Google Images
Little has actually changed from colonial days where European monarchies carved up Africa to exploit her vast natural resources in the name of bringing culture to the uncivilized "savages" that inhabited the continent. Naturally, the fact that these "savages" has functional social units that had existed for millennia was largely overlooked, after all, they weren't Christianized yet- another excuse for the rape and pillage. This was colonialism- the plundering of Africa to benefit the monarchies of Europe.
Now, there's a new colonialism, neocolonialism where the only thing that's really changed is that the monarchies are no more, replaced by multinational corporations and banks such as the IMF, World Bank and Bank of International Settlements, all striving to keep the African nations in a state of indentured servitude... the tool, a state of virtually constant regime change. Regime change keeps the citizens poor and compliant, in a state of perpetual turmoil. What the multinationals fear more than anything is that these nations will organize and take control of their own economies... this means a manufacturing base and value added, which in turns guarantees a burgeoning middle class- anathema to any colonialist.
To really do this topic justice would take at least several posts. For example, the strategies employed in the Northern African nations such as Libya varies somewhat from Sub-saharan Africa. So to make this manageable we'll focus on a couple of countries: The Congo and Nigeria and perhaps some of the influence of the Ivory Coast who has been a major player (and US asset) since post colonial times. The model employed is fairly straightforward and varies little... ethnic differences are exploited- radical groups are provided arms and support to overthrow the existing regime- the bloodshed continues until the United Nations steps in and implements "fair and open elections" in which a military strongman sympathetic to (and hand picked by) the UN and multinational corporations wins because only his party is allowed to vote. The multinationals are allowed to exploit the natural resources of their choice and the dictator gets rich and unmanageable... then the process begins again.
Recently a new factor has been introduced into the mix. Grooming and sustaining military strongmen every so many years becomes expensive and difficult. So now coalitions of "liberation movements" are helping one another to stay in power. Much like the relationship between Paul Kagame of Rwanda and his counterpart in the Congo. They call this movement the FLM:
The FLM? Yes, it's not a familiar acronym. But according to a statement released by the ANC's sub-committee on international relations last week, it stands for the 'Former Liberation Movement' - or perhaps that should be 'Former Liberation Movements' (plural).
The committee rather enigmatically referred to former liberation movements 'regardless of whether they are in power or not'. The FLM has, at least so far, comprised the ANC, the Zimbabwe African National Union - Patriotic Front (ZANU-PF), Mozambique's Frente de Libertação de Moçambique (Frelimo), Angola's Movimento Popular de Libertação de Angola (MPLA), Namibia's South West African People's Organisation (Swapo) and Tanzania's Chama Cha Mapinduzi (CCM) - or, in English, Party of the Revolution. All are still very much in power.
What is the purpose of the FLM? Clearly one of its main aims is for the former liberation movements to help keep each other in power, not least by constantly reminding their respective electorates of how grateful they should be for liberation. The FLM probably also acts as a kind of historical society, evoking nostalgia for the glorious days of the liberation struggles.
In other words the purpose is to keep the electorates from straying off of the ideological plantation, so to speak. If this is controlled by the UN or multinationals, it could spell disaster for legitimate liberation movements- perhaps that's the ultimate purpose behind it. The new movement seems to be sponsored, or at least supported by China, a fairly new player in the realm of African politics. From the beginning of the post-colonial era the struggle was between the US/European corporations (backed by their respective security agencies) and the USSR. The Chinese intervention throws a new wrinkle into the mix.
Fundamentally, they also raise serious doubts about the commitment to democracy of the former liberation movements. The 'War with the West' report, as its title suggests, concocts an elaborate conspiracy theory of 'regime change', describing how former colonial powers and the United States are supposedly plotting 'colour revolutions' to overthrow the former liberation movement governments by hard and soft power, to seize the natural wealth of their countries.
And here is the crux of the matter- to seize the natural wealth of their countries- is inevitably the endgame, regardless of which foreign nation is involved. As if the constant struggle against multinational corporations isn't bad enough, these self-interested former liberation movements are trying to vie, or hold onto power. This brings another issue to the forefront- the struggle between divergent ethnic groups. One has to remember that all of the territorial boundaries are artificially drawn. This gives the western powers a weakness to exploit. Daniel Posner of UCLA writes about the effects of ethnic divisions without going into the exploitation by alien forces- but it reinforces the vulnerability of these nations by foreign influences.
