By Morris Odhiambo
March 7, 2025, 9.30hours EAT, Nairobi Kenya.
The collapse of the French neo-colonial Empire in West Africa is something that ought to be celebrated by all Africans. It is a historical event with significant implications for African agency in international politics.
Above all, the right lessons must be learned from this historical happening so as to guide the future.
However, at the same time, there is need to entertain a doze of reality. The historical events taking place today in the Sahel and West African region may appear to be revolutionary; but imperial control is pervasive.
What are the differences between French neo-colonialism and, say, British neo-colonialism? Is there any difference in substance or is it just form? In any case, has French neo-colonialism in West Africa collapsed or merely changed its form?
The purpose of this article is to raise these and other questions that are important for scholars, activists, journalists and other observers of the events in West Africa.
My AI overview on the google drive defines neo-colonialism as follows:
“Within the context of the African Union, "neo-colonialism" refers to the continued indirect control of African nations by former colonial powers, even after gaining political independence, often through economic manipulation, political influence, and cultural dominance, effectively maintaining a system of exploitation despite the appearance of sovereignty; essentially, the continuation of colonial dynamics under a different guise.”
Kwame Nkrumah, one of the most iconic figures in the Panafricanist movement in the early 1960’s described the actual practice of neo-colonialism in the following terms in “Neo-colonialism: The Last Stage of Imperialism”:
“The essence of neo-colonialism is that the State, which is subject to it is, in theory, independent and has all the outward trappings of international sovereignty. In reality, its economic system and thus its political policy is directed from outside.” Kwame Nkrumah
Neo-colonialism comes in different forms and guises all underscoring the primacy of the interests of former colonial masters and the commercial interests of multinational corporations that are resident in the developed countries. According to Nkrumah:
“Where neo-colonialism exists the power exercising control is often the State, which formerly ruled the territory in question, but this is not necessarily so. For example, in the case of South Vietnam the former imperial power was France, but neo-colonial control of the State has now gone to the United States.”
He went on to clarify as follows:
“It is possible that neo-colonial control may be exercised by a consortium of financial interests, which are not specifically identifiable with any particular State. The control of the Congo (now, Democratic Republic of Congo - DRC) by great international concerns is a case in point.”
In explaining why neo-colonialism became a necessary policy (a matter of life and death, in fact) for the colonial powers, Nkrumah said the following:
“Neo-colonialism, like colonialism, is an attempt to export the social conflicts of the capitalist countries… The problem, which faced the wealthy nations of the world at the end of the Second World War was the impossibility of returning to the pre-war situation in which there was a great gulf between the few rich and the many poor.”
He went on to clarify this particular point as follows:
“Irrespective of what particular political party was in power, the internal pressures in the rich countries of the world were such that no post-war capitalist country could survive unless it became a “Welfare State”.
There might be differences in degree in the extent of the social benefits given to the industrial and agricultural workers, but what was everywhere impossible was a return to the mass unemployment and to the low level of living of the pre-war years.”
It is today widely acknowledged that Nkrumah’s overthrow from power after several assassination attempts was associated with the publication of the “Neo-colonialism: The Last Stage of Imperialism” modeled, as it were along the same critical structural analysis of international economic relations by Vladimir Ilyich Lenin.
Lenin published “Imperialism: The Highest Stage of Capitalism” in which he offered a stinging critique of imperialism in 1916 in the context of the then rapidly globalising world of capital, just 32 years after the Berlin Conference of 1884/5 which partitioned the African continent, unleashing almost 100 years of territorial colonisation.
Fast forward to the 21st Century and the current international context.
The Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC) is the best illustration in Africa, today, of the long lasting impacts of Africa’s contact with world imperialism. It is widely acknowledged that more than 6 million Congolese have died in the wars in the DRC since 1996.
I have described the genocide in the DRC as the world’s longest running genocide. Its victims are African peasants caught up in a mad rush for the country’s mineral resources.
Just as Nkrumah had described, DRC is controlled by a conglomeration of commercial interests: foreign governments, a slew of multinational corporations and neighbouring states that are crucial in sustaining the pervasively destructive and genocidal imperial control.
As noted more recently by Daniel Tetteh Osabu-Kle in, “African Blood for Imperial Interests: The First and Second Scrambles for Africa”:
“Indeed, because imperialism has both political and economic motives, it becomes the political prerequisite for the expansion of capitalism and simultaneously capitalism becomes the economic aspect of imperialism.”
It is a historical fact that imperialism and (monopoly) capitalism are two sides of the same coin.
What has this got to do with the French and the events taking place in the Sahel?
Even though not different from other expressions of neo-colonialism, French neo-colonialism has been the most pervasive and destructive of African agency.
