7

p World imperialism is now making greater efforts than ever before to unite the ranks of the monopolist bourgeoisie. It is being prompted to take this step by the common class interests of the capitalist world. The two world systems are locked in struggle, the scientific and technological revolution is in full swing, and there is an upsurge of activity in the international workers’ movement and the national liberation movement. Despite its attempts to adapt to the new conditions, capitalism is steadily losing ground in world economics and politics.

p The trend towards greater centralisation in the imperialist camp does not eliminate inter-imperialist contradictions. They continue to develop. Moreover, the old antagonisms of capitalism are joined by new ones, which interlock with them, forming a single cluster of tensions.

p In his Report to the 24th Congress of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union the General Secretary of the Party’s Central Committee, Leonid Brezhnev, said: "The contradictions between the imperialist states have not been eliminated either by the processes of integration or the imperialists’ class concern for pooling their efforts in fighting against the socialist world. By the early 1970s, the main centres of imperialist rivalry have become clearly visible: these are the USA—Western Europe (above all, the six Common Market countries)—Japan. The economic and political competitive struggle between them has been growing ever more acute,"^^1^^

8

p Thus, the inter-imperialist struggle is part of the integral system of co-operation and rivalry, unity and contradictions between the imperialist powers.

p The contradictions of modern imperialism have a number of new distinctive features. In the first place, they are conditioned in their development by the main contradiction of the times. Imperialism today is one of the two opposing world systems, and it is, moreover, steadily weakening in the struggle with socialism.

p In the second place, the scientific and technological revolution is exercising a tremendous influence on the processes that are taking place in the capitalist world. It is accelerating the growth of production, while at the same time widening the gaps between the levels of scientific and technological development in individual capitalist countries. The result is a more and more uneven development.

p In the third place, modern capitalism is state-monopoly capitalism. It is inseparable from capitalism as such as a socio-economic formation. No matter what modifications a capitalist society undergoes at the stage of state-monopoly capitalism, its antagonisms continue to deepen. Relying on the strength and support of the state, the bourgeoisie of every imperialist power seeks to reinforce and extend its position in the competitive capitalist world market. It also tried to help the national monopolies in their competition against the monopolies of other countries.

p The present stage is a particularly clear illustration of Lenin’s law of the spasmodic and uneven development of capitalism. The action of this law is also inextricably bound up with the struggle between the two world systems.

p Competition with the world socialist system forces capitalist ruling circles to stimulate economic growth even more vigorously. But different scientific, technological and economic potentials produce a further imbalance in the development of individual capitalist countries. This loosens the relative unity of the imperialist camp and intensifies the contradictions between its members.

p A comparison of the main capitalist states’ industrial potential, foreign trade and currency reserves enables one to assess the present and future state of the struggle between 9 the imperialist powers. The unevenness of their recent development is shown in "Table 1.

p It can be seen from the table that in 1950 the USA and Great Britain accounted for 66.2 per cent of the production of the whole capitalist world. Ten years later this figure had fallen to 55.1 per cent, and after a further ten years—to 48.3 per cent. At the same time production in the countries defeated in the Second World War (the Federal Republic of Germany, Italy and Japan) rose from 10.7 per cent of the total world output in 1950 to 17.4 per cent in 1960 and 23 per cent in 1970.

p The development of the export trade displays even greater unevenness. This is even more symptomatic, given that the motto of capitalist business circles is to boost exports and reduce imports. In 1950 the two main capitalist powers (the USA and Britain) accounted for about 30 per cent of the capitalist world’s exports. Ten years later this index had sunk to 27 per cent, and by the end of the following decade—to 22.7 per cent. The corresponding totals for the FRG, Japan and Italy were 7.3 per cent, 17.1 per cent and 24.9 per cent.

p The figures relating to the gold and currency reserves tell the same story. In 1948 the USA’s reserves amounted to six times the total possessed by France, the FRG, Italy and Japan. By 1959 they were only twice as great as those of the above group of countries, and in 1969 already lagged behind them.

