The War in the Congo and in Central Africa and imperialist globalisation

Ludo Martens WPBelgium

Report presented at the International Communist Seminar, May 2^nd - 4^th 2001

In January 1999, the aggressors and rebels prepare a huge offensive in Kasai and Katanga. They are determined to capture Mbuji Mayi whatever the cost, since the diamonds will give them the necessary means to lead the war to Kinshasa. A large part of the American establishment still thinks that Kabila can be militarily overthrown.

But at the same time the Americans engaged themselves in a parallel political "pacific" offensive in the Congolese Capital.

In fact, the US wants to impose political and economic changes on Congo, which would reduce the country to a neo-colonial state.

But this sole objective is obstinately pursued in 2 different ways. On the one hand they continue to support the aggressors to achieve a military victory, on the other hand they mobilise the "civil society" and the opposition parties to achieve this goal in a "pacific" way. In fact, the pro-Western groups and the opposition parties play a double role: assist the aggressors (thus the US) to win through weakening the resistance by organising "campaigns for peace and capitulation" and to prepare an anti-nationalist alliance that could overthrow the nationalist regime with political means, if it wouldn't work out with military means.

In Kinshasa, some friends gave me a leaflet of the AMOS group, published on Dec 7, 1998. Title: "Call for peace and active non-violence" One can read a charge full of hatred against the people who dared to defend themselves against the rebels and aggressors from 25-28 August in Kinshasa. Next, an attack on Zimbabwe and Angola who helped the Congolese people. AMOS emphasises that it is necessary to negotiate with their "rebel brothers" whom we have to "love". Some extracts: "The period of the war in Kinshasa reveals a Congolese people at the same time innocent victims and miserable authors of violence. Far from bringing us peace, the implication of several military allies is worrying because their interests don't coincide necessarily with those of the people. The AMOS group is convinced that the road to peace passes through negotiations with all the actors of this war: the government, the neighbouring countries and the rebel brothers, which will favourite the reestablishment of peace and a state of law in the DRC, according the scheme of the CNS. We oppose ourselves to hatred and revenge, the love of the enemy."

The partisans of the neo-colonial CNS maintain that Kabila is a "dictator" and that he has to liberate "political prisoners". This leaflet proves the contrary. Kabila should imprison all the agents of the American-Ugandan-Rwandan aggression, who fabricate writings of this kind. How many tens of thousands of Congolese will perish under this barbaric aggression, which continues thanks to the demoralisation organised by these leaflets?

The Jérémie group assembles Congolese NGO's and Christian inspired movements. One of the animators, the Jesuit Rigobert Minani was on 21 Jan 99 in Rome as part of a campaign to "obtain a pacific solution" on the war. He passed through Belgium and would go to Switzerland and Canada; other members of his group will go and try to sell their "agenda for peace" in France, the US and Germany. Who is paying for all these travels, the hotel receipts?

Resuming the position of the American State Department, Minani declared: "We agree with the rebellion on the fact that we need a stronger democracy in Congo and we agree with Kabila to keep the territorial sovereignty of the country." This "stronger democracy"; the population in the east experienced more than flesh and blood can bear what it means: 2.800.000 deaths after 33 months of "rebel" power. ..

At the same era, Canada created a "Decentralised Fund for Democratic Development" in Congo. It enables to materialise "rapid and flexible interventions" in the form of small projects of 10.000-20.000 dollars. The preference goes to 4 sectors of which the first two are the development of democracy and the peaceful resolution of conflicts. In other words, in the actual context: make propaganda for a neo-colonial democracy and preach the capitulation to the Rwandan-Ugandan aggression. Obviously, with blows of 10.000 dollars, Canada recruits groups of intellectuals who are ready to serve the subversion.

On 21-22 Jan 99, a delegation of the Congolese civil society went to the US. The International Human Rights Law Group financed the trip of Hamuli Kabarhuza (CNONGD), Jeanine Mukanirwa, (PAIF Goma), Thierry Nlandu (AMOS group) and Jean Pierre Badidike (Justice and Liberation Group) to Washington.

This delegation declared that the Congolese civil society met recently in Antwerp and agreed on 2 points which we want to comment.

"The Congolese people opposes to war: the military victory of one or the other won't resolve the problems in our country." In clear, these four representatives of the Civil Society oppose the efforts of the Congolese army and the resistance in the occupied territories to chase the aggressors.

Next: "One has to respect the human rights. The two camps commit violations and we have to mobilise the partners and the international governments to support the human rights an put pressure on the two camps." This disgraceful declaration is only made to please the American authorities. To treat the massacres, killings and assassinations committed by the aggressors in the occupied territory and the mistakes, without doubt committed by the national government, on an equal footing is an genuine insult to the Congolese people. To want to "mobilise" the imperialist governments to intervene politically and put pressure on the government is to betray the nationalist cause, because it are exactly these governments who support the aggressors.

The delegation had two meetings in the USAID offices, where they met Tony Gambino, the chief of the Great Lakes Region. They had a meeting with two directors of the National Security Council, Robin Sanders and John Prendergast, responsible for central Africa and East Africa. At the State Department they've discussed with the director for central Africa, Roger Meece and the responsible for Congo, Don Koran. According to the delegation these meetings were "very successful" and the American authorities "showed a lot of interest in the perspectives of the civil society, as one of them said: "We don't trust Kabila, nor the rebels; therefore your opinion and the work you want to do is essential". When American authorities, who are ready to kill millions of Congolese to put their hands on the wealth of the sub-soil, say that your work is "essential", then you should know in who's interests you are working in reality.

In Zimbabwe, the Americans and Britons finance, since long, groups of "the civil society": NGO's linked to the West, churches and sects supported by the US, human rights organisations, student groups, unions, 'independent' newspapers etc. From seminars to study trips abroad, the elite of these organisations fill themselves with the "democracy" ideology, which the masters of the world gulp down in them. What's the use of this "formation" work and philanthropy?

The war in Congo reveals this.

Blind in front of the conquest plans for Africa developed by their American "mentors", incapable to see in which disasters the imperialism plunges central and southern Africa , the nice people of the "civil society" transform themselves in active agents of neo-colonialism. Like the economists in the workers movements , they are blinded by the little immediate interests and forget the perspectives of the whole. They say that Zimbabwe already has enough problems, the economy isn't going well, the cost of living increases and it's a crime to "waste" money on a war, far away in Congo, not even concerning Zimbabwe. And they mobilise themselves for the withdrawal of the troops from Congo. They become accomplices of American imperialism and of its plans to re-colonise Africa on economic, political and military level.

The "civil society" launches itself in genuine provocation's. The Standard, a private weekly, on 11 Jan 99 pretended that 23 Zimbabwe military were arrested on 17 Dec for attempting a coup d'état. The newspaper emphasises that several superior officers are implicated, among which one colonel and one minister. But they haven't been interrogated fearing it would provoke chaos. The Standard writes that the moral of the troops is very low, that most of the soldiers don't want to risk their life in Congo, that the army is divided on a regional and tribal basis and that recently, soldiers have refused to fight, a week long. The superior officers have become businessmen who only think of that in stead of the army.

That's the kind of literature a country in war can expect from a hostile press. The article clearly has the intention to stir up part of the population against the measures the government estimates vital for the independence and sovereignty of Congo, Zimbabwe and the whole of central Africa. When the US and Great Britain were fighting against the fascist powers, they took more drastic measures against any person who led a subversive agitation.

The Zimbabwean Minister of Defence, Mahachi, reacted by declaring: "This story has no foundation. These allegations fall under betrayal. This type of journalists are not different from the rebels we fight against". "These unscrupulous media are corrupt, liars, eager to make money at any cost, like mercenaries who have the intention to kill with their pen. The government might be obliged to take necessary measures to protect the people, the military and the right to know the truth."

