they have had long and painful experience of the verbal incantations and outright lies poured out by O.A.U. politicians whose only preoccupation is to hang on to power and fill their own pockets. A Union of Socialist Republics of Africa — The Only Alternative The real problem is that, in the present context, individual African states cannot implement any serious and exhaustive policy of economic independence and real development in every domain unless there emerges a great and powerful progressive black state, a Union of Socialist Republics of Africa. By turning then backs on the question of the political unification of Africa — under pressure from various sources — the O.A.U. regimes, including those who claim their allegiance is to socialism, condemn themselves to dependency and neo-colonialism. The only hope for the African masses is thus to fight resolutely to establish a Union of Socialist Republics of Africa. The Revolutionary United Front of the African Peoples must be at the heart of the struggle. The neo-colonial context of the O.A.U. will make the creation of this Revolutionary United Front a vital issue for all patriots who struggle against the African neo-colonial dictatorships. After 15 years of ‘building socialism’ in Africa, the balance sheet makes sad reading; African patriots and the masses of Africa as a whole have no choice but to turn to the creation of a Union of Socialist Republics of Africa as their only hope. There is a fundamental difference between Revolutionary Pan-Africanism and the tendency to undertake commitments to build socialism only in national frameworks. The consequences of this divergence for the future of Africa may be serious indeed. Given the prevailing level of underdevelopment throughout Africa, a multitude of relatively small, even if sometimes fairly rich African countries, heading off one after the other along the road to socialism, would inevitably be condemned to objective dependence on the existing socialist countries in nearly every domain. Only socialist development within the framework of a large African state organized on a continental or semi-continental scale can ensure an adequate economic equilibrium and forestall all dangers of this kind. As we see it, such a state is also a sine qua non for the real elimination of racial domination and racist crimes against black people. Only a large state of this sort would not be tempted to invoke fear of ‘Communist domination’ as an excuse for opening itself up to international capital. Indeed, it is quite possible that some socialist countries might encourage such an opening up to international capital, with its investments and markets, even though such a course in an underdeveloped country can mean only a deadlock for socialist construction. The question of a Union of Socialist Republics of Africa confronts the socialist countries with a simple choice: they can either genuinely contribute to building socialism in Africa, or they can try to create a set of more or less socialistic African client states, which would form a new type of neo-colonial zone. A Revolutionary United Front of the African Peoples would in no way handicap any individual national struggle. On the contrary, it would constantly open up new approaches. It must, therefore, never be allowed to sink into a morass of mere ‘solidarity’, which in this context would mean its death. Solidarity presupposes distinct objectives, limited co-operation, occasional exchanges. By definition, solidarity cannot mean the fusion of forces in a single struggle. It must be limited to mutual aid and constantly has to be adapted to cope with the chauvinistic selfishness, weaknesses and organizational or political errors of this or that group. In contrast, a Revolutionary United Front of the African Peoples must spring from a resolutely united, critical and self-critical desire to create the conditions for the most effective mobilization against neo-colonialism in Africa. The Revolutionary United Front can, therefore, only be viable if it is conceived of and instituted as a means of combat which will unify, lead and co-ordinate the struggles of vanguard Marxist-Leninist national organizations, national popular fronts and all other relevant forces in the various countries. The so-called Organization of African Unity illustrates its own bankruptcy in every sphere, including the cultural; it is constantly multiplying its ‘working languages’ but has still not adopted a single African tongue. The Revolutionary United Front of the African Peoples will need to adopt a clear policy on linguistic matters. The issue is fundamental. Throughout the world, thousands of Negro-African intellectuals and thousands of black revolutionary militants have a perfect mastery of the languages our peoples encountered in the course of the terrible sufferings imposed upon them by the slave trade and colonialism. Why should they not now undertake to learn the foremost Negro language, Kiswahili, which is spoken by more than 100 million men and women in Africa and which figures among the ten foremost languages of the world? What better way to expose the hypocrites who claim to be singing the praises of Negritude while serving imperialism and Arab reaction? It is highly desirable that Kiswahili should become the main language of the Revolutionary United Front of the African Peoples and that the Front’s militants and cadres should learn to conduct their activities in the African languages spoken by the African masses. African patriots must have the courage to define their own line of conduct, and assume the responsibility — which is theirs alone — of mapping out the course of the African revolutionary movement. This duty is not a matter of posing as super-revolutionaries, as our detractors would have it. It is fundamental to the very existence of our struggle. Only one kind of ‘revolutionary movement’, only one kind of ‘patriot’ can decide not to say anything which might displease somebody: the kind whose struggle no longer has any real meaning. We must thus assume full responsibility for our own political and ideological identity. This is all the more crucial in an Africa where hypocrisy and confusion reign. Those who condemn us for ‘attacking everybody* or ‘running before we can walk’ completely miss the point. Show us the ‘model revolutionaries’ who have obtained real results in their struggle against neo-colonialism without attacking anybody and we will gladly follow their example. This edition of this book should encourage further and more precise debate concerning the creation of a Revolutionary United Front of the African Peoples. We have only advanced a few propositions to stimulate action and thought. The task of building the organization itself belongs, by definition, to the patriots of the different African countries. We hope that an ever increasing number of African patriots will find in Comrade Elenga M’buyinga’s analyses a new source of inspiration, new motives to break with resignation, discord and petty quarrels. To create such a front and to fight resolutely for the inauguration of a Union of Socialist Republics of Africa is the task to which we should all devote lour modest efforts. It is the path by which we can build a genuinely socialist Africa, a people’s Africa in which Africans will be truly free and masters of their own destiny. Woungly-Massaga Member of the Revolutionary Committee of the Union des Populations du Cameroun November 1978
Posted on: Mon, 06 Oct 2014 13:03:23 +0000