229

p The central problem in the socio-political life of free Africa is the choice of a path for development and consequently the theoretical search for an ideological basis of socio-political and economic construction. The active process of forming political ideas is taking place in many African countries; Africa is seeing the appearance of new and modified old ideological currents, backed up by broad social strata. These currents represent a curious synthesis of borrowed and local ideas, with the bourgeois ideology of the West exerting a strong influence on the African intelligentsia which is working out the political ideas.

p In this situation imperialism has not only expanded economically and politically in Africa but has also launched a massive ideological offensive, based on anti-communism. The imperialists realise that the collapse of colonial domination has already significantly extended the scope of the world revolutionary process, has undermined the international position of capitalism and has helped to change the international balance of forces in favour of socialism. Equally clear to them is the fact that the national liberation movement has reached new heights and that the forces which oppose not only imperialist domination and the consequences of colonialism, but also capitalism as a social system are consolidating their position. The ideological expansion of imperialism in Africa is, therefore, directed primarily at walling off the young states from the influence of the socialist countries and socialist ideas, perpetuating the bourgeois ideology among the masses and splitting the progressive forces, in order to prevent the national liberation revolutions from developing into socialist revolutions.

p At first glance, imperialism seems to be presenting a united front ideologically. Given the ideological struggle between the two systems and from the viewpoint of imperialism’s global strategy and its ultimate aims, the imperialist powers really are united in this sphere. However, owing to the 230 specific interests of monopoly capital groups from different countries, they are also locked in bitter rivalry over certain aspects of the ideological expansion in the developing countries. A clash is taking place in the methods of ideological persuasion, which is supposed to ensure that the decisive political influence in a liberated country belongs to a particular imperialist state.

p The common ideological strategy of modern neo- colonialism is to convince the African countries that it is necessary and advisable to follow the development pattern of the West. However, by the “West” nearly every imperialist power means primarily “itself”, its own experience of development. Consequently, bitter contradictions arise between them. This can be seen even from the interpretation by bourgeois academics from different states of such fashionable concepts as “interdependence”, “partnership” and "mutual benefit”. Thus, the American sociologists and Africanists G. Roberts, Adolf Berle, Vernon McKay, Rupert Emerson, Walt Rostow and others give a broad interpretation to the concept of “interdependence” and extend it to include the newly independent countries’ relation with the whole capitalist world. At the same time, their European colleagues insist on the inevitable “interdependence” of the African countries and the former metropolises.^^1^^ This theory was expounded, for example, by French sociologists at the international gathering organised at France’s suggestion in the town of Bouake (Ivory Coast) in 1962. A similar viewpoint is held by the Austrian bourgeois publicist Hugo Portisch, who asserts that the fate of the African countries is inseparably linked only with Europe, which built towns, roads and railways in Africa and created the mining industry and farming, "but never ruled over Africa".^^2^^ The British sociologist Brian Crozier maintains that the former British colonies and Great Britain are "eternally interdependent".^^3^^

p When recommending young states to follow the capitalist pattern of economic development, American writers have in mind only the experience of the United States. US policy envisages that the modernisation process may take a number of forms in the young African states, but the vital condition to be observed is American patronage in the most important economic, political and ideological areas. In his book 231 Capitalism and American Leadership Professor Oliver Cox of the University of Lincoln (Nebraska) wrote in 1962 that the ability of the capitalist system to survive economically "depends upon every cubit of colonial and semi-colonial territory" and that "The United States as a consequence of its leadership, sits at the top of an international structure which rests upon a broad base of backward economics".^^4^^ This thesis was widely developed in many subsequent works by apologists of the USA’s leading role in the modernisation of African states and, particularly, in the ideological moulding of their peoples. Originally it was a question of the USA’s wish to merely supplement the waning influence of the former metropolises by her own influence, i.e., to compensate for the European imperialist powers’ "ideological losses" in Africa. But by the end of the sixties there was a strong tendency to promote American ideological supremacy in the liberated countries of Africa. This tendency was also a result of the effect on Washington’s policies of the decisive factor in modern times—the struggle and competition between the two world systems. Relying on the thesis of " resisting communist infiltration”, the USA is trying to convince not only the African peoples but also her West European allies that only the "American version" of bourgeois ideology is capable of halting the spread of socialist ideas in Africa and the growing influence of the Soviet Union and other states of the socialist community.

