On Feb. 27, Guinean workers agreed to end a massive political strike that brought the government to its knees. More than 120 people were killed and hundreds injured by the Guinean security forces during the course of the two-week general strike.
Guinea is a country of 10 million people in western Africa bordered by Senegal and Ivory Coast. Rich in natural resources, it possesses not only over one-third of the world’s proven reserves of bauxite, but also significant deposits of high-grade iron ore, diamonds and gold.
The vast majority of Guinean workers, however, see little of that wealth. Beset by foreign debt, the country is entangled in a never-ending cycle of IMF loans and interest payments, which continue to enslave much of Africa.
The recent labor actions were the continuation of an equally successful strike in January led by the National Confederation of Guinean Workers and the Guinean Workers Union. The main hospital morgue in the capital, Conakry, registered 33 deaths from gunshot wounds on Jan. 22, when troops met thousands of peaceful demonstrators with bullets.
Fed up with endemic government corruption, the unions were demanding that President Lansana Conté nominate a prime minister who would be endowed with most of the current presidential powers. In the unions’ view, Conté’s power was too concentrated and his economic policies were harmful to the Guinean masses.
Conté reluctantly gave in on Jan. 28, but once the strikers were demobilized, he tried to turn the situation to his advantage. Clearly underestimating the resilience of the workers, Conté nominated his close ally Eugene Camara for the office of prime minister on Feb. 9, sparking the February strike.
Conté was driven into a corner. Parliament refused to extend the martial law that was used previously to unleash the armed forces on street demonstrators. A deal between the government and the workers was brokered by the Economic Community of West African States, a regional military-economic block anchored by Nigeria.
Bowing to the pressure from Guinean workers, Conté finally agreed to pick a new prime minister from a list drawn up by trade unions opposed to his government. He selected Lansana Kouyate, a former United Nations diplomat.
The strike dealt a crippling blow to the production of bauxite, an ore from which aluminum is extracted and the country’s top export. Bauxite accounts for roughly one-quarter of Guinea’s $500 million national budget. The disruption caused by the strike created fears among state officials of a major financial impact and budget shortfall—fears that quickly materialized.
Controlled by U.S. aluminum giant Alcoa and Canada’s Alcan, the Compagnie des Bauxites de Guinea generates four-fifths of the government revenues from the mining sector, or around $97 million. (Reuters South Africa, Feb. 23)
The struggle against Conté brings to the surface issues facing many African countries. It reflects the realities of the legacy of imperialist colonialism on the continent as well as the current reality of increased imperialist intervention and exploitation in Africa.
The colonial period in Guinea
Guinea had been a French colony since the beginning of French military penetration in the mid-1800s. The peoples of the region had been suffering at the hands of slave traders since the 16th century.
Defeating the emperor Samory Touré in 1898, the French assured their control over Guinea and adjacent areas. Samory Touré, a formidable military leader with a force of 35,000 soldiers who founded an Islamic state in Guinea, had led a resistance against French invaders from 1882 to 1898. The boundaries of the country were negotiated with Liberia as well as with the British and the Portuguese, who ruled neighboring Sierra Leone and Guinea-Bissau respectively.
During the period of decolonization that followed World War II, France sought to retain some of its power over the region through the creation of the French Community in 1958. The “community” of France’s colonial subjects dominated by the colonial power was in fact a framework for preserving French domination. Member countries had to surrender control over matters of currency, military and defense to the French government.
From that moment, Guinea made history. Under the leadership of Sékou Touré, a popular referendum decisively rejected joining the French Community in 1958. It was the only French territory in Africa to do so. With over 95 percent voter support for independence, Touré could proudly proclaim that Guinea preferred “poverty in freedom to riches in slavery.”
Before becoming Guinea’s first president, Touré had already distinguished himself as founder of the country’s first trade union in 1945 and central figure in the formation of the Democratic Party of Guinea. Among his achievements as a union leader was a 72-day strike in 1953, which led to a 20 percent wage increase and a 40-hour workweek.
Touré’s leadership was essential in mobilizing Guinean workers around the cause of national emancipation that led to the 1958 referendum victory.
The challenges of underdevelopment
The longing for freedom and self-determination in Africa was shared by peoples throughout the continent. These aspirations gave rise to two powerful political currents: “African socialism” and Pan-Africanism. Touré became one of the most prominent proponents of both.