The secretary of Information, the comrade Willard Chiwewe, made certain relevant declarations concerning the local private press and the "grand" international press. He evoked the globalisation of lies by talking of the "neo-colonial war in which information is a lethal missile." This is his intervention: "The information about Zimbabwe is fabricated and manipulated, to change it in a mortal weapon for our destruction. The targeted victims for this attack: our sense of pride and confidence as a nation, the governments and the citizens of this country. They already see Zimbabwe under a new puppet government, which will serve the interests of the foreigners to the detriment of its own citizens The land policy was the fundamental cause for this attack. Our government has said: 'the land to the people', and we have noted that every national government which defends the ownership of land, becomes an enemy. The existence of a government with a strong nationalist character, was the main obstacle for the re-colonisation of this country. As a consequence, its elimination will become an obsession for those who want to loot the richness of Zimbabwe The Ministry of Information has the mandate to direct the nation's defence against blackmail, falsification and misinformation. We need every authentic Zimbabwean to join the crusade against the neo-colonial war in which the information is a lethal missile and the information technology is the carrier of this explosive load."

In Zimbabwe as in Congo we encounter an important aspect of the imperialist globalisation. The Western bourgeoisie exploits and ruins African countries, then she makes generous financial and material gifts to some thousands individuals and puts them at the head of NGO's, churches and "free press". And all these people become the civil society. They get the necessary means which enables to gain influence among the masses. In these countries where imperialism makes every kind of development impossible, these corrupt men of the "civil society" become the spokesmen of "development" and "liberty". In crucial moments for the future of the country, these nationals become actors of the globalisation of lies: they help imperialism to diffuse lies and create a political climate in which the imperialist counter-revolution can strike. That's how Laurent Desiré Kabila and Mugabe became "dictators", "exploiters of the people", a fate that Lumumba and Nkrumah already suffered before

Imperialist globalisation is the liquidation of the democratic principles who manage the international relations since the historic victory of the Soviet Union and the oppressed people over global fascism. Those principles have been "snatched" from imperialism through more than a century of revolutionary struggle by the whole world: remember that the colonised countries simply didn't exist as independent subjects before the years 45-60 and that the Soviet Union wasn't recognised by "democratic" countries, as the US, until 1933! Today imperialism claims again, under whatever pretext, the right and even the "task" to intervene in the domestic affairs of independent countries, as it were colonies or territories under tutelage.

Imperialism has in fact, buried the UN Charter, which is kind of an "International Constitution", stipulating the democratic principles which have to be applied by all the countries of the world, if it wants to avoid the barbarism of international wars. Humanity has suffered this barbarism in all its horrors during the second world war, provoked by fascist imperialist powers. It's the Soviet Union, great victor in the anti-fascist war, who imposed democratic principles in the UN Charter. Imperialism has, by the way, never accepted them willingly, it's the balance of the international powers that obliged imperialism to submit in certain cases.

Breaking the democratic rules on international level is plunging millions of people into death. And that's exactly what the imperialists do since the victory of their "democracy" over the socialist countries. This destruction of the fundamental rules of democracy on international level, is done in the name of "the democracy" the Americans want to install in different independent countries. Saddam Hussein was "a dictator" and it's in the name of "democracy" that the Americans and their allies have killed already 1.500.000 Iraqis. Kabila was "a dictator" and its in the name of "democracy" that the Americans pushed the Rwandans and Ugandans to aggression in Congo?. A war that already cost the lives of

more than 3.250.000 Congolese, this 1 May 2001. This is the genocidal democracy.

And they are so pitiful, these American puppets as Tshisekedi and someone like Olengankoy, who only have the word "democracy" on their tongue, but who were and who stayed accomplices with the aggressors from the first day, up till today. Only the aggression has been able to impose the Lusaka Accords and only the maintaining of the occupation gives them the hope that they can impose themselves during the Inter-Congolese Dialogue and overthrow Kabila. In name of the democracy and of 3.250.000 deaths?. Of which "democracy" can these so-called "democratic" opposition politicians who let violate the independence and the sovereignty of their country? Who applauded the attempts to put Congo under tutelage? It is of good manners to praise the neo-colonial democracy within all the Congolese circles who think that Congo's salvation will come from the "assistance" of the West. And these persons originate from a country that knew slavery exploitation, imposed by the West during three and a half centuries, the ferocious colonial power organised by Belgium, during 85 years and the neo-colonial dictatorship of Mobutu, Tshombe, Adoula and others, during 37 years! One only has to realise that the entire Congolese policy of the US, France, Great Britain, Germany and Belgium is determined by their multinationals' will to take hold of the fabulous richness of the Congolese and African sub-soil. And to achieve this, they overtly reject the principles of the UN Charter that guarantees democracy in international relations. Through this fact, the imperialist powers absolutely destroy any possibility to create a genuine democracy for the popular masses, in Congo as well as in other countries.

To secure their global domination on the world, the Americans have a general strategy preventing the emerging of regional independent powers. The interference of imperialism in the domestic affairs of independent countries with the objective to divide and let them burst, is certainly a "principle" which is absolutely foreign to the UN Charter. But we know that the Americans broke up the Soviet Union and Yugoslavia and they try to do the same in China. Remember also the attempt to break Iraq into three pieces.

Today it's Congo's turn.

In fact, if the nationalist regime of Laurent Désiré Kabila (as that of Joseph Kabila) succeeds in maintaining its political independence and to build a modern national economy, Congo could become a country that will influence the whole of central Africa. The imperialists want to break this potential power.

The Americans launched its' allies, Uganda and Rwanda, in a destructive war against Congo. The objective: to place a team of puppets at the state. In that case, the Americans would have talked about a Congo, "united and strong"? in the way the Congo of neo-colonial dictator Mobutu was "united" and "strong"!

But if it shouldn't work, the only option is to divide Congo. At this subject there's a crucial text which was discussed in the African Commission of the American Senate. The text, published a bit further says this.

There's no State anymore in Congo, there's a power vacuum. It is normal that other countries intervene military. When the State doesn't exist anymore, the principles of independence and sovereignty can't be applied anymore. Kabila has to discuss with any opposition to put the State back on its feet, or to decide about the division of the country. The US could intervene military to retrace the African border and to create new political entities. But it would be expensive. It's better to let African civil wars develop themselves and to allow that certain African countries intervene militarily in other countries.

This is the declaration Madam Marina Ottaway, co-director of the project "Democracy and State of law", made before the African sub-commission of the American Senate on 8 June 1999.

"As long as the power vacuum in Congo continues, other countries will continue to intervene directly or continue to support the armed insurrections to secure their own interests. ? The key is the re-establishment of the State in Congo. This won't happen before Kabila negotiates with the rebels, the political parties and the civil society to realise an agreement on how eventually Congo can be put on its feet again, if necessary, it could be divided. ? The US and other non African actors, treating the conflicts in central Africa, are confronted with an important choice, namely if they have to intervene massively or not intervene at all. ?

The alternative, which I believe is more appropriate for the moment, is to let the African countries find their own solutions. Inevitably, this will comprise a continuation of the internal combats and between States and probably the division of certain countries, before arriving at a new stability. It's not an enjoyable prospective, but there aren't other realistic alternatives."

So, the Americans can "decree" arbitrarily that in one or the other country, there's "no State anymore" and that there is a "power vacuum". Having "decreed" it, is enough to justify the aggressions of neighbour countries or insurrections provoked by the Americans. Because, you see, it's enough that the Americans "decree" that the Congolese State doesn't exist anymore that the rules of the OAU aren't applicable anymore!

Marina Ottaway estimates that the National Debate, which the Americans want to support, could discuss about 2 valid options: put the Congolese State back on its feet or divide it. Which means that the division of Congo henceforth is a serious and thinkable option to the Americans.

The Americans evaluate the possibility to intervene military and massively in Congo "for a new partition of the territory and to create new States"! But they admit that it would cost them too much, probably because they will see the whole of Africa turn against them.