p The governing circles of the other Western powers do not share this viewpoint. Consequently, the imperialist struggle for "ideological supremacy" in Africa takes the form not of theoretical discussions but of clashes between different practical steps. Without going as far as to create a serious flareup of inter-imperialist contradictions, both Britain and, particularly, France are nevertheless constantly resisting their rival’s pretensions.

p When “granting” independence to the her African colonies, Britain immediately took steps to ensure that she retained control over the young states’ ideology and, consequently, over their mass media. The British ruling circles saw in this an important means of preserving and strengthening British imperialism’s influence and position in the territories of the former empire.

232

p The problem of political influence in Britain’s wish to retain control over the liberated colonies’ ideology is closely bound up with many psychological factors engendered by imperial traditions. As, for example, Ali Mazrui points out, the British have long considered themselves to be the "moral leader" of humanity. "Britons visualise themselves as playing ‘Greeks’ to American ‘Romans’, saving Europe from itself. . . .”^^5^^ It is natural that these pretensions should be primarily disseminated among the peoples of the liberated countries, and especially those in the former British colonies in Africa. However, since the USA has similar pretensions, rivalry has sprung up between the two countries as to which one is to be the “teacher”.

p A number of African academics and political leaders point out that British culture (especially literature) has exerted a considerable influence on the development of political ideas in Africa. To some extent, one can agree with this view. But Britain’s principal means of influencing the liberated peoples is not classical literature at all, but the mass media, and it is in this sphere that the bitterest interimperialist rivalry between the Western countries is taking place.

p In order to ensure control of the propaganda organs in the liberated African countries, the relevant British foundations and newspaper monopolies have taken a number of measures which can be conveniently classified under three headings: the creation of new organs, the seizure of existing ones and the more active use of those in which Britons already had some influence.

p London’s ideological expansion takes on a different colouring according to the specific conditions in each individual African country, the international situation and the current objectives of British policy. But its main purpose is to rehabilitate the colonial policies of the past, to disguise neocolonialism and to strengthen Britain’s political influence. Moreover, as American penetration into former British Africa becomes more intense, the activities of the Londonbased propaganda machinery are taking on a more perceptible anti-American tone.

p France is trying even harder than Britain to retain ideological supremacy in the countries of former French Africa. 233 The British historian Teresa Hayter comments: " Immediately after the independence of the States, the French were mainly concerned to maintain their influence and positions in Africa.”^^6^^

p The first series of measures to this end took the form of the conclusion of a cultural collaboration agreement with each newly independent country. Apart from listing mutual obligations, these agreements put particular emphasis on the "moral and intellectual" solidarity of the African countries with France. They provide for the broad dissemination of French language and culture and, more important, the inculcation of pro-French sentiments and the retention of French influence. The significance of French culture to Africa has been frequently stressed by various French academics and publicists. Thus, the well-known sociologist Alfred Sauvy observed that an analysis of French “aid” to the former colonies reveals that economic and political interests are closely interwoven with cultural interests and that "the motive force of development is not money, as has long been thought, is not capital, but culture.. . .”^^7^^

p It is not, however, possible to agree with some writers’ contention that the earnest dissemination of French culture in the former colonies is almost an end in itself, determined by tradition and historical ties. Paris’s ideological expansion is only a means of attaining political aims and is a weapon in the inter-imperialist struggle. This is supported at least by the fact that the arguments about “collaboration”, “partnership”, etc., produced by the ideologists behind French policy in Africa are constantly permeated by one thought—France alone can and must offer the liberated countries a special, “third” road of development, differing both from the capitalist and socialist paths. The idea was most clearly formulated in 1964 in the report of the Janneney Commission,^^8^^ which was set up on the instructions of the President and whose recommendations formed the basis for all later French "aid and collaboration" policy.

