La Vie en %$!

Why is France still propping up Africa's dictators?

BY BOUBACAR BORIS DIOP | JULY/AUGUST 2010

Almost as soon as they had been elected, Nicolas Sarkozy and Barack Obama began planning high-profile trips to Africa. Surely the French and American presidents had more pressing priorities than addressing a continent so long ago judged unimportant to global affairs. But as it turned out, this curious exercise of "talking to Africa" offered the perfect opportunity for these two novice Western heads of state to prove that they embodied exactly what they said they did: leadership unwedded to the conventionalities of business as usual.

So our two guests came, portraying themselves as friends of the continent -- and indeed possessing an affection so profound that they were unafraid to say out loud all the unpleasant truths about Africa usually reserved for whispers in private. Like the gentleman who fondly lectures the beggar before dropping a meager coin into his jar, they came to Africa with an innate sense of superiority. Their sentiment derived, of course, from a conviction that they had done all in their power to avoid making such a mess of things, unlike the beggars -- the African countries themselves. Obama and Sarkozy, it seemed, were tormented by the desire to restore reason to the world's most irresponsible nations.

But what a shameless rewriting of history!

Certainly, Obama was courteous enough in his trip last year to Ghana. Yet even he needed reminding of the extent to which Cold War America pushed so many countries toward becoming today's "failed states." Between the two presidents, however, Sarkozy is surely the leader most deserving of rebuke. For never in modern political annals has there been anything close to the powerful, inseparable synergy between France and its former empire. At the very moment it realized decolonization was historically inevitable, Paris concocted a true masterpiece of political genius: undertaking all that was necessary in pulling out of Africa -- and doing so in such a way as to, in fact, not budge an inch.

Gen. Charles de Gaulle's trusted advisor, Jacques Foccart, was the architect of this neocolonial ruse. His methods were simple: install trusted African politicians, some with French nationality, as the heads of these 14 new states and maintain the firm, French grasp on their natural resources. It was a system that naturally bred corruption and instability -- and could hardly persist without massive abuses of human rights.

But no matter; Africa's new dictators could rest easy. Thanks to its almost 60,000 troops on the continent, the French Army could rush to their aid at a moment's notice -- and had already agreed to do so as part of defense agreements in which certain key clauses were kept secret. The French secret service was also poised to undertake, if necessary, the liquidation of the dictators' most formidable rivals. The list of African opposition figures who perished this way is dreadfully long.

In truth, the greatest fault of the French model was not that it existed in the first place, but that it so unabashedly survived the Cold War. At the time, when Moscow and Washington were behaving even more savagely in their respective spheres of influence, Paris's meddling in Africa seemed relatively benign. But today, it would be unimaginable to see the British prime minister interfering in the succession of the Ghanaian or Kenyan heads of state. And Sarkozy? He did exactly that last year when Ali Bongo emerged victorious in Gabon's disputed presidential election -- with the endorsement of the French president to succeed his father. No wonder: Bongo senior was himself installed by de Gaulle back in 1967. Jacques Chirac similarly backed the son of Togo's Gen. Gnassingbé Eyadéma in 2005.

And so it goes: France destabilizes and destroys the countries of Africa, as if nothing in the world had changed. Indeed, among all the former European colonial powers, France is unique in its refusal to decolonize. And the countries that have refused this "friendship" with Paris -- Vietnam, Madagascar, Cameroon, and Algeria -- have paid for their liberty with many hundreds of thousands of lives.

Illustration by Sean McCabe for FP

 

Boubacar Boris Diop is a writing fellow at the Wits Institute for Social and Economic Research in Johannesburg.

GENERALOREO

4:59 AM ET

June 21, 2010

Oh please.

France could cut all its relations to Africa and Africa would still be the way it is and not see an inch of progress.

 

NORBOOSE

3:24 PM ET

June 23, 2010

Dont toss out racism cards Sam

The good General might be a bigot, but he might not. I read it as him saying that if France, right now, suddenly stopped having anything to do with Africa, it wouldnt change things. I dont think he was talking about history. Of course the Euro empires were bad when they existed, and Africa would be better off now if they hadnt ever existed. I, and I think the General, are talking about the here and now. If France suddenly disappeared tommarrow, just floated into space, it would not have any big direct impact on Africa, other than people panicking about how to stop countries from floating into space. Im inclined to believe him. France's arms really dont extend beyond Europe in any big way. But then again, I might just hate black people. (I cant explain why, but anyone who knows me personally would find that funny)

 

MLANE

1:36 PM ET

June 24, 2010

French enablers.

French support for African dictators provides critical legitimacy to corrupt and unsuccessful governments while doing nothing for the African common man. But, because these relationships benefit France (in the same way slavery was good for southern, white, landowners in the U.S.), there is little or no reason to consider a different approach in Africa. The atrocities that Frence policies enable lack proper coverage in the world media. Hopefully that is about to change. In regards Africans being incapable of developemant, wow! Maybe pick up Jarred Daimond's; Guns, Germs and Steel. It could go a long way to remedy your incredibly racict, unfortunate, and misinformed worldview.