p Finally, the table shows that between 1937 and 1959 the industrial growth rate of the USA was the capitalist world’s highest; between 1960 and 1970 it was the last but one.

p It can be concluded from the table that quick changes in the rates of economic growth of the main capitalist countries are inherent in the modern capitalist system. It is also clear that unevenness in development has now reached a postwar peak.

p The imperialist states seek to defend their class interests jointly by organising aggressive military blocs and alliances, creating international monopolies and promoting economic integration. The latter merits special attention, since it is often claimed that the integration processes now visible in the capitalist world are §vid,ence of “stabilisation” and a
•
10 Table 1 Basic Economic Indices For the Main Imperialist Powers Year USA Great Britain FRG France Italy Japan Proportion of the capitalist world’s 1950 54.6 11.6 6.6 4.4 2.5 1.6 industrial production (%) 1960 45.8 9.3 9.6 4.7 3.4 4.4 1970 41.3 7.0 9.7 4.8 3.7 9.6 Proportion of world capitalist exports 1950 18.3 11.0 3.6 5.5 2.2 1.5 (%) 1960 18.1 8.9 10.2 6.1 3.3 3.6 1970 15.6 7.1 12.2 6.3 5.8 6.9 Gold and currency reserves (end-of- 1948 24,399.0 2,009.0 295.0 553.0 — ____ -year totals in millions of dollars) 1959 19,507.0 2,750.0 4,533.0 1,720.0 2,953.0 1,321.0 1969 16,964.0 2,527.0 7,129.0 3,833.0 5,005.0 3,654.0 Average annual growth rates of indus- 1937-59 4.8 2.1 3.7* 3.3 4.0 3.8 trial production (%) 1960-70 4.5 2.9 6.1 5.6 6.8 13.9 1937-45—all Germany. Sources: UN Statistical Yearbook, Monthly Bulletin of Statistics for the relevant years and months; Ekonomicheskoye polozheniye hapilalisticheskihh i razvivayushchihhsya stran (The Economic Position of Capitalist and Developing Countries), surveys for 1967 and the beginning of 1968, for 1969 and the beginning of 1970. Supplement to the journal Mirovaya ehonomiha i mezhdunarodnye athnosheniya (World Economy and International Relations); International Financial Statistics, March 1950, 1954, 1961, June 1970. 11
•
transition to a "non-conflict stage”. The formations reflecting integration can unquestionably be seen as the result of stronger centralising tendencies in the imperialist camp. Nevertheless, it should not be forgotten that capitalist integration is an imperialist means of overcoming the narrowness of national boundaries at the current stage of the development of productive forces: it is a peaceful way of re-allocating spheres of influence for the benefit of the various countries’ monopolies. Consequently, capitalist integration inevitably leads not only to the worsening of traditional contradictions between the members of the different groupings, but also to "the creation of new contradictions— between the integrated groupings and the outside world, as well as inside these groupings".^^2^^

p Inter-imperialist contradictions are not substantially lessened by the recent accelerated formation of international monopolies. The process reflects the typical capitalist tendency to strengthen the interdependence of national economies and to internationalise production as much as possible. The intensification of the process whereby monopoly participants merge their capital and the interpenetration that inevitably results lead to a clash of interests between the imperialist states involved. Moreover, a serious antagonism within modern imperialism—between the interests of the state and the international corporation—is becoming more pronounced. Trade and customs boundaries are beginning to hinder the activities of these corporations, especially if their enterprises are located in several countries and linked by a system of co-ordinated deliveries. When this happens, the governments of the countries concerned are forced to “liberalise” trade and introduce legislation that is damaging to national interests as a whole. The “super-monopolies’" disregard for national sovereignty is one of the major sources of inter-imperialist contradictions, and the situation is likely to deteriorate. The President of the American International Chamber of Commerce, Mr. Christopher H. Phillips, points out that conflict between states and multi-national corporations will become still more pronounced in the near future. National authorities should accommodate themselves to the supranational demands of an increasingly interdependent world.^^3^^ But 12 capitulation to expansionist international monopolies also means ultimately the economic redistribution of the world. The strong stand to benefit.