p France’s competitors point out in this connection that, from Paris’s point of view, the "solidarity that ignores overseas cultural boundaries" is more important than West European solidarity, and that, for example, "the contradictions between Great Britain and France . . . result from a 234 foreign policy concept" in which the most important spiritual element is French-language culture.^^9^^

p The French ruling circles have created an extensive mechanism for cultural expansion into Africa. There are 78 cultural centres, about 700 libraries and exhibitions and a host of other propaganda organs functioning in the French-speaking countries of Africa. Their work is supervised by special cultural advisers. Radio propaganda and the press receive considerable attention. The commission for collaboration in French-language broadcasting is in constant touch with local radio stations, designs programmes for them and provides equipment.

p France is ahead of all the other Western powers in the number of periodicals devoted to Africa. About 30 different journals dealing with African affairs and French policy in the continent are published in Paris alone. In addition, some 35 newspapers and other publications that appear in the African countries themselves are controlled from Paris. France accounts for over one-third of the Western countries’ total expenditure on propaganda and cultural activities in Africa.

p In recent years the concept of “Francophonia”, referred to above,- :has come to occupy a prominent place among the measures designed to ensure French cultural influence in Africa. President Senghor of Senegal defined “ Francophonia” in the following terms: "It is a way of thinking and acting: a way of posing problems and seeking solutions to them.... In brief, apart from the French language and civilisation, Francophonia is, more precisely, the spirit of that civilisation, i.e., French Culture.”^^10^^ But the main task of “Francophonia” is, as Leopold Senghor interprets it, to see that a community of French-speaking countries blocks the penetration of American influence in Africa and helps to maintain the French "cultural presence”.

p The idea of “Francophonia” is also given a material embodiment. A conference held at Niamey in February 1969 examined a plan for setting up in the French-speaking countries an agency for cultural and technical assistance with an annual budget of 30 million francs. The West German journal Afrika heute estimates that there are already 74 “Francophonia” institutes of various kinds (associations, 235 societies, foundations, centres, etc.). Thus, the journal goes on to say, France "has a foreign policy vehicle that is not available to other countries" and is righting against her competitors with her own "weapons system".^^11^^ The idea evokes resistance from France’s imperialist rivals. They see it as a renunciation of collective strategy and as a tendency to put the slogan "Africa for the French" into practice.

p Facts show that, together with the export of capital, ideological measures have recently become one of the main instruments of American expansion into Africa. In the midsixties US Government circles had already reached the conclusion that, in view of their political goals, economic “aid” alone to the African countries was not achieving the desired results. The benefits were not living up to expectations. Consequently, Americans were becoming increasingly disillusioned with the conduct of a number of African nations. The policy review swung in favour of cutting down on the volume of economic “aid” and transferring the money to the ideological sphere. The first official signal of these changes was given in a speech made by President Johnson in May 1966 to African ambassadors in Washington. Later the main principles of the USA’s "new approach" to Africa were formulated, on White House instructions, by Edward Korry, the former US Ambassador to Ethiopia, in the document that became known as the "Korry Report”. Essentially, the document calls for maximal returns on minimal outlays. The conclusion of the need for an all-out expansion of the ideological campaign as the most effective means of penetrating the African continent is also contained in more recent American documents on Africa, as, for example, in US Secretary of State William Rogers’ report The USA and Africa in the Seventies.

p In order to mount the ideological assault on Africa, an extensive network of organisations has been set up in the USA and is constantly enlarged and modified in accordance with the changing situation in Africa. The system includes not only specialised services like the US Information Agency and the "Peace Corps”, for example, but also numerous private organisations and foundations, as well as practically all the institutions in the country which have any connection with foreign policy.