 

NORBOOSE

3:13 PM ET

June 24, 2010

Awesome Book

Guns Germs Steel is a great book. I dont think Sam was supporting racist views, he was accusing the first guy of having racist views.

 

MUSTNOTSLEEP14

12:24 PM ET

July 15, 2010

Exactly. And nobody wants to

Exactly. And nobody wants to admit it, but the Africans were better off under colonialism! What you have now is near-anarchy, at least before you had infrastructure and the rule of law, however racist and unjust it may have been.

 

ALIASWONDER

3:09 PM ET

June 23, 2010

One sided

Very biased and unbalanced article blaming all the problems of West Africa on France. On one side you have an evil neocolonial power on the other innocent Africans victims. It is as if the world is simply good versus evil without any shades of grey...
If some elements of the french African politics were indeed shameful (as the murder of Sankara from Burkina Faso) you can't dismiss all as negative.
Just compare the French decolonization process with the Portuguese one : Angola, Mozambique... and the resulting disasters.
According to the writer even the current mess in Guinée, a country that choose at independance not to maintain close ties with the former colonial power, is also the fault of France!
One wonders why the African island of Mayotte in the Comores archipelago recently voted en masse to be a part of France instead of becoming independant...

 

IADMITIAMCRAZY

4:04 PM ET

July 26, 2010

Biased?

I happen to think that there is a lot of blame to assume by the African elites. However, part of the blame is that they do connive with post-colonilaism, be it French or other. Angola is a case in point. Shedding the Marxist veil, the ruling cleptocracy may now enrich themselves in the open- with a little help from their French friends. Oh, bien sur, c'est tout dans le interet du peuple Angolais! There is an attitude palpable with French officials in that country as was for a long time the attitude of the Yankees toward Latin America: Africa is OUR backyard! (And if the Portuguese are stupid enough to not secure their claims, we do!)
Moçambique, lacking the riches of Angola is a lot better off and recuperating from ITSs civil war quite well. And however retrograde the Portuguese colonial wars have been - the Portuguese, poor themselves, today have a very healthy relationship with all of their ex-colonies.

 

NORBOOSE

3:15 PM ET

June 23, 2010

Im surprised it still can

This is like reading about a 80-year old mugger. Its bad, but its kind of impressive.

 

NORBOOSE

4:29 PM ET

June 23, 2010

What Africa needs

I was thinking about this and I realized what these affected countries need, if this really is a problem. They need to develop professional counterintelligence agencies or create better divisions of them within their pre-existing intel and national law-enforcement bodies. When it comes to this sort of foreign intelligence agency vs. counterintelligence force, the defense has the advantage. The French are a 2nd or 3rd rate world power these days, so these countries really should be able to stop it. If they cant handle France, for God's sakes, they have no chance if the US, Russian, or Chinese ever really want something from them. Even the Japanese, British, German, Indian, South Korean, and Brazilian intelligence agencies have AT LEAST as much pull as the French. Trying to shame France into not being bad is a stupid way to fix this problem, rooted in colonial era assumptions. The only good way to solve a problem like this is to empower the victim, not shame the victimizer.

 

PHILADELPHIANTHOMPSONS

10:46 AM ET

June 24, 2010

Norboose: I like the cut of

Norboose: I like the cut of your jib. Very much in agreement.

 

MATTRODRIGUE

11:34 AM ET

June 24, 2010

Why?

A couple of questions:
1. What is the reasoning behind positing France as the prime European colonizer? It's war with Vietnam was supported in no small part by the United States. If we're talking about informal empire, here, than why not skip the column and just write a review of LaFeber's Inevitable Revolutions?
2. Foreign Policy Magazine represents all those IR and military historians that have shunned "cultural" perspectives since Foucault and White started publishing. Now that FP is coming around to cultural history, very late in the game of course, it seems content employing Michael Hunt's version of an unchanging, solidified, and unitary system of cultural superiority and not something much more complicated and historically contingent. All this boils down to a story of French power (and Western) and African impotence.

 

BOWL WEEVILS

3:14 AM ET

July 15, 2010

prime European colonizer

I don't think the article is claiming that France was the prime European colonizer, just the least repentant. Aside from Russia, which no one should expect to repent their territorial transgressions. And a big part of that Russian attitude is the belief that they need buffer territory to keep out invading French and German dictators.

 

SAABRIAN

3:16 PM ET

June 24, 2010

La Francafrique was never going to end with the Cold War

La Francafrique was never about ideology (witness its survival from the conservative de Gaulle to the neo-liberal Giscard to the socialist Mitterand to whatever Chirac and Sarkozy are); it was about money, about French commercial interests. It was never going to end with the Cold War.

 

MIXALOT87

9:04 PM ET

July 13, 2010

So no France = good ole days in Africa?