“African socialism” as practiced in Guinea, Ghana and a number of other post-colonial African states, did not establish socialist states as established in the Soviet Union, China, Cuba or other states where the working class held political and economic power. It was characterized by nationalization and state control of key commercial and industrial sectors—in the context of societies where the working class was a tiny minority. African anti-colonial leaders like Touré and Ghana’s Kwame Nkrumah embraced anti-imperialist struggles, but stopped short of definitively breaking with capitalist economic relations.
In many ways, this form of government was linked with the interests of the embryonic national bourgeoisie of former African colonies within a world capitalist market seeking an independent path to economic development and protection from pillage by foreign capital.
Analyzing economic and social development in Guinea prior to its independence, ‘Ladipo Adamolekun points out that coffee and bananas accounted for about 80 percent of Guinea’s exports in 1957. Railways did not operate at all in 1958 because the rails were in poor condition. There was only one big hospital, located in the capital, one smaller hospital, and 99 dispensaries run by 58 doctors. Only 10 percent of the school-aged population was in school in 1956. Even that percentage was achieved only by means of mass struggle.
When Guineans dared to vote for secession in 1958, the French immediately retaliated by cutting off all technical, economic and financial aid and withdrawing all administrative personnel. The abrupt French withdrawal was not something that Guinea was prepared to handle. Up until then, the Guinean economy had revolved around its colonial trade with France.
Finding itself deprived of its main trading partner virtually overnight, the Guinean economy would have collapsed in the face of imperialist competition without economic planning.
The nationalization of key industries combined with a centralized development plan offered temporary protection from competition with foreign capital—a competition in which African states could not possibly prevail.
Overcoming underdevelopment was the most pressing challenge for African countries. Because of its non-class appeal, sectors of the incipient national bourgeoisie could embrace both a socialistic program and a turn to foreign capital to achieve development, seeking only to moderate it to avoid its more devastating consequences.
Guinea sought economic cooperation with the socialist Soviet Union as well as with the United States and other imperialists—something not uncommon for newly independent African states. Touré summed up this policy of “positive neutrality” saying that, “Guinea wishes to cooperate with all independent states in the world, on the basis of the recognition of the independence of all peoples, the right to self-determination and the respect of sovereignty.”
Neutrality between the two world economic systems—the imperialist-led capitalist camp and the socialist camp—was not possible over the long term. Soon, Guinea would be saddled with huge debts to the western imperialist banks. Today’s economic and political crisis has its roots in the continuing interventionist pressures of the French and U.S. ruling classes.
The need for unity
Pan-Africanism articulated the need for unity across Africa as a response to the threat of imperialist intervention—a threat that remained very real even as decolonization was taking place.
Decolonization did not signal the end of imperialist domination in Africa. Imperialist countries had fought World War II to re-divide the world amongst themselves. The United States emerged dominant among the imperialists and moved to create an institutional framework—the United Nations, the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank—through which it could exercise its power on a global scale. Decolonization, too, was a reflection of this new balance of power, as weakened colonial masters such as Britain and France surrendered their exclusive rights over colonial markets.
At the same time, the socialist camp in Eastern Europe that emerged following the war, soon strengthened by the victory of the Chinese socialist revolution in 1949, became a pole for colonized and oppressed people all over the globe of an anti-capitalist road to development.
The far-reaching goal of Pan-African unity is better understood when we consider that post-colonial African countries were still struggling to achieve unity within their own borders. European colonizers had drawn the map of the continent without regard for the ethnic, religious, cultural and political identities of the indigenous populations. Furthermore, colonialism stunted the period of capitalist development during which tribal and feudal structures characteristic of pre-capitalist economies are swept away and replaced with a cohesive national identity better fit for trade and industrial production.
Despite tremendous diversity within the continent, the shared history of colonial oppression and the desire for self-determination served as a basis for the Pan-African movement. Unity was a matter of practical necessity to preserve freedom from foreign domination.
In the quest for African unity, Touré found a political ally in Ghana’s prime minister Kwame Nkrumah. Just a year before Guinea broke away from France, Nkrumah led a struggle to mobilize the masses against British rule, making Ghana the first sub-Saharan African country to free itself from colonial domination.