236

p At the International Meeting of Communist and Workers’ Parties held in Moscow in June 1969 Leonid Brezhnev, the General Secretary of the CC CPSU, pointed out that today "imperialism cannot count on success if it openly proclaims its true aims. It is obliged to create a whole system of ideological myths which cloak the real nature of its intentions and undermine the peoples’ vigilance".^^12^^ Among the new myths created by American propaganda for African consumption there are some which are not only blatantly anticommunist in content but also serve aims in the inter- imperialist struggle and assert the USA’s hegemony in ideology and politics. Thus, there is constant reiteration of the thesis that the USA is the “centre” of modern civilisation and is "the world’s moral leader”, although in the eyes of the liberated countries Britain, the FRG and France lay claim to the same role. It is impressed upon the peoples of the European powers’ former colonies that only America is capable of understanding their current needs and long-term objectives. At the same time, American propaganda assumes the undisputed right to interpret and explain the processes that are taking place in the liberated countries, and even the essence of decolonisation. As for the “methodological” basis of the USA’s ideological intrusion into the zones of influence of her European allies, the course steered recently was towards “positivism”—the demonstration of the “selfless” interest that America, unlike the former colonialists, had in the destiny of the liberated countries and her willingness to offer them her assistance in overcoming the disasters of the colonial period. In this way, the USA is offering the African peoples an "American alternative" to the West European thesis of "interdependent evolution”.

p These tactics found their most complete embodiment in the American version of the "third road" for African countries that was advanced in the face of the similar French and British concepts. The concepts sound identical, but differ substantially as to who will guide the developing countries along the so-called "third road”. Joseph Slater, the former US Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for Cultural Affairs and later one of the Directors of the Ford Foundation, declares, for example, that the less-developed countries ”. . . are 237 not likely to travel the road along which the Western industrialised nations moved into the twentieth century”. Therefore, American ideologists offer a different version— the USA must "provide a third road, along which the lessdeveloped countries can move forward. . . ."^^13^^ This is all the more “natural”, since, as Edward Murrow, the former Director of USIA, puts it, America is not worried by change, she has no wish to perpetuate the status quo and she has always had a bent for change and revolution.^^14^^

p Apart from treating Africa to information that demonstrates the USA’s “interest” in “modernising” the liberated countries and advertises the American prescription for their development, the USA is making a determined effort to implant American culture there. In this field too Washington is encountering the opposition of the former metropolises. Ali Mazrui declares: "This cultural onslaught is not being accepted entirely without resistance. It has given rise to a special form of cultural anti-Americanism, particularly marked among the populations of America’s own allies in Western Europe.”^^15^^ The USA’s "cultural onslaught" on Africa serves political aims and is an important means of poisoning the masses ideologically and spiritually.

p While propaganda involving concepts for “development” and other theoretical formulations is directed mainly at the governing circles in African countries, the cultural methods are designated for the ordinary African. This method accords fully with the American doctrine of "the battle for men’s minds”. Victory in this battle, in the view of its creators, holds out the promise of political hegemony. Further development of this theme can be iound in the works of many American imperialist ideologists. Thus, for example, Sargent Shriver, the former Director of the "Peace Corps”, wrote: "The source of any political process is in the minds and hearts of people. It is in the towns and villages, on farms and in factories, in unions and in schools, wherever people live and work and talk and learn, that world politics begins.”^^16^^ But the USA is not alone in trying to find the way to the "minds and hearts" of the Africans. Britain, France and the FRG are making efforts in this 238 direction that are just as determined, and this produces rivalry and struggle.

p The geography of the USA’s ideological expansion into Africa shows that the brunt of the invasion is being borne by those countries which are of greatest interest to the former metropolises and where the latter have a considerable opportunity for ideological persuasion. Thus, the vanguard of US ideological sabotage, the Information Agency, had 70 information centres in Africa in 1969, but most of them, and the largest of them, were located in Kenya, Nigeria, Uganda, Ghana, Morocco and Zaire. In Accra the USIA publishes a monthly magazine, American Outlook, with a circulation of over 100,000; a similar magazine, Perspectives Americaines, is produced in French in Kinshasa; in Nigeria and Uganda a branch of the USIA prints periodicals and pamphlets, which are sent out to various institutions and individuals, and so on. In addition, in Nigeria a magazine called Nigerian American Quarterly is published specially for students, and in Uganda a Uganda-American Cultural Association has even been set up. The USIA’s main “ allAfrica” publications—the magazines Topic, Ebony and Dialogue—are also mainly distributed in those countries where there is no shortage of their British and French counterparts.