p The special feature of today’s imperialist contradictions is that now the forces and interests not only of states, but also of economic blocs of capitalist countries are clashing in the international arena. Competition between joint forces is added to the traditional rivalry between “national” imperialisms: economic groupings struggle among themselves and with individual powers, and conflicts arise within the groupings.

p In the general complex of inter-imperialist contradictions the main antagonism nowadays is between the USA and the European Economic Community. The clashes here are particularly bitter. Next comes the string of contradictions between the USA and Japan. The traditional rivalry between these two powers is currently assuming new qualitative features.

p But more than just economic processes are at work, and this must be recognised if a correct picture is to be drawn of the evolution of inter-imperialist contradictions and their future development. The bitterness of the clash is not necessarily in direct proportion to the powers’ economic standing and potential. A good example is the clashes that have taken place in recent years between the USA and France. The economic forces that the two sides have been able to muster are far from equal. Nowadays politics is playing an increasing role in international contacts. The nature, pace, forms and special features of rivalry and competition between the imperialist states depend largely on politics, both foreign and domestic. The interdependence of foreign and domestic policies and their interaction are today becoming particularly close and complicated, with foreign policy factors sometimes exerting a decisive effect on the course of the inter-imperialist struggle. It is no accident that this struggle is spreading more and more to the sphere of foreign policy and military and political problems, as is reflected by the crisis in NATO and the other military and political blocs.

p The world socialist system exerts an ever growing influence on inter-imperialist contradictions in foreign policy 13 too. The foreign policy of the socialist countries encourages disunity in the imperialist military and political alliances. What is more, political and economic relations with the socialist countries are themselves becoming objects of interimperialist rivalry. Some capitalist groups have an interest in developing these relations, as is predetermined objectively by the evolution of the international division of labour and the world market. Others are against contacts with the socialist countries, and they try to restrain their rivals’ attempts in this direction. In fact, the socialist countries’ foreign policy has caused the bourgeois camp to split into a pacifist section and an aggresive one, a process foreseen by Lenin.

p The radically new character of the correlation of forces now present in the international arena, due primarily to the economic growth and military power of the Soviet Union, has substantially altered the ways in which imperialist contradictions can be resolved. As before, imperialism "is distinguished by a minimum fondness for peace and freedom and by a maximum and universal development of militarism".^^4^^ It also retains its main political feature—".. .reaction evehywhere... .”^^5^^ Nevertheless, it is now unlikely that the main contradiction of the age will be resolved by military means, i.e., in a world war. Imperialism has to co-exist peacefully with the socialist system and confine its aggressive intrigues to outlying areas. As for inter-imperialist antagonisms, the existence of the socialist community also restricts the likelihood of military conflict between the imperialist powers.

p However, imperialist forces are constantly striving to reallocate spheres of influence. The struggle takes many forms, and embraces the whole capitalist world. At the present time intense rivalry between the imperialist powers is centred on the developing countries.

p The disintegration of the colonial system marked the beginning of a momentous process: the former colonial powers became less able to lord it over the countries they once ruled, and they lost the monopoly on deliveries of manufactured goods, machinery and equipment to the newly independent countries. The imperial powers also had to forfeit the monopoly on the import of the raw materials produced by the former colonies, and they were no longer the only countries able to offer them loans, credits and 14 technical know-how. This process affected imperialism as a whole, since the imperialists were no longer in a position to hamper the development of co-operation in these areas of the international division of labour between socialist and newly independent countries. The result is that, on the one hand, there is now the basis for a unified imperialist policy towards the younger states; on the other hand—and this is the main point—the imperialists have to compete ever more bitterly among themselves for the narrowing spheres of influence in the Third World, which remains one of the principal sources of profit for the capitalist states. Here too, then, relations between the imperialist forces are feeling the effects of two tendencies—towards unity and disunity, as they become entangled in clusters of contradictions.