Luckily, American imperialism has a "realistic alternative" that could also lead to the division of Congo. This alternative is "more appropriated" ? at least, "for the moment"!

The alternative is to let the Ugandan and Rwanda armies continue their war against Congo, to let the "rebels" continue the civil war until Congo will be completely exhausted and bloodless. The country will let itself divide through lack of forces. The Congolese will be to such a degree wounded and slaughtered, that they will resign to the partition of their country. That's how a "new stability" will be established, based on the exhaustion of the concerned people.

So, the American champions of "human rights", scrupulously envisage long wars in Congo, which will no doubt cost the lives of hundred's of thousands Congolese. To install their domination on Congo, the American "democrats" are ready to march on heaps of African dead bodies?

This staggering document can be found among a whole series of American texts and studies which go in the same direction.

We will cite one coming from the American army and dating from the time of Mobutu, 5 June 1996.

The author, Steven Metz, is professor at the US Army War College. He lectured at the US Army Command and General Staff College. He has published an extensive study on the situation in Zaire in 1996 to evaluate the types of intervention that could be asked at the American army.

About the eventual division of Congo, he wrote this: "Some observers feel that today Zaire no longer exists as a nation - Kivu has redirected most of its economic activity east, East Kasai refuses to accept the national currency, and Shaba has been described as a virtual extension of South Africa. There is always a chance that such de facto disintegration will give way to formal secession. ? The US would have little choice than to except any new states that emerge from Zaire, offer diplomatic support to minimise the violence that would accompany national disintegration, and open channels of communication with the governments of the new states."

Destroying the principles of the UN Charter, the American superpower permits itself today to launch flagrant aggressions against independent countries. The most flagrant and most terrifying case is that of Yugoslavia, that was attacked by the NATO army and ravaged in open violation of the UN Charter and, of course, without the accord of the UN.

But the American-Rwandan-Ugandan war against Congo is another example of the liquidation of the UN Charter by the US. Nobody believes that 2 small countries, which only produce coffee, tea and bananas, could dare to aggress an immense country possessing great wealth and able to mobilise a population of 55 millions of inhabitants. When in August 1998, the Rwandan and Ugandan aggressors have been encircled at the Inga dam, Madam Albright, the number three in the American politics, used directly her influence with Mugabe, in order that he would give a safe conduct to this poor, lost, soldiers of which the US didn't know that they were in Congo? The American superpower would not intervene to save these aggression troops, threatened with liquidation at 1.500 km from home, if these troops weren't at their service.

Even when the Americans had to admit that their Rwandans and Ugandans were in Congo, they continued to follow a policy based on the premiss that Congo wasn't the victim of a characterised aggression.

The Lusaka Accords are the most striking and most shocking example of this. In July 1999, the Americans have threatened to give the go-ahead to the Rwandans to capture the diamond rich centre Mbuji Mayi. Its with this blackmail that Congo has accepted to sign the Accords of which they knew they were unjust and unacceptable. But menaced with an immediate end, Congo signed, to save time until the balance of forces on the battle field and on the diplomatic arena change.

The aggression produced the Accords of Arusha. Without this criminal and genocidal aggression, Kabila would never have signed these Accords which, literally, signify the end of the nationalist power in Congo.

The Lusaka Accords don't mention the words "aggression", "occupation" and "looting". These Accords are based on the idea that there is an "internal rebellion" in Congo, provoked by an "absence of democracy". In consequence, an inter-Congolese dialogue has to be organised which will regroup, on a basis of equality, the government, the "rebellions", the opposition parties and the civil society. This is the plan of a parliamentary coup d'état which will overthrow the nationalist government. In a Forum, essentially imposed by the imperialists, these imperialists could obtain an artificial majority which in no way corresponds to the will of the popular masses.

The Accords formulate a second essential principle : the Rwandans and Ugandans fairly raise the problem of security on their borders. A common effort has to be made of all the parties involved in the war in Congo, to track down and disarm the Interhamwe militias and others. This second principle constitutes a justification of the Rwandan and Ugandan aggression.

So, two high authorities of the American politics wrote: "The Lusaka cease-fire accord recognises that the territorial integrity of Congo can't be completely restored as long as its territory is used as a base to launch attacks by the genociders."

The presence of some Rwandan rebel groups in Congo is used to justify a far-reaching and genocidal aggression! The Americans explicitly reject the fundamental principle of the UN Charter, namely to respect the integrity of an independent country.

The aggression is the main fact. The Belgian journalist Colette Braeckman survived under the deluge of bombs in Kisangani, during the third war between Rwanda and Uganda on Congolese territory. On June 8, Colette passed "a night of nightmares when bombs continued to fall on houses, shops, public edifices. Kisangani fell in ruins. The houses in the main street are pulverised. In a back yard, bodies bathing in their blood, are aligned under covers or cloths, the injured groan or cry." Colette met with the lieutenant-colonel Paiva of the UN, who said : "Military commanders who put their men and their arms in the middle of the civil population have to answer for crimes against humanity and genocide."

Under the shells, Colette formulated two entirely pertinent conclusions. "Don't come and talk to the people of Kisangani about an inter-Congolese dialogue at this moment. Here, everybody repeats it with conviction : there is no rebellion against the regime of Kabila, it's nothing more than an invasion of foreign troops." "Kisangani is also the cemetery where the moral credit that the Rwandan regime had pulled from the genocide, is engulfing."

An inhabitant of Kisangani, interviewed by a journalist of AFP, drew a third political conclusion: "Tell Kabila to send us arms and ammunition. If we had arms, we would have chased these people ourselves." People that suffer the terror of the occupants understand perfectly that these people only leave when they are forced by arms.

Before the war, Kabila had started the preparation of the convocation of a Legislative and Constituent Assembly. When in June 2000, Kabila restarted the project, the Americans told him that he didn't have the right anymore! This is what the State Department declared on 13 June 2000: "The US are very worried about the initiatives taken by the Congolese government in order to block the start of the national dialogue, recommended by the Lusaka Accords. ?. These developments?. constitute an undeniable violation of the engagements taken by this government by signing the Lusaka Accords. This Accord constitutes the only viable means to resolve the conflict in Congo in a pacific way. The rejection of the national Congolese dialogue, one of the most important elements of the Lusaka Accord, will only prolong the war and the suffering of the Congolese people."

Like this, it is noted that Congo isn't a sovereign country anymore. It is already under tutelage. It has lost the right to convoke an Assembly, a right it possessed before the aggression.

The Lusaka Accords have become the essential argument for the Americans to justify the violations of the UN Charter, committed by the aggressors. The theses of the American-Rwandan-Ugandan is this : the Rwandan and Ugandan armies have no doubt violated the sovereignty and the territorial integrity of Congo; meanwhile their withdrawal is submitted to a condition : Kabila has to accept an "inter-Congolese dialogue" with his enemies, with conditions that make his overthrow almost inevitable.

The Lusaka Accords put Congo really under American domination, because the Lusaka Accords give them the "right" to dictate what the government still can do and what not, on its own territory.

After the third war between Rwanda and Uganda in Kisangani, the whole world was shocked and horrified. But the Americans decided that the Rwandan and Ugandan armies could stay in Congo! And this because, you see, the "inter-Congolese dialogue" has to be organised first, before the aggressors can be demanded to leave. Here, Tshisekedi showed himself as the most foolish and most zealous agent of the Americans. To the question of a journalist : "Mister Tshisekedi, do you recommend the withdrawal of the Rwandan and the Ugandan troops from Kisangani or from the whole territory?", the pathetic "leader" declared: "At the moment we demand the withdrawal from Kisangani. Because we are in a process, the one of Lusaka." This is saying that he wants to maintain the aggressors on the Congolese territory until he, Tshisekedi and his equals have overthrown the nationalist government during the "inter-Congolese dialogue". In fact, the Americans equally demanded the aggressors only to withdraw from the ravaged city. Kisangani was declared a "demilitarised zone" and the Americans warned the government to respect this demilitarisation. Kisangani has, in this way, been removed from the control of the legitimate government and put under tutelage of the US-UN.

