Imperialists scramble for Africa's riches

By William Pomeroy

To a major extent the present-day divisions and conflicts in Africa can be traced to the Berlin congress of European powers in 1885.

Presided over by German Chancellor Bismarck, it decided on the carving up of the African continent into colonies.

In the parceling out of "spheres of influence" to Britain, France, Germany, Belgium, Portugal, Spain and Italy, the biggest territories and number of colonies went to Britain and France, then the two main imperialist powers.

Today, forty years after the post-World War II surge of independence removed formal colonialism from Africa, that imprint remains. The British spheres of influence persist, in Kenya, Nigeria, Sierra Leone, Ghana and southern Africa, tied into the Commonwealth of former British colonies, while most of Central and West Africa continues as a Francophone block, linked by language, culture, economic preferences and security arrangements (including a French military presence) to France.

An increasing interpenetration of trade and investment has tended to diminish the exclusiveness in this pattern but it has still remained - until recently, that is. It is being affected by an aggressive drive of expanding entry into Africa by another power, the United States.

It was demonstrated early last year by President Clinton's 12-day tour of a number of African countries, promoting trade and investment.

His tour was linked with a key piece of legislation being pushed in the U.S. Congress, the African Growth and Opportunity Act which has proposed to open wider the U.S. market for more African products including textiles and clothing in exchange for concessions to U.S. exports and company operations.

As it happened, the Africa Act failed to get through Congress last year due to a crowded calendar and lobbying opposition from U.S. domestic producers but it has been reintroduced in the present session.

In December the Clinton tour was followed up by another African trip, by Commerce Secretary William Daley, heading a large group of U.S. business executives.

Again, promotion of trade and investment was the aim. Starting his tour in South Africa, which in the past has been the main point of U.S. investment and trade, Daley stressed that U.S. companies looked beyond the South African market to Africa in general and called for the breaking down of protectionist barriers between African states so that integrated regional markets could be created, an arrangement beneficial to U.S. trade (and one that would dissolve old spheres of influence).

It could hardly be by chance that in December British and French African affairs representatives met in St. Malo and launched an unprecedented call for a joint approach to Africa, including policy harmonization, information exchange and even a joint representation in places where only one of them has a presence.

Preceding St. Malo, France last November held its 20th annual summit in Paris of its Francophone African connections. This time, for the first time, out of 34 African heads of state present a number had been invited from English-speaking countries such as Nigeria. At the summit the idea was projected that France was offering itself in Africa as an 'alternative international partner to the U.S. in aid, commerce, investments and security ties."

(It may be recalled that at the time of the overthrow of Mobutu in the former Zaire - he had been a French ally - it was claimed by French African policy-makers that the U.S. was behind the Uganda-Rwanda support for the anti-Mobutu rebels and that it was part of an alleged anti-French U.S. policy to replace France in Africa.)

In Mid-February the U.S. trade drive was further developed by another visit to Africa, this time by U.S. Vice-President Al Gore. In South Africa he signed a trade and investment agreement with that country which includes establishment of a council of trade and investment composed of representatives of both governments who are to negotiate agreements and removed obstacles to trade and investment. Similar agreements are reportedly being readied with Ghana and the Economic Community of West African States, part of a series to be extended across Africa.

On March 16, in Washington, President Clinton opened a U.S.-African ministerial meeting, held at the State Department, to which ministers from 46 African countries had been invited. The central theme of the meeting, as in the African Growth and Opportunity Act, was "economic partnership with Africa."

This was matched on March 11 by a highly significant meeting in Abidjan, Ivory Coast between British Foreign Secretary Robin Cook, who was himself on a tour of Africa, with French Foreign Minister Hubert Vedrine.

Also attending the meeting were the British and French ambassadors to Ethiopia, Ivory Coast, South Africa, Nigeria, Zimbabwe, Angola, Tanzania and Namibia, plus the British High Commissioners in Malawi, and Lesotho and the French envoys to the Central African Republic and Burkina Faso.

The substance of this meeting, which carried forward the St. Malo call, was the need for cooperation of the two powers in Africa and the pooling of resources that could offer powerful opposition to anyone else (implying the U.S.).

Said Foreign Minister Vedrine: "We can no longer talk of our own backyards. That is all finished. Today there are no longer exclusive spheres of influence." It was clearly evident that what was being recognized was the threat of the U.S. drive in Africa.

Back in 1885 the carve-up of a continent was referred to as "the scramble for Africa." The African people were not consulted. Today they have to be dealt with, but the imperialist approach to Africa has only been modified.

The "partnership" that is spoken of by President Clinton has no equality in it. Virtually all African states are burdened by massive foreign debts due to deliberate western lending policy of destroying their independence, and they have little bargaining power. To obtain any trade benefits "reform" is demanded of them, involving privatizing state assets and giving tax-free privileges to western companies.

The state assets are primarily in mineral resources. Behind the new scramble for Africa are mainly the big multinational mining corporations which are combing the world for profitable deposits to exploit. The African prospects have been compared to a treasure chest waiting to be pried open.

Africa has most of the world's gold, diamonds, platinum, palladium, copper, cobalt, chrome, and titanium dioxide;. In southern Africa alone there is 90 percent of the world's platinum and palladium, 85 percent of its chromium, 75 percent of manganese, 50 percent of gold, 50 percent of vanadium.

In vast regions of sub-Saharan Africa exploration of resources has hardly begun. These are chiefly within the British and French spheres of influence.

For these resources the scramble for Africa will be an inter-imperialist struggle with little benefit to the African people.