p Class solidarity urges the imperialist powers to unite in the struggle against the further growth of the national liberation movement and the strengthening of the contacts that have been made by the newly independent countries with the socialist community. They hold identical views on the strategy for pushing the Third World along the road of capitalist development. These common aims determine the essence of neo-colonialism and its methods of expansion. At the same time, since the overwhelming majority of new states have remained in the capitalist division of labour and market system and so continue to be subjected to imperialist exploitation, they are the object of fierce competition between the imperialist powers and monopoly groupings.

p The inter-imperialist struggle embraces the former colonial and dependent world for the simple reason that the monopolies still run the key sectors of the developing countries’ economies, and the collapse of the colonial empires has made the new states accessible to the competing imperialist forces. The traditional method of squeezing out rivals by military force is now, of course, unlikely to be used. Yet, despite changes in the methods employed to resolve interimperialist contradictions, they have lost none of their bitterness. The competing capitalist powers are still devising and putting into effect new ways of economically and politically redistributing the former colonial empires.

15

p The developing world covers a vast area, but the continent of Africa has become the imperialist powers’ main battlefield. There are a number of good reasons for this.

p Firstly, the developing world is far from being homogeneous in character. The countries thus classified, and there are more than 100 of them, are all at different levels of socio-economic and political development. Compared with Asia and Latin America, Africa is, on the whole, the most backward continent. Secondly, Africa was the most clearcut embodiment of the colonial system of imperialism: African territories formed part of six colonial empires, and rivalry between the colonialists is deeply rooted in the history of the area. Thirdly, the colonial regimes in Africa were the last to fall. Fourthly, Africa is remarkably well endowed. Its raw material, power and human resources are of considerable interest to the imperialist countries, despite the structural changes that have taken place in the material production of the capitalist world economy. All these factors prompt imperialist expansion in Africa, and, since the interests of the different powers clash, contradictions and conflict result. Since the collapse of the colonial empires the imperialist powers have in fact been trying to carry out a new economic and, to some extent, political redivision of Africa.

p The inter-imperialist struggle in Africa during the postwar period has passed through several quite distinct historical stages, closely connected with the onward march of world events and the development of the national liberation movement. Imperialist rivalry was spurred on during the war years (1939-45). Despite the specific features of the war situation, colonial issues occupied a considerable place in relations between the Western allies, among which were the two main metropolises, Great Britain and France, and their principal opponent, the USA. Each of these powers planned to reshape the postwar world to suit its own monopoly capital. The growth period of the national liberation movement in Africa (1946-60) is marked, on the one hand, by the joint efforts of the imperialist powers to ward off the downfall of colonialism, and, on the other, by the active intervention of the USA and, later, the FRG, Italy and Japan 16 (which had noted the weakness of the European colonialists) in areas that were still undisputably controlled by the former colonial powers.

p From the beginning of the sixties the liberated countries of Africa started to take shape socially and economically. They began to fight for their economic independence and to overcome their economic backwardness. However, they still provided the capitalist world with vital raw materials, a ready market and cheap manpower. The elimination of the political and other barriers with which the former metropolises had walled round their colonial possessions allowed their imperialist competitors a much freer access to the newly independent countries.

p The inter-imperialist contradictions in Africa fall into several main groups, and can be summarised as follows:

p 1. There are economic contradictions between the former metropolises, i.e., Britain, France and Belgium, on the one hand, and other countries of monopoly capital (USA, FRG and Japan) on the other.

p 2. Contradictions exist between the USA, whose expansionist policy is directed mainly at military and political objectives, and the West European countries and Japan, whose interests are largely economic.

p 3. There are contradictions between the European Economic Community (EEC) and the USA, whose position in Africa is being undermined by the expansion of “Eurafrica” association.^^6^^ The inroads of American monopoly capital are being seriously obstructed by the association system.

p 4. The members of the EEC surfer from contradictions between themselves. Particularly acute are those between France, the FRG and Britain.

p 5. Finally, contradictions exist between Japan, which owing to the rapid growth of its economy is trying to gain a firm foothold in Africa, and the countries of Western Europe.

p This categorisation is to some extent arbitrary, since all the contradictions are closely intertwined. In addition, their development frequently involves shifts among the imperialist powers from unity of action (in various combinations) against national liberation forces to bitter clashes and complete disarray.