One would say that the criminals leading the US, consciously wanted "to prolong the war and the suffering of the Congolese people". In fact, any person with a minimum sense for justice and respect for the UN Charter would say, after 1.800.000 Congolese deaths (this is June 2000) and after the destruction of the third Congolese city : enough is enough, the UN Charter has to be applied, the aggressors have to withdraw immediately, unconditionally. Even Koffi Anan approved this opinion. No!, reply the Americans, the war and the occupation have to be pursued until there has been an 'inter-Congolese dialogue" in the terms we dictated!

Since his 'historic' journey to Africa in March 1998, Clinton developed a new American strategy to dominate the African continent to the detriment of his European rivals.

Relying on "the new generation of democratic leaders", American imperialism wants to replace Europe and especially France, as leading "protecting" power in Africa. The leaders of Ghana, Ethiopia, Eritrea, Uganda, Rwanda and South Africa, all former revolutionaries, note Marxist-Leninists, converted into griots (singers) of the American democracy, will be the fathers of the new Africa.

For his African journey of March 1998, Clinton mobilised 2 planes full of black bourgeois, fierce defenders of American imperialism, of which Madam Susan Rice and Jesse Jackson are most in the public eye. They are the apostles of the "partnership with Africa", code name for the American colonisation in Africa.

This "partnership" has two objectives: " to integrate the African nations in the global economy and in the long-term, fight the international threats against our common security". Clinton imposed these objectives in March 1998? four months before the start of the American-Rwandan-Ugandan aggression against Congo! There's a direct link between this programme of Africa's re-colonisation and the aggression against Kabila's Congo.

The partnership strategy concerns at first the economy.

Africa would get the immense privilege to export without entry taxes "textile and other goods manufactured in Africa". This godsend concerns probably 0,1% of the African population, who are well performing capitalists.

In return, American imperialism demands nothing more than the complete economic re-colonisation of Africa: it has to liberalise commerce, liberalise the organisation of investments, devaluate the money, stop subsidising the national companies, privatise state companies.

That's how Africa will be integrated in the global economy, like the little fish who integrated in the stomach of the wale. In concrete terms, this policy already resulted in the following: between 1990 and 1998, 2000 companies were privatised for about 2,3 billion dollars. Madam Rice thinks it's promising. She omits to specify that privatising means the following: national companies are swallowed by multinationals of imperialist countries and the bureaucratic African bourgeoisie takes hold of the sales incomes through embezzlement and fiddling. In name of "liberty" an "equality", imperialism imposes a new type of colonisation which is even more totalitarian than the colonisation of 1875-1900. It's a re-colonisation by the "free" market, where giants who's business counts with tens of billion dollars (In 2000 GM : 176 billion, Exxon-Mobile 164, Ford 162,5 billion) swallow the Congolese enterprises which are for them just little crumbs.

The "new American policy" equally expresses itself in 2 other "bravery's" of the free world in Africa.

Through privatisation and the liberalisation of investments, the multinationals will, at little cost, take hold of the fabulous resources of the African and Congolese sub-soil, in particular copper, cobalt, uranium, diamond, niobium, colombo-tantalite and petrol.

By liquidating for a few crumbs the gigantic richness of the Congolese sub-soil, they mortgage every possibility of a real and auto-centred development for the future generations.

Next, to transfer this richness to imperialist countries they will need roads, railways, tele-communications. American companies will deal with this: Clinton promised a fund of 1 billion dollar to help the American capitalists to take hold of these markets.

The second point of this "strategic partnership" concerns repression : the army and police forces.

Everybody knows that the Americans take every opportunity to send their police to "colonise" the African police. That's how, after some attacks, the FBI agents introduced themselves in Tanzania, Kenya, Uganda and Zambia. These cops wanted to introduce themselves in Zimbabwe and officially integrate themselves completely within the South African police. Pierre Bigras notes at this subject : "It's a bit like as if all these countries are sub-prefectures of America".

In January 1997, the US launched "the partnership for peace", named the African Crisis Response Initiative (ACRI). It aims at the privatisation of African armies, a kind of take over bid by the Americans on essential parts of these armies. The Americans want to secure the training and arming of the African elite units, capable to intervene in other countries in case of troubles, civil war and social movements. They want to train 10.000 to 12.000 men and they started already with units in Uganda, Ghana, Malawi on the anglophone side and in Senegal, Mali, and Benin on the francophone side. They specifically want to focus on the training of superior officers, to turn them into the necessary pillars of the "democratic" neo-colonial system, as they did successfully a long time ago in Latin America.

But because of the stubborn and unexpected resistance of Kabila and his allies, the Rwandan-Ugandan intervention war, which the Americans wanted to be short, turns to a catastrophe and risks to destabilise their whole African strategy.

In fact, the war in Congo implicates directly about 12 African countries, it has repercussions on countries as far as Libya and South Africa.

A consciousness develops on the entire continent, namely that imperialism supports the aggression against Congo, so they can impose a puppet regime which enables them to loot the sub-soil. The Congolese resistance boosts the anti-imperialist consciousness in entire Africa.

Let's take one example, the IMF flagrantly intervenes now in at least 5 fields of Zimbabwe's internal affairs !

First it forbids Mugabe to redistribute important area's of land that stayed in the hands of a minority of former white colonisers. Next, it demands to annul the control on the prices of basic food products. Next, the IMF wants to eliminate the taxes on the import of luxury goods. The fourth intervention, the IMF opposes to the fact that a Malaysian Company wanted to retake the Hwange electricity plant while it was being privatised. And above all, the IMF formulated a "last condition" to grant loans to Zimbabwe. High officials of the IMF and the World Bank want President Mugabe to exert pressure on his friend Kabila to negotiate with the rebels! One of them said :"The IMF wants that Mugabe puts Kabila under pressure so that he joins a round table and negotiates with the rebels. Our strategy is not to give assistance to Mugabe, but we want to bargain against his influence on Kabila." This really is disgraceful ! The IMF uses its loans to blackmail and to facilitate the victory of the Rwandan-Ugandan aggression.

In fact, through the IMF, the American and European imperialism want to dictate the entire economic, social and external policy of Zimbabwe !

Mugabe expressed the will of independence for Africa in following striking terms: "I don't like the IMF, we should do without them. In fact, I think it's a scandalous creation, a real monster, although some members of my government think otherwise. The IMF is just an instrument the Americans and Britons use to hit us. As the IMF has become political, we also become political towards the IMF. They want to manipulate us and transform us into puppet regimes. No luck if we don't get their money, but we'll never die as a country, never."

On the African continent, the SADC was the most appreciated economic organisation by the American imperialism. Placed under the direction of South Africa, his ally, the US wanted to transform it into an instrument of economic re-colonisation in Africa. When Zimbabwe, Angola and Namibia decided to help the aggressed Congo, they severely struck the "African renaissance", the Americans were looking for. These four countries are namely members of SADC, which is about to split in pro-Americans and anti-imperialists.

A regular visitor of the New York business world writes: "The disunited character and the panic caused by the intervention of SADC, drove the American business world to despair and depression. The administrators of large companies start to ask the Clinton administration what they wanted when they urged them to invest in the new African democracies of SADC. Large companies who invested heavily in SADC now have to reconsider their investment plans, because they fear that the whole region will be out of control soon."

With the war in Congo, an international front of countries has been formed, who oppose the military American-Rwandan-Ugandan intervention in Congo. A front, not only African but global.

Libya made a remarkable political come-back on the African scene. Khadafi plays an important role as mediator and he nourishes the anti-American current which is extending everywhere. This is a major setback for the Americans who declared Libya a "pariah state, an outlawed state".