Since 1989, roughly twenty African nations have undergone transitions from one party to multiparty rule.1 This paper explores the effects of this (re-)introduction of competitive multiparty elections on ethnic conflict. In doing so, however, the paper examines an overlooked consequence of regime change. Rather than ask whether the shift to multiparty competition led to a change in the intensity of inter-group violence I focus instead on how the transition from one-party to multiparty rule altered the dimension of ethnic cleavage around which political competition – violent or otherwise – takes place.
Unfortunately, the pattern in neocolonial Africa is one of violence. Having said that Posner makes many valid points which give us a framework through which to view attempts of democratization in Africa... using Nigeria- being that it's one of the countries we're analyzing- as an example... Nigeria has over 250 separate ethnic groups. If you were a multinational corporation looking for a country to exploit using regime change would you choose a nation with ethnic solidarity and risk pushback, or one with a variety of different ethnicities that can be exploited by turning one against the other? In this vein it seems that, according to Posner, democratization caused ethnic divisions, or at least allowed outside interference to do so. Once again, who would you vote for, someone from your own tribe, or a stranger. This may be somewhat of an oversimplification, but seems to have worked to the benefit of the multinationals.
Within a single country, each of these distinctions may serve, in different situations, as potential axes of social differentiation and conflict. Describing the situation in Ghana, for example, Naomi Chazan (1982: 467-68) observed that sometimes ethnic solidarity was expressed in cultural and linguistic terms. At other times ethnicity was presented in regional or geographic terms. At still other points, ethnicity was manifested in local-communal – traditional, political or kin – terms…All possible ethnic-political presentations, either separately or in conjunction, could be brought to bear on the political situation depending on particular conditions.
In Nigeria:
In the richly evocative Nigerian phrase, politics was ‘cutting the national cake.’ The output of the state was perceived as divisible into slices of possibly unequal size, sweet to the taste, and intended to be eaten. A ‘they’ category, in control of political institutions, would exploit its power to impose its dominion upon ‘we,’ and to reserve for itself the lion’s share of state resources” (1985: 147).
The problem with the simple rule that one should “vote one’s group” is that both candidates and voters belong to many groups. This means that the question arises as to which group membership is relevant in deciding which candidate to support. If a voter is a Muslim Yoruba from Ibadan, does she vote for her fellow Muslim, who may be a Hausa-speaker? the fellow Yoruba, who may come from a different ancestral city-state? or the fellow Ibadan resident, who may be a Christian? If the goal is to put someone from her own group in power, then any of these candidates would be preferable to a candidate who shared neither her religious nor her linguistic nor her geographic background. But given at least some shared group membership with all three – language group in the first; home town in the second; religion in the third – which would be best in terms of maximizing the resources that are likely to flow to her? For which candidate should she cast her vote?
The answer is that if her objective is to maximize her access to resources, she will do best by supporting the candidate who puts her in the winning coalition. Throwing her support behind a candidate from her own group will not do her any good if that candidate does not win, so a first criterion is whether the group is large enough relative to other groups to win.4 So long as everyone else is also voting exclusively along group lines, this boils down to an issue of which of her group memberships puts her in the largest group vis-à-vis the other groups that are defined by that cleavage dimension. 5
This is what the multinational "neocolonialists" seek to exploit, whether the regime change comes through violence or peaceful means is merely a matter of necessity... one way or the other the corporations win and Africa loses.
Nigeria
The pattern of violence and corruption that has plagued Nigeria can be traced at least back to the regime of Sani Abacha in not before. At one time post-colonial Nigeria was heralded as a success story where the 250+ ethnicities lived in relative harmony. With the rise of Abacha all of that went by the wayside. Abacha "ruled" from 1993-98 which coincides with the Clinton Administration (who supported Abacha) in America and also saw the influx of multinational corporations- particularly in the petroleum industry.
Abacha's rise to power was fairly typical in African terms, he was a general in the Nigerian Army who distinguished himself in the Biafran campaign and used that to springboard himself into power... with the support of the army and the western corporations. Here's a bit of how corruption flourished under the Abacha regime...
There have been five regime changes in Nigeria since Abacha died in 1998. One of the more interesting of these regime changes is that of Goodluck Johnathan... his ousting, according to some sources (including himself) came due to propaganda from the Obama Administration. It was during Jonathan's administration that Boko Haram, supported and supplied by the multinationals to weaken Jonathan's grip on power and anti-corruption policies, was running roughshod around the countryside murdering and kidnapping. It is also during this period that the Clintons (Hillary was Sec of State for much of the time) and Chagoury brothers, Ronald and Gilbert, were practically controlling the NNPC- Nigerian National Petroleum Corporation, the state owned oil company.