I'm the first to agree that European colonization, exploitation, and decolonization had undeniably negative effects on the African continent. That said, the argument made in this article is absurd. Europe, for all the bad it did to Africa and its people, left some semi-decent legacy behind and undeniably served to modernize many states there, artificially created or not.

Like it or not, none of the countries in Sub-Saharan Africa ever had a "heyday" of any kind. Its not like there was some huge cultural and intellectual movement on the continent that the evil Europeans came by and destroyed. I realize its not PC to acknowledge this, but I doubt you'd find serious historians or anthropologists who would be willing to argue that any African states were on the up-and-up before the French came and ruined everything. To hold France and Old Europe soley responsible for all the problems that plague Africa today is irresponsible and inhibits any discussion for real solutions to the huge problems African states face.

Do you want to place a certain degree of blame at France's feet for the poor state of Francophone states in Africa today? Sure, go ahead, I'll totally agree with you. But to start blaming it for everything for Somalia's current state is beyond rediculous. Part of the problem in many African states is rampant corruption at nearly every level and a total lack of accountability on behalf of national leadership. Blaming France and the West for literally everything that's wrong on the continent only serves to further this sad state of affairs.

 

KANTAI

8:46 AM ET

July 14, 2010

You, Mixalot, Are Ignorant of History

Please read about the Great Empires, such as Mali, Songhai and Ghana (which, coincidentally, were situated where modern France meddles so terribly). The whole point is that the 'countries' created by the colonialists had little to do with the realities of the people, politics and culture on the ground. So, in brief, there was a time that Africa was in full flower.

 

KANTAI

8:52 AM ET

July 14, 2010

You, Mixalot, Are Ignorant of History

Please read about the Great Empires, such as Mali, Songhai and Ghana (which, coincidentally, were situated where modern France meddles so terribly). The whole point is that the 'countries' created by the colonialists had little to do with the realities of the people, politics and culture on the ground. So, in brief, there was a time that Africa was in full flower.

 

MIXALOT87

5:59 PM ET

July 14, 2010

No, you're just misconstruing it

Perhaps I let hyperbole get to my head. Its not like Africa didn't have empires of its own. My apologies for sounding ignorant. My point was that its not like Europe came by and ruined a great deal of progress that was being made. To reiterate, I am NOT totally excusing Europe from any sort of blame, I'm just saying you cannot scapegoat it for everything and say that without European intervention, most of the continent would be a paradise today.

Of the three civilizations you mentioned, Ghana ceased to exist as an empire before the 12th Century even started, while the Mali and Songhai had both collapsed/fragmented by 1600. European colonialization didn't hit full swing in the latter half of the 19th century.

That's a pretty solid 250 years between any credible form of a Rennaisance on the continent and large-scale European exploitation. So its a pretty bold mischaracterization to somehow blame France for bringing an end to something that was already finished for over two centuries. That is all I'm saying.

 

NICOLAS19

8:39 AM ET

July 14, 2010

some colonial powers remain the same

Interesting article. Reminds me how some colonial powers could change, while others not. Look at Spain: it has magnificent relations with South America, without interfering with them. I would mention GB as well, but it would be a bad example: they are so subordinated to the US that they even became ashamed of their own past. Lastly, the fourth great colonial power, the US did’t change at all. They replace regimes and loot countries (Iraq, Afghanistan) like the good ol’ days of Panama, Philippines, etc… and still have the guts to point at France!

 

MARTINLUSIN1

10:54 AM ET

July 14, 2010

hmm

It could be a good thing for the French, easy life, plus joie de vivre etc.

But we have to stop becomming invaders, occupiers, colonisers and illegal settlers. That time has long past.
mario oyunlari
3d oyunlar
araba yarisi
çocuk oyunlari
full indir
metin2

 

TOBY MCWIRE

10:55 AM ET

July 16, 2010

Well, but...

You’re totally right in being critical towards certain aspects of current French policy in Africa. But concerning the bigger picture I’m afraid you’re exaggerating a bit.

I think it is misguided to compare the latest developments in Franco-African relations to the times of Jacques Foccart and his famous networks. When Foccart was still spearheading the Elysée’s Africa cell there were an impressive 80 people dealing with the African continent while today there’s a mere three of them sitting in rue de l’Elysée. Sure, there are still some strange people with good connections to Africa prowling around Sarkozy and his general secretary Claude Guéant, the best-known of them being Robert Bourgi. But we should be aware who these people work for and this brings me to my next point.

I would doubt that, as you said, France is pulling the strings from behind the scenes“. The strings are instead very well pulled by some African heads of state. Côte d’Ivoire’s Laurent Gbagbo and Chadian president Idriss Déby have shown in perfection over several years who the real masters are and I would even go that far to say that the Bongo clan’s influence in Paris is bigger than President Sarkozy’s grip on Libreville.

Certainly, France has messed up a lot of things on the African continent and one should not ignore history. But I think it is urgently important to stop the post-colonial blame game and concentrate on the real gangsters…sitting in the splendid Presidential palaces in several African capitals.