Apart from Zimbabwe, Angola and Namibia, Chad and Sudan, another "pariah" state according to the American vocabulary, have also assisted the aggressed Congo militarily.

The struggle against American imperialism in Sudan has, by the way, at a crucial moment saved Congo. Around 15 August, the Americans had to withdraw their navy set out to Kinshasa. The reason : they had prepared an attack on Sudan and they didn't want to have at the same time, both the Arab world and black Africa on their backs.

On 20 August 1998, the Americans bomb Sudan's Capital on the pretext that the factory Shifa produces chemical weapons! Clinton explained himself on television : "For many years the US has combated terrorism. The influence of the American law has hit everywhere in the world." He couldn't express himself better : "the American law" rules "everywhere in the world" and "the American influence", made of nuclear weapons, cruise missiles and special aggression forces can arbitrarily strike in any independent country. Clinton says: "America is a target for terrorists because we act to promote peace, democracy and fundamental human values". It's again in name of "democracy" that the US commits this aggression and spreads terror?

The arbitrary of the crime is evident. The minister of war, Cohen said: "We know that the targeted factory in Khartoum produces precursor chemical elements which could enable the production of a type of nerve agent VX". With speculations as light as these, any city of the planet could suffer attacks by American tomahawk cruise missiles.

Some information on Koffi Annan makes things clear. "The UN Secretary General, Annan, didn't know about the attacks before they were executed and he expressed his concern that the US responded to terrorism with an act of terrorism."

Holbrooke, the American representative at the UNO, has invoked the constitution of this anti-imperialist front for the defence of Congo's independence, in terms characteristic for this unrivalled super power. Talking about a "political and military vacuum in Congo" - a vacuum which the Americans above all want to create to improve their control over Congo - Holbrooke said: "The worst thing is that the political and military vacuum in Congo attracted malicious states as Libya, Iran, North Korea, Cuba and Sudan. These states want to get a foothold in a destabilised central Africa to sell arms, to look for political allies, to establish terrorist bases and to get access to strategic minerals (uranium, diamonds)."

Note that he didn't mention China in this list of "malicious states", although China has provided substantial assistance to Congo. This will probably change in the near future, because Bush and his team discuss at present about the proposition to declare China a "strategic enemy" for the next century!

So it is in these terms that the superpower dominating the world decrees there's a "political and military vacuum" in Congo. Then they insinuate that this "vacuum" is filled with "terrorist states", while in reality it concerns states who are relatively weak but take an anti-imperialist stand, states who don't fill a vacuum but help a legitimate government to defend itself.

Facing these crazy accusations launched against these states, who doesn't know that it is well the only superpower dominating our world, who is the largest arms dealer, who subordinates the most of its allies, who establishes military bases every where and who takes hold of the petrol reserves, gold , copper, and rare metals in the entire world?

Concerning the military, the result of the Rwandan-Ugandan aggression is a catastrophe for American imperialism.

Rwanda and Uganda are in a very bad position: how will they be able to "maintain peace" for the Americans, now that they are known everywhere In Africa as mercenaries doing the dirty job for the Americans? In fact these two little "champions" on which the Americans wanted to rely on to control the strategic Congo, are on the verge of a disaster, political and economic contradictions are increasing in both countries. For a portion of the booty, these two "beacons of democratisation" have already engaged themselves in 3 murderous wars against each other on the territory of another state, Congo. Their prestige in Africa is in free fall.

In Rwanda, Kagame's military and adventurous regime not only faces the fierce hostility of the peasant masses and the Hutu middle class, but also the majority of the Tutsi turned away. Tens of high Tutsi cadres fled Rwanda and denounced the clique of Kagame. Among them a political heavyweight, Sebarenzi, who was the President of the parliament an the vice-president of the association of genocide survivors, as well as a famous army chief, major Furuma, who was the chief adviser at the military headquarters.

The plan to create an African army controlled by the Americans, the African Crisis Responsive Initiative, knew a first major setback. In its first version Zimbabwe was supposed to join it. ? Now, Congo, Angola, Zimbabwe and Namibia concluded a "common defence pact", an agreement which goes directly against the American neo-colonial project.

Closely linked to Anglo-American multinationals, the South African bourgeoisie is the most powerful in sub-Saharan Africa. It has a lot of experience in the black world. Southern and central Africa is their "natural" courtyard. South Africa is the "regional superpower", which the Americans want to use to dominate the whole of black Africa.

The Anglo-American, the big South African multinational takes 40% of the capitalisation of the Johannesburg Stock Exchange. Recently they shifted their registered offices to London with a registration at the City Stock Exchange.

In the Congo war, South Africa ostentatiously defends the American policy. The South African bourgeoisie shows its real identity, a relay-force of Anglo- American imperialism in black Africa.

In the beginning of the aggression war, South Africa intervened actively by diplomatically supporting the aggressors. In fact, on 17 August 1998, the summit of the SADC Defence Ministers had decided to give "military support" to Kinshasa.

At this crucial and decisive moment for the future of entire Africa, Mandela appeared to be an initiated in the American conspiracy. He denounced the decision of the SADC Defence Ministers: "It's not our attitude to make things worse by sending a military force. We are engaged in peace. The question of sending troops is very, very serious and complicated. It demands a meeting with the 14 heads of state."

To thwart the anti-imperialist alliance, who took form under the impulse of Mugabe, Mandela convoked a summit in Pretoria on Saturday 22 August. "We take this initiative to avoid a blood bath", his spokesman, Parks Mankahlama, declared.

Bizima Karaha, the chief of the rebellion's intelligence service and a man of the Rwandans shared the same opinion. "This summit will enable to clarify the situation. Rwanda and Uganda will vanish the misunderstanding on the engagement from outside and M. Kabila will understand that he has to deal with us." In other words: the summit will "prove" that the Rwandan and Ugandan armies are not in Congo and it will oblige Kabila to treat them as equal, these Congolese puppets of which the two innocent countries pull the strings. Referring to the Zimbabwean troops who recently arrived in Kinshasa, Karaha says: "We will resist any foreign aggression." Karaha, who figures as the more or less Congolese alibi for the Rwandan invasion, swears he will resist every foreign aggression!

The plan Mandela-Mbeki , submitted at the failed summit in Pretoria in August 1998 was elaborated in close co-operation with the Americans. This is already the "anti-nationalist parliamentary coup d'état" who will be written down in the Lusaka Accords in July 1999 by the same South Africans on the orders of the U.S. This clearly shows that the American strategy in the Congo war never changed, from the beginning of the aggression up till today.

These are the most important points of the Mandela Plan at that time. Congo will stay united. All the foreign troops have to withdraw. Congo has to guarantee the security of its neighbours and vice versa. A transitory government has to be established, representing all the sectors of the society and who will organise democratic elections within a period of 2 years. A National Conference for Reconciliation and Reconstruction will be organised to decide on the composition of the transitory government, of the provisional constitution and of the calendar for the elections.

The liquidation of apartheid, during long decades of discrimination and oppression, the principal claim of the African masses, was achieved in conditions favourable to American imperialism. It wasn't the result of a revolutionary movement who attacked the very foundation of the system: the monopoly of the means of production in the hands of the white bourgeoisie and its Anglo- American allies.

The South African capital was a long time enclosed in a political yoke, which had major economic consequences: the reigning apartheid couldn't have access to the mineral richness, to the electricity production plants, to agricultural land, to information and communications sectors in other African countries. Today they have the means to buy almost everything on sale in southern and central Africa, which sharpens the contradictions with countries who are jealous of their independence.

The crisis in Asia has severely hit the South African export to this region. To compensate the losses, the South African capitalists led a striking offensive to conquer the southern African markets. By trading with these countries, the export is already 6 times higher than the import. In 1998, its export shot up with 38%. This is at the basis of Mugabe's increasing hostility towards its powerful neighbour.