The Jonathan administration was one of the most democratic in post-colonial Nigeria:
The Jonathan administration has provided the opposition parties greater latitude to operate more than any administration in the history of Nigeria. There are no political prisoners in Nigeria and nobody is being prosecuted for his political beliefs. There are no cases of political assassinations in Nigeria under the Jonathan administration as was the case with the garrisome democracy that the country passed through before 2007.
Given this, it should come as a surprise that the US administration of Barack Obama should oppose it's democratic efforts, except of course the cozy relationship between the Clinton's and Chagourys.
Bill and Gilbert Chagoury
No one exemplifies the face of regime change in modern Africa than the Clintons who use their political influence on behalf of multinational corporations. During her tenure as Secretary of State, Hillary refused to tag Boko Haram as a terrorist group and threat to national security. Coincidently:
Since the 1990s, Chagoury has also cultivated a friendship with the Clinton family — in part by writing large cheques, including a contribution of at least US$1 million to the Clinton Foundation.
By the time Hillary Clinton became secretary of state, the relationship was strong enough for Bill Clinton’s closest aide to push for Chagoury to get access to top diplomats, and the agency began exploring a deal, still under consideration, to build a consulate on Chagoury family land in Lagos, Nigeria.
Chagoury is a prominent example of the nexus between Hillary Clinton’s State Department and the family’s Clinton Foundation, which has come under renewed scrutiny during her presidential run. The organisation has come under fire for its willingness to accept money from foreign governments with interest in swaying US policy during Clinton’s time as secretary of State, and the controversial histories of some donors.
All of this is while Jonathan was President and attempting to bring Nigeria into the family of democratic nations.
This background is important in order to understand the gravity of the vile propaganda of the fifth columnists in Nigeria and foreign collaborators in relation to the activities of the leading opposition party in Nigeria, All Progressives Congress, APC, and the United States whose agenda seem larger than holding a credible election in Nigeria come March 28 and April 11, 2015. That is the disposition of US government and its diplomats to the political development in Nigeria.
Regime change American style- anything for a buck!
Congo- The Democratic Republic of Congo
For convenience sake we will refer to the Democratic Republic simply as Congo, although it's also been called Zaire. The best place to start is with the anti-Communist fervor of the late 1950's and early 60's when Patrice Lumumba came to power. After gaining independence from Belgium, Lumumba was elected president. Almost immediately rumblings of his being a Communist began- mostly as a product of propaganda fomented by the CIA... a regime change was in the wind. However, far from being a Communist, in Lumumba's own words:
Question: "Some of your political opponents accuse you of being a Communist. Could you reply to that?"
Answer: "This is a propagandist trick aimed at me. I am not a Communist. The colonialists have campaigned against me throughout the country because I am a revolutionary and demand the abolition of the colonial regime, which ignored our human dignity. They look upon me as a Communist because I refused to be bribed by the imperialists."
(From an interview to a "France-Soir" correspondent on July 22, 1960)
“We are neither Communists, Catholics nor socialists. We are African nationalists. We reserve the right to choose our friends in accordance with the principle of positive neutrality.”
Being an African-Nationalist threatened the western powers hold on valuable natural resources... the Congo is arguably the most resource rich nation in Africa. The powers that be couldn't have an African leader that put the wellbeing of his own people ahead of theirs- Lumumba had to go (and be replaced by someone more sympathetic to the multinationals). Lumumba's presidency lasted from June until September of 1960... after his assassination (likely set up by the CIA, as he was very popular and popularly elected) he was replaced by Mobutu Sese Seko Kuku Ngbendu Wa Za Banga, or Mobutu, for our purposes. One further note on Lumumba however, he only turned to the USSR after the entire western world turned their backs on him (including the UN). He was branded a Communist and then turned to the USSR for help... had he received it from the west, he never would have turned. But independence-minded people have no place in the multinational/globalist paradigm.
For more on Lumumba I recommend this article by N. Khokhlov, bearing in mind that it comes from Izvestia the USSR state publication. https://www.marxists.org/subject/africa/lumumba/reminiscences/khokhlov/goal.htm
From the beginning of the Congo's independence, the CIA was running operations in the country to "...stabilize the government and minimize communist influence in a strategically vital, resource-rich location in central Africa." According to a report regarding the CIA's activities in the Congo from 1960 to 1968, the CIA "comprised activities dealing with regime change, political action, propaganda, air and marine operations, and arms interdiction, as well as support to a spectacular hostage rescue mission."
Unlike Nigeria, in the Congo it's always been about control of the natural resources. As the quote from Wikipedia states, the Congo's "independence" has never been independence but a series of rulers controlled by the west.