In this article “Africa: How France Continues to Dominate its Former Colonies in Africa, Ndongo Samba Sylla (et al) diagnoses the workings of the system imposed by France on its former colonies in Africa. They note as follows:
For former French colonies, “it was independence on the condition of signing “cooperation agreements.” The idea was to create new republics with limited autonomy under the tutelage of France – all sovereign commands would be exercised by Paris.
They go on, “When Guinea decided to issue its own national currency in 1960, France organised a sabotage operation to destabilise the new country, sending its service secret agents, flooding the economy with false banknotes, and disrupting everything.
This sent a clear message to other countries: “If you want to go down that road, you know what happens. From then on, this has been more or less the story of African leadership: if you want to stay in power, you have to be on good terms with France.”
Two significant events have taken place in the Sahel that invite deeper reflection on the situation of the African continent and its people.
The first is the kicking out of French military bases in Mali, Burkina Faso, Benin, Chad, Senegal and Ivory Coast.
This is a significant step in rolling back the system of military control imposed by President Charles de Gaulle in the 1960s in his construction of France as a global power.
The second is the formation by Mali, Burkina Faso and Niger (all under military rule) of the Confederation of Sahel States (Alliance of Sahel States; acronym – AES) after breaking away from the Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS).
ECOWAS is one of the Regional Economic Communities recognised by the African Union in the construction of the African Economic Community under the Abuja Treaty and the Lagos Plan of Action.
Part of the reason that forced Mali, Burkina Faso and Niger to break away from ECOWAS was their perception of ECOWAS as a bulwark of French imperialism in the West African region.
This reinforces my own position that Africa’s regional and continental integration processes are largely driven by external commercial interests and based on a neo-liberal framework.
Neo-liberalism (or neo-liberal globalisation) reinforces imperialism.
The key enabler of this reality is, conversely and paradoxically, the commercial interests of Africa’s elites and ruling classes.
It is the commercial and social intermarriages between the ruling elites in Africa and global capital and its own system of social privileges that makes it difficult to break the chains of economic domination.
But questions linger on the ability of the AES countries to sustain their formation without patronage from abroad. Most sources claim that the three are now embedded in security relationships with Russia, Iran, Turkey and other interests.
The broader question, essentially, is whether African states can form anti-imperialist regional entities as well as a continental outfit that seeks to safeguard the welfare of the African people.
Another important question is whether African states can use the elaborate security infrastructure under the African Peace and Security Architecture (APSA).
Pan-africanism, both in theory and practice, has to be tempered with the reality of security threats posed by foreign military bases in Africa to the people of Africa (not the ruling elites).
Global Affairs, an online resource on Africa’s security in the international context noted as follows early 2024:
“Djibouti has emerged as the hub of rivalry between foreign nations to build airstrips, training camps, ports, bases, and logistics centres as well as naval forces, attracting international funds and investments.
Resulting in being the only place in the world with at least 8 foreign bases coming from countries like the United States, China, Japan, France, Italy, etc.”
The main irony is that Africa’s ruling classes do not perceive the construction of foreign military bases as a threat. Ultimately, this is because they see their own economic fortunes to be sustained by these relationships of imperial control.
To make the irony even more poignant, during the fight against colonialism, the nationalist elites then invested their blood to bring territorial control to an end.
But today, African elites live comfortably, side by side, with foreign military bases capable of toppling them from power!
In a historical sense, I compare this with the forced migration of African labour to the West in the era of slave trade in contrast to today’s situation in which young Africans are dying, literally, to get to the West! And African ruling elites are actually encouraging such labour migration!
In Kenya, recently, the Minister for Labour constructed a Model Saudi House to “provide job recruits with a unique opportunity to familiarise themselves with Arabian culture and home ambience, ensuring they adapt more easily to their new work environment.”
This happened in a context where the Government of Kenya, through the foreign ministry, has acknowledged that at least 89 Kenyan domestic workers were killed in Saudi Arabia between 2020 and 2021.
At the same time, a recent report by the United Nations Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD) notes that brain drain in Kenya’s key sectors is one of the major setbacks to development of human capital necessary to facilitate economic progress.
Maybe, for now, the most significant achievement of the Confederation of Sahel States is to initiate a debate on the situation of African states and whether it is possible to break free of neo-colonial domination by leveraging continental integration based on principles of anti-imperialism. But, is the debate happening?!
Morris Odhiambo is a scholar, journalist, writer, consultant and social rights defender. He is the founding Vice-Chairman and a member of the Diplomacy Scholars Association of Kenya (DIPSAK).
Email: odhotiato@gmail.com