The last week of March 1999, South Africa signed an agreement with the European Union to create a free trade zone between their two interior markets. This decision can be seen as a frontal attack on the Zimbabwean industrialisation policy.

In fact, in 2000, the SADC countries will constitute a free trade zone, at zero tariff which has to function in 2008. Countries like Zimbabwe consider this a way to create an African market drawn towards the interior, which enables them to create a powerful national industry. In 1997, the manufacture industry of 9 SADC countries realised a production of 28,4 billion dollars, of which 85,5% was realised in South Africa and 6% in Zimbabwe. This staggering imbalance will increase more: in the years to come, multinationals will above all invest in South Africa, which is the developed basis to conquer the other African markets. That's why Mugabe said one day: "I forbid them to treat us as a South African province!"

The war in Congo has worn out the prestige of post-apartheid South Africa.

All African countries and above all those countries who contributed to the destruction of apartheid, had high hopes in Mandela. His attitude during the Congo war was a terrible deception. It can be considered as the continuation of the South African policy at the time of the racist regime: the interests of the white bourgeoisie still determines the South African exterior policy.

At this subject, a strong revealing article appeared in the Zimbabwe mirror from 18-24 Dec '98, signed by The Scrutator. The essential:

The longer the war lasts, the more it brings to the fore the economic and political contradictions of the South African bourgeoisie with the interests of the masses of entire black Africa.

Mediator in the conflict in Burundi, Mandela had on 22 February a long talk with Clinton in the course of a tele-conference. The White House published the integral version. In the discussion Mandela demeaned himself in front of Clinton in a humiliating way, whom he flattered as only a real lackey knows how to do. This is what he said: "To have the support of one of the superpowers of the world encourages us, because in this affair we want the support of those who have the strength and are powerful." "The support you've given me before I became president and during my time as head of state, can't be expressed in words." "It's good that a man, a head of state of your calibre, guarantees that in the course of your life, you will bring good fortune, joy and stability to every country in the world. And that's what you do. M. President you have my full support in everything you do."

Everything you do? The embargo on Iraq, which has caused already more than one million deaths? The barbaric aggression against Yugoslavia, a flagrant violation of the UNO Charter? The assistance to the armies who invaded Congo and who continue to occupy its territory and massacres its populations?

This devilish power who ravages Iraq, Yugoslavia, Congo and others, proclaims today that it's sharing its "objectives of peace and stability" with South Africa! On 15 Feb 2000, the US Secretary of Defence, William Cohen, met with his South African colleague, Lekota in Pretoria. Cohen declared at this occasion: "The relations between the South African and American armies are working out to help us to work together to achieve our common goals of peace and stability? Our common objectives and our complementary capacities make that the US and South Africa are natural partners for peace in Africa." When imperialism pronounces the word "peace" it prepares war and the US and South Africa are effectively "natural partners" for the war in the Democratic Republic of Congo?

The South African Minister of Defence answered that his country is effectively disposed to play the role of police on the African continent. And that of course in the common interest of the US and South African bourgeoisie. Lekota formulated it in his terms: "The new regional and continental situation demands that we reinforce our capacities for peace keeping, our capacities to make and impose peace. We are happy to note the interest and the support of the US for our training exercises? Our talks were focussed on peacekeeping and training. The situation on the continent demands that we increase the peacekeeping operations."

As for Mandela, he took advantage of Cohen's visit to discuss the war in Congo. Mandela asked the Secretary of State a US military intervention in Congo, to "reassure" the UN forces and to disarm the militia's! Mandela behaved really like a messenger serving the American imperialism while he made the following declaration: "The US has the largest and most powerful military force in the world and that's why we hoped that the US could help us more. We will need a robust military force in Congo because we are confronted with a very dangerous and complex situation. But without the support of the US, it will be very difficult to progress and create an environment in Congo in which the peace keepers can circulate without being threatened with violence. The US military force will equally be necessary to disarm a heterogeneous collection of militias operating in Congo."

Cohen next, evoked how Mandela rendered many services to American imperialism by imposing in Lusaka an agreement favourable to the aggressors: "South Africa played a crucial role in the elaboration of a peaceful solution to the conflict in Congo."

Lekota connected by saying that he had refused to keep his engagement concluded with Kabila in 1997, to train the Congolese troops. Lekota emphasised that after the outbreak of the war, the rebel leaders, Wamba and Ilunga equally came to South Africa to ask facilities to train their men. Lekota pretends to have refused. First, he said, Bemba, Ilunga, Wamba and Kabila should, united in a national dialogue, "present us the people selected out of all their military formations, to be trained, and then we can take care of it."

That's how we learn how South Africa, in agreement with the Americans, decided to interfere in the domestic affairs of Congo by refusing the legal government the previously promised assistance and by putting the nationalist government and the 3 cliques of Rwandan and Ugandan puppets on an equal footing!

In the "new African policy" of the US, South Africa was the masterpiece. Relying on the white bourgeoisie's power at the time of apartheid that received a "democratic and black" face thanks to Mandela and his companions' betrayal, the US thought they could dominate southern and central Africa.

But the South African engagement on the American side against Congo led to the constitution of a front against the South African hegemony.

The pro-imperialist wing of the ANC has lost its feathers by turning their back to the Congolese nationalism.

Meanwhile, the social and political contradictions increase. South Africa, together with Congo are the countries who have the most revolutionary history. There's no doubt that the popular revolutionary struggle at the time of apartheid will take a run up in a different political context. And it will reach a higher political level because it will not focus anymore on the question all in all a secondary one of apartheid. The apartheid in its racial form has disappeared, but it stayed and even reinforced in its economic form. The day when there will be an alliance between the South African revolution and the Congolese revolution, the whole of Africa will wake up for the liberation struggle.

In a space of two years, there have been two genocide's in the Great Lakes Region.

First, in 1994 there has been a genocide in Rwanda in which a million Tutsi and moderate Hutu have been killed. A genocide organised by the Hutu Bourgeoisie with the assistance of French imperialism, at that time "managed" by the social-democrat Mitterand.

Next, on May 1, 2001, the Rwandan-Ugandan aggression in Congo, supported by the US, will have cost the lives of more than 3.300.000 Congolese.

The fundamental cause of these explosions of barbarism is the general and insurmountable crisis that shakes the global imperialist system today. The "globalisation" is characterised by an accentuation of the inhuman and barbaric character of the imperialist domination.

Rwanda is an overpopulated country and seriously underdeveloped. In 1994, the neo-colonial bourgeoisie around Habyarimana resorted to ethnic-fascism to massacre a million Tutsi and democratic Hutu. They have been able to prepare and commit this crime because of the firm support of French imperialism. In a situation of extreme poverty and misery, a struggle for power in Rwanda developed between the bourgeoisie "Hutu" in place and the mounting bourgeoisie of the Tutsi emigration from Uganda, who took up arms to conquer the power. This inter-Rwandan struggle has been stimulated by the rivalry between French and American imperialism. This explosive cocktail instigated an orgy of extreme violence.

In the beginning of August 1998, the new Congo of Kabila was a country that disposed of formidable potentialities. The multinationals feared that the control over the fabulous wealth in this strategic country, would escape them. That's the fundamental reason for which the American imperialists gave the go ahead to the compradore bourgeoisie of Rwanda and Uganda to invade and occupy Congo and to overthrow the nationalist government.

According to the "American Centre for the Control of Diseases", in May 2000 the war against Congo, led by Rwanda and Uganda and the occupation, have cost the lives of 1.700.000 Congolese in the East of the country.

There have been 200.000 deaths directly caused by the violence of the war. 1.500.000 deaths following the collapse of the medical infrastructure and the system of food and medicaments supplies. These numbers cover the period since the beginning of the aggression, from 2 August 1998 to May 2000. In 22 months 2.300.000 people perished in the 5 provinces of the East, when with a normal mortality rate, it would have been 600.000.

