France was, with Great Britain, the principal colonial power on the African continent. This was not without consequences for the way in which the French bourgeoisie recounted its "colonial adventures." From elementary school to literature and the media, the do-gooding enterprise of the "man in the white helmet" complacently drilled in to justify the civilizing mission of the metropolis. The colonial novel, a popular literary genre in France, testifies to this endless conditioning of French workers.
Traditionally, the overwhelming majority of French people were educated to the idea that "without France,
" the Africans would still be in the Stone Age. Obviously, no dent in this ideology was made by the Social Democratic and Stalinist parties.
Even today, the "Africa" columns in the big press leave no doubt as to the persistence of this phenomenon. Sketchy and oversimplified, they vacillate between a naturalist image of Black Africa, making it out to be a vast national park, and a terrifying picture of a tribalized mass from whence bloody despots like Idi Amin and Bokassa emerge. While a few journalists try their hand at stylistic exercises on the subject of "Africa, land of contrasts, readers remain ignorant of the essential point: French imperialism controls, organizes, exploits, and supervises a large part of the African continent.
The Private Domain of the Fifth Republic
Gaullist policy on decolonization was conceived not only as a tactical retreat to preserve imperialist interests by means of formal independence. De Gaulle shaped his foreign policy in keeping with his domestic project. The development of modernized capitalism and restructuring of the productive forces needed to be extended to the empire.
However, the bulk of colonial industries consisted of small, family-owned processing or transporting businesses. To all evidence, French big business had not yet really set foot in Black Africa. The Gaullist project of a Franco-African and Malagasy community sought to create a huge economic bloc-the Franc Zone-which would enable French investors to make more rational choices than in the past.
To that end, de Gaulle set up a "private domain" based on the networks of Jacques Foccart [a key French intelligence figure in Africa], hoping in this way to permanently control African politics and bolster the puppet politicians he had put in power. The Elysée palace became the center of gravity for a dozen or so states. The Elysée's monopoly was covered by an ideological smokescreen that was all the more transparent because de Gaulle used the prestige accruing to him for having ended the war in Algeria. But the operation did not meet only with success. In 1958, Guinea declined to enter the community, and was subsequently forced to undergo a virtual economic embargo. The regimes installed in 1958 turned out to be quite shaky, and the ruling classes that had emerged from the petty bourgeoisie remained incapable of stabilizing the neocolonial states. French imperialism had to call on military juntas to preserve some states. In even more perilous situations, as in Gabon in 1964, it had to stick its fingers in the pie and dispatch its own troops to restore order. Finally, the attempt to bar the way to European and American investment in the former colonial empire was hardly compatible with the economic projects of the big bourgeoisie. The system had to be made more flexible to accommodate partners. The networks set up by Foccart, which hardly corresponded any longer to the intricacies of African politics, and which still depended too much on the old colonial lobby, had to be put in abeyance.
It was Pompidou who carried out this transition. On the economic plane, first and foremost, French bilateral aid to the African states was substantially reduced in favor of joint aid from the European Economic Community, relayed by the European Development Fund.
But Pompidou retained Foccart, and held on to several Gaullist conceptions concerning political relations with the neocolonial leaderships. The stabilization of the African states and their ruling classes, interimperialist rivalry, and the social struggles that were beginning to arise made it impossible to remain satisfied with everlasting reminders of the bonds of friendship between France and the African peoples. The politicians in Dakar, Libreville, and Yaoundé wanted something more tangible. They now possessed the political and administrative tools enabling them to command respect for their wish to increase their share of the pie, even if they did so only timidly. Some withdrew from the Franc Zone or the Organization of the African and Malagasy Community, whose objectives had less to do with economics than with diplomacy and politics.
Giscard's mission, then, was to resolve a certain Gaullist dispute and usher in a new era of "cooperation." But his African policy has wavered between growing pressures from the Common Market and the demands of the African ruling classes.
The big oil crisis and the emergence of the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries enabled the neocolonial leaderships to go on the offensive to win a more equitable distribution of the profits of imperialist plunder. By nationalizing certain sources of raw materials, increasing their price, and basing themselves on the Arab oil-producing states in the big international negotiations, the African bourgeoisies sought to propose a kind of reform of the system of domination.
Among the imperialist countries, France was probably the one that best interpreted this tendency. Giscard encouraged the trend by going to Algiers, where he proclaimed his attachment to a "new international economic order," and where, in harmony with the African leaderships, he theorized about the need for a "transfer of technology," that is, a partial industrialization of the "Third World." In his Algiers speech, Giscard made it clear that Europe could contribute its technology, the Arab countries their financing in petrodollars, the African countries could make and available their human and natural resouces. Giscard's carnival show culminated in the opening of the North-South conference, which, after the rituals of the United Nations Organization for Development and Industry, the conference of Algiers, and other sites of "consultation," ended in a few pious wishes.
Of greater seriousness are the backstage maneuvers being plotted. The imperialist countries are facing a permanent recession. The demands of the neocolonial leaderships are driving toward a readjustment of the aid and cooperation policies.
The most diverse international bodies are therefore opting for aid to the small and medium-sized national industries. The Common Market has created an ad hoc body, the Economic Committee for Industrial Cooperation-headed by Olivier Giscard d'Estaing, Valéry's brother- to speed the growth of industries in a number of countries.
In the name of industrializing the Third World, these gentlemen are planning a "redeployment" of the imperialist productive forces with the avowed aim of reducing production costs. In this way, they can kill two birds with one stone. On the strength of these newly implanted industrial centers in Africa,
Asia, or Latin
America, native bourgeoisies will be able to develop and stabilize their states with the help of a multitude of industries and related services.
