Events in Africa are unfolding at a furious pace. With each passing month, the great forward march of the movement for the renewal of the Dark Continent conquers a new stage. While everything is rotting away in the capitalist metropolises, the more backward continents are being renewed from top to bottom, and at the head of the movement are Africa’s most developed peoples, those who inhabit the western part of the continent. The dreary champions of bourgeois reaction cannot reconcile themselves to it. The bleak philosophies of ‘nothing changes’ are forced to denounce another stinging denial. Indeed, it is undeniable that while ‘nothing changes’ for the moment in the world of imperialism, and the ruling bourgeoisies resort with impunity to the arsenal of fascist ideologies in order to put off the day of reckoning, ‘everything changes’ on the other hand in the Continents once subjugated by colonialism. The revolutionary principle thus receives yet another confirmation. If nothing is eternal, if colonialism, which lasted for centuries and seemed it might never end because of the state of demoralisation to which the enslaved populations had been reduced, has finally reached its last hours; only to delude themselves can the reactionaries of Europe and America proclaim the eternity of capitalism.

The facts show how colonialism, the proud creation of white capitalism, is forced to cede one position after another. The pace of events leaves even those of us who, while supporting the liberation movement of the African peoples, thought that the struggle would take many more years, pleasantly surprised. It was the results of the referendum held in October by the Gaullist regime that had suggested pessimistic forecasts. It was then seen that only Guinea, of all the French possessions in Africa, had dared to throw off colonialism, choosing independence. Another cause for concern was the insidious Unionist campaign, which tended to fight the federalism advocated by the most advanced forces of African independence, and defended a programme which, if implemented, would have resolved the French African empire into a myriad of nominally independent, but in fact weak and insecure statelets. It was feared, that is, that the coalescence of the interests of the indigenous social strata linked to colonialism and the intrigues of certain ‘askari’ politicking would lead to the ‘Balkanisation’ or ‘South Americanisation’ – as the advocates of federalism put it – of the future post-colonial Africa. Well, the latest events in West Africa have come to dispel these concerns. With the exception of a few West African territories, which will not necessarily always remain subject to the current ‘oligarchies, the federalist camp has won over the majority of the anti-colonial and independence movement. Unionism à la Houphouët-Boigny, De Gaulle’s minister of state, is on the ropes everywhere.

Two major events have occurred in recent weeks: the proclamation of the Mali Federation and the unification of the African workers’ union movement. One does not need to be gifted with a prophetic spirit to say that these events mark a turning point in African history. The birth of the Federation is of revolutionary importance. It crowns the movement that began with the recent proclamation of independence of the French territories of West Africa and Equatorial Africa – a fact that, left without a follow-up, threatened to dismember the continent. But no less important is what the African wage-earners accomplished, who, by uniting their forces, have created the premises for the incorporation of the African labour movement into the new social reality following the decline of colonialism.

The Mali Federation, like the Republic of Ghana in its time, brings back into living history the name of a great African empire, known as Mali, which was formed in western Sudan in the 13th century and became very prosperous in the following centuries, ranking among the great powers of the time. The promoters of the new state formation could not have chosen a better title for it. In fact, under the Mali empire, to a greater extent than the rival empire of Ghana had managed to do, African populations managed to overcome tribal divisions and give themselves unitary political systems. To the French colonialists, who were the not unworthy descendants of the oppressors who at the Congress of Berlin in 1895 sanctioned the partition of Africa under the illusion that they had built an indestructible prison in which to lock up the African revolt, all that remained was to kick themselves and dream about avenging themselves with impossible massacres. The proclamation of the Federation inflicts a heavy defeat on the collaborationists and ‘bourguibists’ of black Africa and upsets from top to bottom the plans of the colonialists in Paris who were preparing to sleep soundly after their indisputable success in the referendum.

The secession of Guinea, which was led by Sékou-Touré’s Democratic Party and had massively rejected the Gaullist referendum (1,136,324 no votes against 58,901 yes votes), had dealt a severe blow to French colonialism. But the loss of control of the territory’s considerable riches (gold, iron, bauxite, coffee and bananas) could be believed to have been compensated for by the success that, thanks to the moderate or even collaborationist leaders of the RDA, the colonialist authorities had achieved in the eleven territories of the AOF and AEF [French East and Equatorial Africa], which had voted in favour of the constitution proposed by De Gaulle and agreed to become part of the Franco-African Community. One knows what ‘concessions’ the Gaullist constitution made to African independentism. The ‘Community’, i.e. the body in charge of the administration of the vaunted Franco-African union, is, as was recently reaffirmed in Paris, responsible for these matters: foreign policy, defence, currency, common economic and financial policy, policy on raw materials, control of justice, higher education, general organisation of external transport and telecommunications. It is clear that such a ‘community’, which keeps the African peoples out of the actual government of the territories and perpetuates the old colonialist paternalism under another name, was not such as to worry the French bourgeoisie. States belonging to this type of ‘community’ could be ‘sovereign’ in name only.