17

p The imperialist powers are united in their efforts to keep the independent countries of Africa within the sphere of the capitalist mode of production. They are agreed that these countries should remain under the control of an industrially developed capitalist state. But which one? This is the question that causes the rivalry, competition and conflict. The condition laid down by American imperialism for an “agreed” policy vis-d-vis the social, political and economic development of the African countries is the handing over of the leading role to the USA. The minimum claim of the FRG and Japan is for complete parity. The former metropolises are simply trying to retain the right to “regulate” the development of the countries in which they alone held the reins of power not so long ago. In other words, the basic principles underlying the African policies of the imperialist countries are ridden with deep contradictions. The specific interests of the individual states also clash.

p The policies of all the competing imperialist powers are in fact motivated by the same interests, whence the conflict.

p Twenty per cent of Britain’s foreign investments are made in Africa, 12 per cent of its foreign trade is with African countries and 27 per cent of the profits from its "overseas operations" come from there. Nor should it be forgotten that British imperialism’s struggle to retain its position in Africa has political overtones too. Most of Britain’s former African possessions have become its Commonwealth “partners”. This development is regarded as essential to Britain’s retention of its prestige as a great power.

p France has an even larger stake in Africa than Britain. 32 per cent of all French private investment abroad is in the French-speaking countries of Africa. The need to protect the interests of French monopoly capital from its imperialist competitors was a not inconsiderable factor underlying France’s decision to bind its liberated colonies together by a series of agreements on co-operation and to secure associate membership for them in the Common Market. Michel Debre, the former French Minister for National Defence, said on the 25 July 1970: "French-speaking Africa provides almost unlimited scope for a policy of national interests.”^^7^^

p US interests in Africa are also both economic and political. African raw materials are of considerable importance to the 18 American monopolies. The USA obtains from Africa almost 100 per cent of its imported diamonds, lithium materials, beryllium, columbite and cobalt; 25-50 per cent of its imported antimony, chromium, manganese and tantalum; and a considerable quantity of rubber, gold, uranium and oil. The high returns on investment in African countries also attract US private capital. By 1970 direct American capital investment in Africa amounted to almost 3,000 million dollars, but one must bear in mind that the official figures do not show indirect investment (through US participation in European companies). Some American monopolies in Africa are making a 40 per cent return on invested capital, i.e., some 1,000 million dollars annually.

p By extending their political influence to the European powers’ former possessions in Africa, the American ruling circles are attempting to reduce the standing of the old metropolises in the general system of international relations. This tendency follows from the USA’s claim to "world leadership" and from the conviction that only American political influence can protect the young states from " communist infiltration”. There are long-standing political differences between France and the USA. Although considered the USA’s major partner, Britain ceased long ago to be regarded by the USA as a very powerful ally.

p At present the FRG, Japan and Italy are chiefly pursuing economic aims in Africa (though that is not to say that political problems do not come in for incidental attention). West German monopolies are trying to compensate for the lack of raw materials at home, to gain access to minerals that are in short supply and to create a steady outlet for their wares in African countries.

p Over the last few years Japan has sharply increased its trade with Africa and is actively investing private capital, mainly in the continent’s mining and manufacturing industries.

p Italy’s role in Africa is certainly not a leading one, but African countries receive 84 per cent of the total exports of Italian capital to the Third World. In North African markets Italian companies hold their own against French, West German and even US companies.

p The inter-imperialist struggle rages throughout vast areas 19 of Africa. It involves practically all the newly independent African states to varying degrees, but the main centres of rivalry can be pinpointed quite easily.

p Anglo-American contradictions are concentrated in the countries that once made up British Africa. Franco-American contradictions are located in the French-speaking countries. It is these territories that form the major battlefield for the contradictions between the USA and the EEC. In East Africa Britain, already under pressure from the USA, is beginning to face stiffer competition from the FRG and Japan. French, US and West German capital fights for control of North Africa. Finally, the African states which possess valuable mineral deposits are prizes sought by the largest monopoly amalgamations of all the main imperialist powers.