Who has heard of the report written by one Yves Berthelot at Barre's request? A
tiny article on Le Monde's business page served simply to take note of this document, whose cynicism, realism, and goals are the best proof that could be offered of the existence and vitality of French imperialism. Once again, the French press has shown itself to be more than discreet when it comes to the African policy of the French employers.
This report begins with the observation that the developing countries are going to undergo a steady growth in their exports of manufactured goods. The World Bank estimates that by 1985, the value of these exports could go as high as $100 billion. Lord Berthelot and his crew have foreseen that by the year 2000, about 15% of the world's industrial output will come from these countries. However, what interests them especially are the juicy byproducts of this projection. Thus, the countries in question will require imports for their economies representing 20%-30% of world imports. The imperialists are expecting to turn a good profit by satisfying these countries' needs in machinery and industrial plants, while setting up a new string of industries in the areas where labor is still cheap. The imperialists are beginning to sell "factories ready to go" for the profit of Western stockholders and suppliers with a stake in such industries.
France is not in the front ranks of this race for new markets. Among the neocolonial countries that are the furthest along in this process are India, Brazil, Mexico, Algeria, and South Korea, for whom French imperialism is still a junior partner.
Nevertheless, the Third World countries' total share of French imports rose from 19% in 1973 to 27% in 1976, and for exports,
from 18% to 25%. For the French capitalists, these countries, including the coun tries of Black Africa, have become essential partners. Thus, in 1976, capital goods represented 40% of French exports. In certain fields, such as construction metal, high-voltage electrical equipment, and allpurpose vehicles, as much as 55% to 65% of production is exported. Clearly, Africa continues to provide French imperialism with a favorable ground on which to compete with its imperialist partners for neocolonial markets, since 40% of French exports to these areas are directed at French-speaking Africa.
This special orientation on the part of investors is not without consequences, of course, for the job market in France. What the experts discreetly call "industrial redeployment" means a reorganization of the French productive forces to some extent. The Berthelot report visualizes a meticulous planning of this evolution. For example, while it records that 100,000 jobs were created in the last six years in connection with these new markets, it postulates that some industrial sectors will shift toward the neocolonial countries. The Berthelot team thus puts down as liabilities of this "redeployment" the elimination of 8,000 jobs in the garment industry, 4,000 in shoes and leathers, and 6,500 in the timber industries. At the end of its "social" section, the report anticipates that about 25,000-50,000 workers will have to change jobs every year owing to the transfer of their labor to a neocolonial country.
Giscard was able to make France's African policy take the turn that was necessary. In contrast to his predecessors in the Fifth Republic, he expressed no concern about Senghor's adherence to the Second
International, or at a series of nationalizations carried out by Malagasy officers. French imperialism had either to follow the new rules of neocolonialism or throw in the towel.
Faced with such stakes, Giscard took up the challenge, and is trying with the National Council of French Employers to build a solid bastion of French investments in Africa.
Inasmuch as all these shakeups have their consequences for the fate of the African masses, and since the working class and masses in these countries are beginning to raise their heads, it will be necessary to protect not only the markets, but the regimes as well.
French policy in Africa symbolizes its material share of the pie. This imposes on it duties and obligations with respect to the other imperialist powers, such as the duty to collectively defend the system, or the obligation to maintain the relationship of forces with its competitors. That is why the latter hesitate to support or criticize French military commitments too much. At the time of the defense of the Mobutu regime in 1977, in the Shaba affair, some voices were raised in the United States and in the Italian Christian Democracy, exthe pressing certain doubts. But now American government is supporting the French intervention in Chad.
An Impressive Array of Controls Over the 'Friendly' Countries
Giscard has come up with nothing better to justify his military expeditions than to uphold the principle of "Africa for the Africans." Only Giscard has the nerve to raise the banner of the struggle against
"foreign ideologies" and interference on this continent. For this "good friend" of Africa is at the head of a vast network of control and surveillance, of which the military raids into Mauritania and Chad are only the visible portion. In addition to the garrisons in Dakar, Ndjamena, Abidjan, Libreville, and Djibouti, most of the former colonies have military experts of every kind, trainers, and other "advisers." Police and militarized police are trained and advised by France. Thousands of French civilians swarm in the ministries, research centers, schools and universities, banks, and administrations. Many are the ministers and presidents whose personal advisers are French.
Economic, political, and cultural domination are the permanent features of the French presence in Africa. In addition to its former colonies and last remaining possessions (Réunion and Mayotte), the French bourgeoisie augments its juicy profits elsewhere, in South Africa, in Nigeria, and in Zaire, for example.
In defense of "cooperation," the French army rushes to the aid of its protégés. Its mission is no longer to occupy the terrain and maintain a strong military presence. As General Saint-Criq so aptly put it on May 11: "The air divisions are and will be the preferred instrument in a strategy of external action, and air transport represents an irreplaceable guarantee of efficiency." In face of the growing militariza. tion of the adversaries, "the air divisions from now on will have to compensate for this development by guaranteeing a superior mobility and firepower to friendly elements" (Le Monde, May 13, 1978).
In a word, the Jaguar [French jet fighter plane] and the Berthelot report represent the two legs that French imperialism has to stand on.
That is why there can be no question of the French workers organizations shirking their responsibilities. "Cooperation" cannot be redefined or readjusted. Such aid to neocolonial bourgeois regimes and to French investors must be condemned wholesale.
It is necessary to mobilize to give concrete solidarity to the workers and antiimperialist forces in these countries. It is now necessary to demand the immediate withdrawal of all French troops from Africa.