On average, 3000 persons die every day of causes directly linked to the aggression war and since the beginning of the year 2000, the number has increased. The author of the study, the American epidemiologist Les Roberts, confirms this.

Every month that goes by, 100.000 deaths have to be added to the 1.700.000 counted in May 2000. On May 1, 2001, this takes us to 2.800.000 deaths in the East.

In the territories under government control, the mortality has equally increased a lot. If it would be a 20% of the increase noted in the East, it would make 540.000 deaths. For the whole of Congo, it sums op to the horrific number of 3.340.000 deaths !

If one wants to know the exact meaning of the words "democracy, human rights and state of law" which the Americans launch at any moment, one should only consider this horrible genocide. Because, you see, the nationalist Kabila was "dictator" and his "dictatorship" has provoked a justified reaction from the Congolese rebels who have received, afterwards, certain assistance, which was also justified from their Rwandan and Ugandan friends. Let's have a look at the writings of the "rebellion" to see how imperialism teaches its collaborators. In their programme, the RCD promises to "create a state of law and genuine democratic institutions" as well as "the establishment of a state of law and with good governance". That's the hypocritical and disgusting language which is always used to cover the worst crimes against humanity committed by the imperialist powers, in this case the extermination of 3.340.000 Congolese through the aggression war.

These two genocide's are an expression and a consequence of the profound crisis of the global imperialist system.

200 multinationals actually dominate the global capitalist economy. Together they realise 30% of the gross global product. Their technology knows extraordinary developments, the productivity of human work explodes. Ever fewer men make ever more products. As the markets increase very slowly, the overproduction and over-capacity become permanent phenomenon and more and more heavy economic catastrophes. At the same time, the most elementary needs of several billion human beings aren't covered. The contradiction between the extraordinary piling up of the means of production and wealth in the hands of a few million individuals and the impoverishment, unemployment and the misery of the overwhelming majority of humanity, explains the numerous economic and political crises that shake the world. This contradiction is at the very heart of the capitalist production mode in its phase of agonising imperialism. It explodes in killings on a large scale and in genocides that multiply. Today, imperialism, based on the power of the multinationals of the capitalist developed countries, has become a genocidal system. This contradiction between the phenomenal accumulation of means of production in the hands of some millions bourgeois and the insupportable increasing of the exploitation and misery, has to lead, sooner or later, to a new social revolution of international dimensions.

The popular masses, in the entire world, start to feel that they can't survive under the domination of imperialism. The anti-imperialist struggle is developing on all the continents. Against the globalisation of the imperialist dictatorship, the globalisation of the struggle and the anti-imperialist revolutions is getting organised.

Every liberation struggle inevitably has to be part of this. Every people has to contribute to the universal combat, that only after long and vigorous efforts and many sacrifices can destroy the criminal, barbaric and inhuman system, which is imperialism, meaning world capitalism.

Every people leads its own liberation struggle, but this struggle must necessarily have a universal character. Its own liberation has to be part of the liberation of the entire working mankind. Its principles and objectives need to have a universal aspect. They can't be inspired by the greedy and circumstantial interests of bourgeoisie fractions who use ethnic, "native", national or religious covers and who will always be linked with imperialism.

The common enemy of all the African peoples, is global imperialism that in every country relies on a bureaucratic and compradore bourgeoisie, meaning a bourgeoisie that gets its wealth from manipulating the state and from its commercial links with imperialism.

Imperialism fights all revolutionary, nationalist and socialist forces of the world. It disposes of tens of thousands of professors, intelligence service specialists, writers, researchers, journalists and politicians, defending by conviction and interest a global system of which they gain many advantages. By studying history and all the socio-political realities of all the regions and countries of the world, they reveal all the existing contradictions. If necessary to impose and to protect the capitalist globalisation, imperialism relies on these contradictions to divide the popular forces to the maximum. At the moment where giant capitalist enterprises unify within multinationals that cover the whole world, imperialism makes every effort to fragmentize, divide and oppose the populations among each other, who are capable to resist.

More in particular in Africa, the neo-colonial powers want to break down all resistance to their more and more genocidal domination. By pushing and encouraging the African popular masses to kill each other for reasons of different ethnic, religion or nationality, neo-colonialism is guaranteed to be able to exploit in the best conditions the diamond, petrol, gold, cobalt, tantalite, copper etc. of the continent?

Today, the imperialist system, shaken and enraged by the crisis, can destroy any African country by releasing the devils of ethnic, native or religious exclusion.

The Ivories experience gives food for thought. Until the beginning of the sixties, the whole of west Africa had been dominated and exploited by the French colonialism. After independence, this ensemble divided itself in formally independent states. In colonial times, hundreds of thousands Burkinabé people fled the misery to go and work in the plantations of what later becomes Ivory Coast. Today there are more than two million Burkinabé emigrated 'descendants' in that country. And we see the reactionary forces set the "natives" against the "foreigners", the Christian against the Moslem. The country has touched civil war. Weakened by the struggle between the poor masses, which resistance can it build up to oppose French imperialism?

Imperialists could easily continue to loot the wealth of Africa for at least a century, if they succeed in pushing the "Negroes" to kill one another, the "ethnic" Hutu massacring the "ethnic" Tutsi, the Bantou "race" cutting the throat of the Nilotic "race", the "natives" massacring the "foreigners", the "Moslem" taking the machete against the "Christians" and vice versa.

Nationalism in the proper sense of the term, can't save any African country anymore. Even a gigantic country as Congo has a gross domestic product less than the yearly turnover realised by the multinational which figures on the 100^th place on the list of the large enterprises. The "Vast Congo", with its 60.000.000 inhabitants has an annual turnover of 5,5 billion dollar, when a company as General Motors has a turnover of 225 billion dollars? The whole of Great Congo produces not even 2,5% of the production of one multinational.

A pan-African anti-imperialist policy and vision are necessary to save Africa. It's only an anti-imperialist, pan-Africanist and revolutionary solidarity policy that can go beyond the ethnic and national "rifts". It is by unifying the working masses of all Africa against the common imperialist enemy, by unifying them for the realisation of ambitious development projects, that the old contradictions between ethnic, region, nationalities and religions can be eliminated. This implicates the withdrawal of the ethnic conception to be replaced by the class conception. The labour forces, the peasant masses and the intellectual patriot masses of all ethnic groups and African nationalities are good and their fundamental interests are the same. It is by mobilising all these masses that Africa will be able to build a force capable to destroy the age-old domination of imperialism.

So, the popular "native" masses in Kivu don't have the since centuries immigrated Banyarwanda masses as enemy. Their own liberation is linked to the liberation of the popular Hutu and Tutsi masses from Kivu first and from Rwanda and Burundi next.

While on the subject, the greatest African revolutionary, Kwame Nkrumah, said: "Whatever their nationalities, races, tribes, religion - which can't be taken into account for the struggle for socialism - all the labourers are the same. The African socialist revolution opposes to the humiliation and expulsion measures that the migrants from one territory to another undergo. In Africa, we should never use the term foreigners, because they are all Africans. We don't have to fight immigrant workers, but we have to fight the balkanisation, emerging from the artificial borders put up by imperialism."

To move forward the national anti-imperialist revolution, in the present international conditions, is a very complex and difficult task.

The "free market colonialism" strikes Africa with a force and a cruelty never seen in history. Even vast countries as Congo and Angola haven't the slightest weight facing multinationals and their chargés d'affairs which are the IMF, the World Bank and the World Trade Organisation. These institutions dominated by "democratic" imperialist countries, face the African countries with the alternative: or you let destroy your national industry by liberalisation and privatisation, or we are going to ravage your country by a civil war (UNITA in Angola) or by an aggression war (Rwandan and Ugandan armies in Congo)

The inhuman conditions in which the popular masses vegetate, push them towards the revolutionary struggle for their survival as individuals and as nation. The national question, the opposition to foreign domination, to occupation, to pillaging of the human resources and the richness of the soil and sub-soil, is at the centre of the entire political life since 5 centuries and today it marks the life's of the African people as never seen in history.