The United States backed Joseph Mobutu for over three decades. Support for Mobutu started when Lumumba was in power. Mobutu was Lumumba's chief of staff and head of the army, and continued to grow as he became a more influential leader in the Congo. Even throughout the years following Lumumba's death, the United States is credited with not only supporting Mobutu for over 3 decades but also with assisting in stabilizing the country during the aftermath of Lumumba's death. "The CIA's program persisted through several political crises in the Congo during 1962-63 and at least can be credited with helping the government survive them."
From the Council of Foreign Relations publication, Foreign Affairs:
It didn’t take long for Congo’s transition from Belgian colony to sovereign state to turn ugly. Both the Soviet Union and the United States were keeping a close eye on the mineral-rich country at the heart of Africa when, on June 30, 1960, it gained independence under a democratically elected government headed by Prime Minister Patrice Lumumba. A charismatic nationalist, Lumumba led with a nationwide, rather than ethnic or regional, base. Within days, however, Congo’s troops mutinied against their all-white officer corps (a holdover from the colonial era) and started terrorizing the European population. Belgium responded by sending forces to reoccupy the country and helping Congo’s richest province, Katanga, secede. The United States, declining the appeals for help from the new Congolese government, instead threw its support behind a UN peacekeeping mission...
It's the same template as always used in Africa- a populist is taken down (usually by violence) and replaced by a military strongman (Mobutu was in control of the Army) supported by the US and multinational corporations... the UN acts as an intermediary. A recently released CIA assessment outlines the relationship between the Mobutu regime and points out the success the CIA has had keeping Marxist elements out of Congo (Zaire) after the death of Lumumba:
When Mobutu became ill in 1997 and abdicated, all hell broke loose. Fighting between the Hutu's and Tutsi's in Rwanda spilled over into the Congo. After four years of civil war and political unrest Joseph Kabila seized power... and since then the Congo has been open game for multinationals who have exploited the situation backing militias and anyone else sympathetic to their exploitation of the Congo's vast natural resources. In a just world the Congo should be one of the richest and most prosperous nations on earth... instead:
The Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC) is a country with huge natural wealth. Almost every valuable natural resource can be found there, from a multitude of minerals – including diamonds, gold, copper, cobalt, cassiterite (tin ore) and coltan – to timber and oil. But this vast natural wealth has brought nothing but suffering and misery to the Congolese people. Not only has it failed to deliver economic benefits and development, but it has been the cause of numerous and grave human rights abuses. The weakness of state institutions and a pervasive culture of impunity have meant that the perpetrators of crimes connected to the illicit exploitation of natural resources have rarely, if ever, been punished.
The Congo is rich in cobalt, in fact it's one of the only places on earth where it's found... cobalt is a necessary ingredient for batteries used in electric cars, computers, cell phones, etc.. Troops (usually from Rwanda- "peacekeepers") at the behest of the multinationals force children to work these mines for virtually no pay. If they refuse, they lose a hand or foot- or a family member is murdered. [For background material on this I invite you to look up my Raping Africa series or The High Cost of Electric Cars both on Steemit]
This is how regime change is done throughout Africa... it's practically a one-size-fits-all paradigm and it almost always involves violence, whether directly as in the case of Lumumba and the Congo, or indirectly as with surrogates such as Boko Haram providing the violence while the multinationals and western "democracies" attack through propaganda, as the case with Nigeria. Ultimately, the results are the same- any nationalist/democratic are subverted and the nations are controlled by outside forces- multinational corporations, banks, the UN, IMF, World Bank, et.al.. What a shame with her wealth of resources, both natural and human, Africa should be perhaps the richest continent on earth. But western powers continue to stifle democratic reforms through regime change thereby eliminating the possibility of value added and a burgeoning middle class. Instead, the citizens are kept in a condition of extreme poverty while the west gets rich in the process... criminal!
https://allafrica.com/stories/201712180613.html
http://cega.berkeley.edu/assets/miscellaneous_files/wgape/6_Posner.pdf
file:///C:/Users/Rich/Pictures/2017-08-11/New%20folder%20(2)/abacha_bankers.pdf
https://www.vanguardngr.com/2015/03/nigeria-and-the-regime-change-agenda/
https://www.scmp.com/news/world/united-states-canada/article/2010515/nigerian-billionaire-and-clintons-did-relationship
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CIA_activities_in_the_Democratic_Republic_of_the_Congo
https://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/democratic-republic-congo/2014-06-16/what-really-happened-congo
https://www.cia.gov/library/readingroom/document/cia-rdp83s00855r000100080001-6
https://www.globalwitness.org/en/archive/natural-resource-exploitation-and-human-rights-drc-1993-2003/