Touré and Nkrumah took some important practical steps toward the realization of Pan-Africanism. In November 1958, threatened with the loss of economic ties with France, Touré flew to Ghana, where he was received as the liberator of Guinea, and met Nkrumah. Nkrumah promised a credit of ?10 million to Touré. The two leaders agreed to form a union between their two countries. Their agreement planted the seed of the Union of African States, which Mali would join in 1961.
Putting Pan-Africanism in the context of his country’s experience, Nkrumah said that Ghanaian independence would not be complete until all of Africa became free. Nkrumah himself was overthrown in a CIA-backed coup d’état in 1966 while on his way to meet Ho Chi Minh in Vietnam. In his book “Dark Days in Ghana,” Nkrumah pointed to the coup as evidence of the need for unity in order to withstand imperialist intervention.
Touré’s death
Despite their progressive character given the conditions of post-colonial Africa and their non-class perspective of “neutrality,” the new African governments were unable to withstand imperialist pressure. Underdevelopment prevented Guinea and other post-liberation African states from charting a course independent of foreign capital. This was despite significant development aid from the socialist camp.
One by one, the governments set up in the wake of the African liberation and anti-colonial struggles gave way to regimes more dependent on the imperialist powers. In Guinea, the decisive turn came after the death of Sékou Touré in 1984.
Touré’s death paved the way for opening up the country more intensively to foreign capital. General Lansana Conté staged a military coup in April of that year, overthrowing a short-lived interim government.
Conté proceeded to dismantle the centrally planned economy and implement a number of market reforms. Collective farming was scrapped, government subsidies were reduced or eliminated, the banking sector was reorganized, and state enterprises were privatized or closed.
Conté’s policies were in line with the dictates of the IMF and international banks, and earned him the praise and confidence of the imperialists. A March 1987 article in Business America, a publication of the U.S. government, lauded Conté’s policies for creating new “business opportunities”—a euphemism for imperialist plunder and theft.
New imperialist intervention
While the flames of rebellion in Guinea have subsided, the uprisings of January and February shined a spotlight on the problems facing much of Africa. Entire economies are oriented towards debt repayment while the most basic needs of the people go unmet.
Oppression through financial means does not preclude military intervention. The creation of the United States Africa Command (AFRICOM)—a new Pentagon military command to oversee U.S. military activity in Africa—in February 2007 signals rising imperialist interests in Africa. Until now, Pentagon planning in Africa has been carried out by the European Command, with East Africa under the Central Command and Mauritius and Madagascar under the Pacific Command.
Speaking to AFRICOM, Theresa Whelan, the U.S. assistant secretary of defense for African affairs, stated, “This is about prevention. This isn’t about fighting wars.” Chester Crocker, who formerly held Whelan’s position, added, “I don’t think that one would want people to draw the impression from this announcement that American policy toward Africa is becoming militarized.”
Such blatant hypocrisy seeks only to divert public attention from U.S. military interests in Africa.
The Horn of Africa—a region in Eastern Africa consisting of Sudan, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Djibouti, Somalia, Kenya and Uganda—is of particular interest to the United States. Sudan and Nigeria are awash in oil and are increasingly relevant to U.S. geostrategic interests. The Bab el Mandeb strait between Djibouti and Yemen provides entrance to the Red Sea and is a major maritime corridor of significant importance for oil trade.
After Ethiopia launched attacks against neighboring Somalia in January, reports surfaced detailing U.S. involvement. The New York Times reported on Feb. 22 that the military campaign was a U.S. effort to root out al-Qaeda militants in Somalia. The joint effort involved the sharing of satellite imagery and intelligence, the use of an Ethiopian airstrip to mount air strikes and the deployment of a secret U.S. Special Operations unit. The Agazi commandos—an Ethiopian force trained by the United States over several years—also took part in the offensive.
African nations cannot be free as long as they are bound by the heavy chains of finance capital and living under the threat of imperialist aggression. The burden of debt they bear today has no legitimacy whatsoever; it is a direct product of foreign domination that crippled economic development. If anything, former colonial masters are indebted to African nations for the centuries of oppression and exploitation imposed upon them. Mobilizing around the cancellation of debt, the payment of reparations and an end to military intervention should be priorities in building a movement of solidarity with Africa.
Protesters march through Conakry, Guinea on Jan. 22.
Photo: Georges Gobet/AFP/Getty Images
Sekou Touré