p Speaking in 1963 before the Subcommittee on Africa of the Committee on Foreign Affairs of the US Congress’s House of Representatives, Edward Murrow, then Director of the USIA, gave the following formulation of the main aims of the USIA in Africa:^^17^^

p —to depict the United States as a country which looked with particular sympathy and understanding on the problems confronting the Africans; 

p —to present the Africans with a favourable picture of the progress and achievements made by Negroes in the USA and to remind Africa that 20 million American citizens were Negroes; and 

p —to represent the American experience of social development as being the most suitable for Africa, under the slogan, moreover, of "in our mutual undertakings we are the children of similar revolutions”.

p It is not difficult to see that purely American interests 239 lurk behind these aims of the USIA, and some points are deliberately designed to undermine the influence in Africa of the USA’s European allies.

p One of the USIA’s main instruments is the Voice of America radio station, which broadcasts in English, French and many African languages, giving African countries 120 hours of programmes every week. According to the directors of this service, the broadcasts of the Voice of America are intended to become a vital ingredient of the Africans’ spiritual life, i.e., to ensure the USA’s ideological leadership.

p Bitter rivalry between the imperialist competitors can be seen in the field of African television. Britain and France are ahead of the USA in organising television stations in a number of African countries, but in recent years American television has been invading the continent with ever greater vigour and using the latest technical advances.

p The International Telecommunications Satellite Consortium (INTELSAT) was set up at an international conference in Washington in 1964. Its members now include 14 African countries. The influence of the USA predominates in the consortium, since 53 per cent of the capital and over half the votes are in the hands of the American Communications Satellite Corporation (COMSAT).

p The USA attaches great importance to communications satellites in activating her ideological expansion in Africa. A special African section was even created within COMSAT. In order to attract African countries into INTELSAT, the Americans drastically reduced membership dues for them. Considerable cuts have also been made in the cost of organising receiving stations in Africa to link up with the Atlantic-2 satellite. In 1969 stations were established in the Ivory Coast, Morocco, Nigeria and Senegal; in 1970—in Cameroun, Kenya, Ethiopia and the Sudan. Stations were built in Zambia (1971) and in Algeria (1972).

p A significant role in establishing the USA’s ideological supremacy in Africa is played by private charitable foundations, all the more so since her European rivals do not possess such powerful foreign policy instruments. Making use of their enormous funds and the support of US Government agencies, the foundations’ emissaries are hard at work in a number of African countries.

240

p The Ford Foundation made its African debut in 1951. Since then 10 million dollars has been allocated annually for various "African programmes”. The bulk of the funds was spent on training the young African states’ administrative personnel and especially their top civil servants. The Foundation’s 196’7 report declared that high priority was given to the training of officials and students capable of government service.^^18^^

p The Ford Foundation has frequently offered direct opposition to the measures taken by the former metropolises. Thus, the Commonwealth Foundation, set up in the midsixties with British Government backing, intended to offer financial assistance to Nigeria for the construction of an agricultural institute in Ibadan. Using its considerably broader financial resources, the Ford Foundation seized the initiative, and in the end the institute was built with American allocations.

p Typically enough, the Ford Foundation concentrates on the English-speaking countries of Africa, ".. .while its activities in African countries closely associated with France are on a very small scale. .. ,"^^19^^ This is explained by the fact that the French are putting up stiffer resistance to the Foundation’s activities than the British, which is taken into account by the American “benefactors”.

p All the measures taken by the Ford Foundation in Africa appear outwardly to be charitable, but they are pursuing purely political objectives. The carrying out of every project is accompanied by a propaganda campaign stressing the “selflessness” of US policy, the high level of US development, her scientific and technological superiority, and so on. The head of the Foundation’s Africa Section is Fredericks Wayne, an experienced diplomat who from 1961 to 1967 held the post of Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for African Affairs.