p The relations between the imperialist states involved in Africa are particularly affected by the socialist-orientated countries. The desire to divert these countries from their chosen path of development forces the imperialist powers into some sort of unity, while doing nothing to eliminate the contradictions between them. The methods for resolving them simply vary according to the requirements of the situation. Thus, the imperialists’ internecine struggle for political and ideological influence recedes into the background. But economic competition continues unabated, and the struggle goes on for raw material resources, profitable investment spheres and markets for commodities and services. There are two reasons why the inter-imperialist struggle is being conducted in the socialist-orientated countries. The first is that usually these countries are still dependent on the world capitalist market and foreign capital, with all that that entails. The second is that the capitalist monopolies’ opposition to independent development mainly takes the form of attempts to penetrate the economies of the socialist- orientated countries more thoroughly. This inevitably spurs on competition and rivalry, since the monopolies are all aiming at the same targets, e.g., Algerien oil, Guinean bauxites, etc.

p The socialist system has a profound effect on the contradictions between the imperialist powers in Africa, and the crucial role is that played by the policies of the Soviet Union and other socialist countries. Under the influence of these 20 policies, based on international friendship and co-operation with revolutionary, liberation and anti-imperialist forces on the continent, the international relations of imperialism are undergoing considerable modifications. Gone are the times when monopoly capital expanded into the developing countries and had only its imperialist competitors to contend with: nowadays it must reckon with a world socialist system and its readiness to offer all-round support to liberated countries.

p The peoples of the former colonies and the leaders of the national liberation movements are convinced that the socialist states are their true friends and allies in the struggle against imperialism and neo-colonialism and for social and economic progress. It would seem that in the circumstances only one outcome is possible: under pressure from socialism, the imperialists will seek to consolidate their forces; the presence of a common enemy will oblige them to set their differences aside. But the mechanism of the influence of the policies of the socialist community, and those of the Soviet Union in the first place, on inter-imperialist relations in the developing countries and also the results of this influence turn out to be more complicated and are not always adequately summed up by conventional formulas. Imperialism’s loss of territorial monopoly and the narrowing of its sphere of domination give rise to new contradictions between the capitalist states. Individual interests often prevail over imperialist solidarity.

p The course of events in the capitalist world in recent years has shown that the collapse of the colonial system led to the intensification of the inter-imperialist struggle to re-allocate spheres of influence. The forms of struggle also became considerably more elaborate. Rivalry between the international monopolies is made all the more bitter by imperialism’s loss of key positions in world economy and politics together with the uneven development of the main imperialist powers, the deepening of the financial crisis and the acuteness of the export problem. In this situation inter-imperialist contradictions are spreading further to include the newly independent countries. The struggle rages around these countries’ "reserve markets”, capital investment spheres and sources of strategic raw materials, as well as for political and ideological influence. The nature and dynamics of the development of imperialist contradictions in that part of the world which 21 recently made up the colonial empires can be clearly observed in Africa, where the interests of practically all the imperialist powers clash.

p This book does not claim to deal exhaustively with a subject as complex as the evolution and probable future of the inter-imperialist contradictions in Africa. In the first place, the author has limited the object of study to the interimperialist struggle in the newly independent African countries, and does not touch on the interesting but separate topic of the relations between the imperialist powers in racist, colonial Southern Africa. In the second place, some of the processes examined have not yet fully revealed themselves, while others require far more reliable factual material than has as yet been amassed. Consequently, some points are dealt with in outline only, and the conclusions drawn must be regarded as provisional.

The author wishes to express his deep gratitude to N. N. Inozemtsev, I. P. Belyaev, M. M. Maximova, V. G. Solodovnikov, V. V. Rymalov, V. L. Tyagunenko and all the other specialists whose advice and comments proved so valuable in the writing of this book, and also to O. Y. Ashurov for his assistance in selecting statistical and factual material for Chapter VIII and in preparing that chapter.

22