To survive, Africa has to wage a "bourgeoisie revolution" to snatch their political and economic independence : under neo-colonialism, which sometimes takes a dictatorial form, sometimes a "democratic" form, not any political decision is taken without the approval of the 'friends' imperialist powers, and the imposed liberalisation and privatisation makes any national, auto-centred economic development, focussed on the needs of the people, impossible.

But the weak revolutionary consciousness of the intellectual leaders and their disorganisation and absence of spirit to sacrifice, are terrible constraints. So, we see the development of impetuous revolutionary movements against imperialism, but they fail because the leaders finally choose to compromise with the enemy and betray the cause of national independence.

In Africa, there have been coups d'état's and popular revolutionary movements which overthrew certain agents of imperialism, but very soon we've seen the new leaders rebuild the political and economic mechanisms put in place by the previous neo-colonial regimes. The living conditions are so harsh that even the revolutionary intellectuals, once in power, let themselves finally "gobble" by the former neo-colonial bourgeois system they inherited, in absence of an authentic and disciplined revolutionary party. The new leaders, while giving revolutionary speeches in the beginning, occupy the places in the social system the former leaders abandoned. And after a few years, they adapt to the habits that reigned in these circles (corruption, embezzlement, robbery). It's a simple rearrangement of the "indigenous" bourgeoisie.

Ghana experienced this, where the former "revolutionary" Rawlings had become servile to the Americans to such a degree that he proposed to grant the Ghanaian nationality to all the descendants of former slaves from Ghana in addition to their American nationality. In Burkina Faso equally, where, after four years of revolution, Sankara assassinated, France has simply "retook its rights". But Mandela's treason, who is at the disposal of Anglo-American imperialism and the white South African grand bourgeoisie, is no doubt the very best example.

There can't be a nationalist revolutionary movement without the fusion of the revolutionary intellectuals and the struggling masses, a fusion which materialises through an authentic revolutionary party. And without the direction of such a party, knowing the best revolutionary experiences of the past century, not any anti-imperialist movement can succeed.

This revolution, which is by definition of a democratic and bourgeois type, is waged in the context of the domination of the most powerful bourgeoisie in history, those of multinationals, those of monopolist capitalism where a sole American or European company produces more than the whole of Congo and Angola together. For this reason, any national anti-imperialist revolution in Africa that stays in a pure capitalist perspective and that thinks to be able to "agree" with the imperialist powers, will sooner or later head for disaster.

That brings us back to the paradox that China, Vietnam and Korea knew already in the thirties and forties: the "bourgeois" nationalist, anti-imperialist revolution could only be led in a consequent way to total victory, under the direction of a vanguard party who aimed in the long-term the installation of a socialist society. Only such a party could lead the anti-imperialist revolution till the end, because only they had a profound comprehension of the existing indissoluble bonds between monopolist capitalism and imperialism, also between the local capitalists and western capitalism. In the course of its development, the national revolution had organised and woken the consciousness of the peasant masses, workers, students, petit-bourgeois etc. The best elements of these classes were united in the Communist Party or the Workers Party. So, after the total liberation of the foreign political and economic domination (and the feudal domination), the people, in its immense majority, decided not to follow the capitalist way characterised by the exploitation of man by man, the enrichment of a fistful to the detriment of the impoverishment of the majority, the inequality and injustice. The people decided to build a national, independent, socialist economy. And this economy in service of the people had to be defended against uncountable assaults of the imperialist powers and their local agents. The question who would win, the people or the forces linked to imperialism; socialism or capitalism, will be, by the way, still a long time at the centre of the political and economic life in China, Korea, and Vietnam.

In Congo and Africa, in absence of a vanguard party, the petit-bourgeoisie and the bourgeoisie still can play a positive role in the combat against imperialism and the revolutionaries throughout the world have to support them insofar as they effectively oppose imperialism.

President Mzee Kabila had studied philosophy at the university of Tashkent in the Soviet Union and he had followed courses at the politico-military university of Nankeen in China. He was well formed in the Marxist theory and he knew that the Congolese revolution, in its actual state, was essentially an anti-imperialist and democratic revolution.

In absence of a vanguard party, Kabila wanted to build up a front of all the forces who defended the interests of Congo against imperialism. He formulated in its speeches on the Popular Power Committees a strategy to establish a popular democracy where the masses would be the conscious and organised actors of the political and economic life. He proclaimed the will of the Congolese people to build a national, independent and powerful industry, hereby suddenly attracting the hate and profound hostility of the mining multinationals, the IMF and the western powers. In absence of a vanguard party, it was difficult for Kabila to "supervise" the bourgeois elements with whom he had put up alliances and it are, in no doubt, some of these men who organised his assassination.

Angola distinguishes itself from Congo by a longer tradition of revolutionary organisation, thanks to the work of the MPLA created by Augustin Neto and actually directed by Dos Santos. It distinguishes itself also by a long experience of war.

But the fundamental problem with which the Angolan revolution is confronted, is not different from that of the Congolese revolution.

The MPLA constitutes also an alliance between anti-imperialists and revolutionaries on the one hand and on the other, elements of the national bourgeoisie, note the compradore bourgeoisie, close to the Americans.

A specialist on Angola writes: "The essential of the Angolan economy is divided in private fiefs kept by around 40 to 50 families. They permit private investment, but keep them under close control. This is done through joint ventures, controlled by the leading elite who don't invest a lot of their own capital, if nothing at all, but take 40 to 50% of the profits." The new Minister of Defence, Kundi Payhama, declared in the beginning of 1999 that one of his first objectives was to put an end to corruption among the officers who enrich themselves with diamond traficking.

In a few years, American imperialism will import 10% of its petrol from Angola. As the MPLA won the elections in 1992 and enjoys a real popular adhesion and has a firm control on the state, the Americans decided to bet (for the moment, at least?) on the MPLA.

The first two weeks of February 99, Schneideman, the vice-assistant to the Secretary of State for Africa, was in Luanda. He announced Clinton's strategic decision to give the Angolan government his total support. He proposed a programme of economic reforms of 8 months, a time in which the IMF could lend money to Angola. He declared: "We want to increase our relations with the Angolan government and work with them to increase the economic reform processes. ? We will work hard to re-enforce the economic sanctions against UNITA."

The authentic revolutionaries have to assist the already existing vanguard parties and those who develop in Africa, in a consequent manner. They are the only forces who can engage themselves in an historic national and social liberation struggle that has as objective the liquidation of the imperialist system in the whole world.

But in the crucial combat on global level against imperialism and wars, they also have to tie up the alliances on diverse levels with the petit-bourgeois and the bourgeoisie forces who oppose the genocidal globalisation, imposed on the world by the forces dominated by the grand capital.

Against the imperialist globalisation, a sole front of the three revolutionary trends of our era has to be constituted: the popular movement for the socialist construction in countries where capitalism is overthrown, the revolutionary movement to overthrow capitalism in imperialist countries, the movement for the national and democratic revolution in dominated countries.

Nkrumah was the inspiration and guide of Lumumba and all the revolutionary Congolese of the sixties. After the coup d'état brewed against him by imperialism, Nkrumah has meditated on the class struggle in Africa, while in exile in Conakry. In the Guineas capital, he wrote some essential facts, derived from a life of struggle. Published in the "Conakry Papers" in 1970, they are more topical today than 30 years ago. Nkrumah says this, Kabila, no doubt, will approve it from the sky.

"The revolutionary struggle is practised permanently from high to low, from progress to recession, with attacks and retreats. A revolutionary only fails when he surrenders, as long as he continues the struggle, he tends to the final objective of Victory. Even if, as an individual, he dies in the struggle, he hasn't failed. The sum of all his endeavours, of his aspiration, his efforts, merges with the people that continues to fight until Victory."