p The Ford Foundation’s expansion in Africa has grown both broader and deeper in recent years. Its programmes are beginning to involve the most varied strata of the population. The 1969 annual report on the Ford Foundation’s activities in Africa states that the Foundation is gradually changing its priorities in the granting of aid. In many countries support was originally given to the main 241 educational institutes and for the consolidation of the still inexperienced administrative services. Now the Foundation is extending aid to social development at a more complex stage.^^20^^

p It is symptomatic that among the countries whose "social development" is of primary interest to the Foundation we find precisely those African states that were selected by the USA and classified as being “key” countries: Nigeria, Ghana, Kenya, Ethiopia, Ivory Coast, Liberia and Zaire.

p The political orientation of the Foundation’s activities is clearly exemplified by its attitude to Ghana. While Nkrumah was in office, the Foundation ignored Ghana, although it encountered no resistance from the Ghanaian authorities; but the coup of 1966 was marked by a massive inflow of Foundation money into the country. The programmes financed are noteworthy: the salaries of American advisers in a number of Ghanaian ministries and assistance to the University of Ghana’s School of Administration, to name but two.

p The influence of other US monopoly capital foundations is also growing in the English-speaking countries of Africa. Thus, the Rockefeller Foundation spends about 2 million dollars in these countries every year. It has, for example, been giving financial “aid” for several years now to various colleges and the University of East Africa in Uganda. The Foundation’s specialists are working in many educational establishments. The Carnegie Corporation first took notice of Africa in 1927. Now it provides funds (some 800,000 dollars annually) mainly for the same purposes as the other two foundations.

p An important part in the brainwashing of Africans is played by American missions. Rupert Emerson mentions that "Politically the missions have been attacked ... accused ... of having a large share of responsibility for stirring up nationalist disaffection. . . .”^^21^^ Clearly, there is some reason for these accusations by the former metropolises. American religious organisations have amassed a great deal of experience of work in Africa, and after most African countries had attained independence, their activities in them increased considerably. Catholic and Protestant 242 organisations publish magazines in Africa and even have radio stations at their disposal.

p The main task of American missionaries in Africa is to fight communism. But their activities are also directed against the USA’s European competitors, whose policies in Africa are gradually discredited by the American missionaries. They preach the USA’s non-participation in colonialism, unlike the European powers, her “philanthropy”, “understanding” of the African soul, and so on.

p In recent years, adapting their activities to the demands of the times, American missionary groups in Africa have also been participating in carrying out various agricultural projects, have pioneered the founding of co-operatives and have financed the building of roads, various workshops and so on.

p The Church’s intrusion into this purely temporal sphere is also officially explained by the requirements of the struggle against communism. In his book Christianity and the New Africa the well-known churchman Thomas Beetham writes that only by helping to solve Africa’s basic problems is it possible to eliminate the conditions which make communist ideology attractive to the Africans.^^22^^ In practice, however, this “help” has another side. Making use of the fact that rural areas in most African countries are generally far removed from political and social life and that their populations have often not even heard the word “ communism” yet have a perfect grasp of the idea "British or French colonialist”, the missionaries openly indulge in proAmerican propaganda among the local people and do their utmost to contrast the USA with the former metropolises.

p Paying tribute in his book to the activities of the American Church in Africa, the former ambassador William Attwood recalls how during his trip through Guinea the missionaries working there told him proudly that as a result of their sermons ”. . . the people in their area were finally saying nice things about America. . . .”^^23^^

Naturally, one should not attribute too much importance to the rivalry between the imperialist powers over their ideological influence on the liberated countries. Ultimately, they have a common strategic aim, determined by the struggle between the two world systems. But, at the same 243 time, the analysis and consideration of inter-imperialist competition in this sphere, the nature of the conflict between methods of ideological expansion that are aimed at strengthening the political influence of the “national” imperialism in a particular liberated country can help progressive forces to select the most effective counter-measures and to work out an anti-imperialist counter-strategy.