Under these conditions, the establishment of the eleven territories as independent states could not harm French interests. Indeed, it had seemed to Paris that the ‘incident’ of the Guinean secession should remain without a follow-up. Instead, Guinea’s resounding revolt against colonialist impositions had the effect of a landmine on the rotten old French colonial edifice. Above all, the proclamation of the state union between Guinea and Ghana in November must have had a decisive influence. Such a political breakthrough marked a clear victory for the federalist camp throughout West and Equatorial Africa, as well as within the borders of the two states. That the initiative was not, in the intentions of the promoters, limited to the two countries, but was part of the general African federalist movement, was clear from a passage in the joint declaration signed by Prime Ministers Nkrumah and Touré: ‘Conscious that the aspiration towards a closer union is shared by all the peoples of our Continent, we appeal to the governments of the independent states of Africa, as well as to the leaders and peoples of the countries still dominated by foreigners, to join us in our action. In this same spirit, we welcome the accession of other African states to this union’. On another occasion, namely at the end of the talks between the Ghanaian delegation and Guinean leaders in Conakry on 7 December, an official communiqué announced that Ghana and Guinea had decided to set up a constitutional committee to draft the United States of West Africa.

On that occasion, the press attributed to Nkrumah and Touré the ambitious project of a great Negro Federation including territories still subject to imperialism, such as Nigeria, Sierra Leone, Ivory Coast, Dahomey, French Togo and Portuguese Guinea. An African Federation of such proportions would comprise more than 40 million inhabitants and have ample agricultural and mineral resources, including gold, silver, platinum, diamonds, iron, coal, bauxite, manganese, tin, and some rare minerals, such as tantalum and uranium. What is certain is that at the African Conference in Accra (8-13 December), delegates approved a plan to establish five territorial complexes, including a coastal federation from Senegal to Cameroon.

At the RDA Conference (Bamako, 29-30 December) it became clear that the federalist movement had gained ground on the ‘Bourguibist’ thesis of the wing represented by Houphouët-Boigny. There was a replay of the old clash between him and the Senegalese leader Léopold Sédar Senghor, supported by the ‘Présence Africaine’ group, who declared it was time to bring the movement to a turning point even at the cost of breaking with France and aligning with Sékou-Touré. The conference was dissolved without any common ground being found between the currents. But today we know that federalism was on the rise. In fact, to untie the knot of contrasts came the proclamation of the Mali Federation on 17 January.

Four territories joined the new federation: French Sudan, Senegal, Upper Volta and Dahomey. A simple glance at the map shows what importance the Federation will assume when it has freed itself of residual French domination. Perhaps then the plan for a Negro Federation from Cameroon to Senegal approved at the Accra Conference can be implemented. Given what forces prevail in West Africa, this seems possible because the territories of the Mali Federation and the Ghana-Guinea union are contiguous. The only break is represented by Côte d’Ivoire, which has preferred to isolate itself; for the rest, there are no constitutional difficulties, since the Federation has declared itself, like Ghana and Guinea when they proclaimed their state union, open to all neighbouring territories.

The negative attitude held by Mauritania and Niger, along with Côte d’Ivoire, remains to be explained. Behind the rejection by these three territories lie different causes. If the motive that drove the leaders of Niger and above all of Côte d’Ivoire must be sought in the political and social structure of the two territories, for Mauritania the field of investigation widens, because this new state is subject to the influences of the other great historical driving force acting in Africa: pan-Arab nationalism, entrenched in the North of the Continent.

Mauritania, which the Arabs call Bilad Chinqit, has for some time been the subject of a tenacious Moroccan irredentist campaign. Although the extreme western offshoot of Algeria and the Spanish West African possessions are interposed between Morocco and Mauritanian territory, it is claimed by the Rabat government as a territory belonging, for historical and ‘popular’ reasons, to ‘Greater Morocco’. Moroccan nationalists refer to the fact that, since the time of the Almoravids and Almohads, and under the Saadian sultans of Morocco, Mauritania was the bridge between the Muslim world and black Africa. It should be recalled that under Sultan al-Mansur, in 1590, the conquest of Sudan began, i.e. the expansion of Arab power to the detriment of the black Songhai empire. The struggle, which saw the major European powers of the time (Portugal, Spain, France, England) support the Arab conquerors, was to last until 1737, when the last remnants of the Moroccan army were driven out of Timbuktu.

Despite the time that has elapsed, Mauritania, inhabited by over 600,000 people, four-fifths of whom are Muslim Moors (of the Berber race) and the rest of Negroes concentrated in the south, still feels the effects of such remote events. In fact, if there is strong opposition to Moroccan aims, the pro-Arab movement, which claims the union of ‘Chinqit’ with greater Morocco, is also quite considerable. Indeed, quite a few emirs and sheikhs, and even leading political figures, such as the four ministers of the territorial government who fled to Morocco in March 1958, continue to make acts of submission to Muhammad V. This leads to the division of the country between forces inclined to union with the Mali Federation, and thus with black Africa, and forces aiming to fit into Morocco’s ambitious expansionist plan, which is aiming to realign its borders with the positions reached by the ancient Arab conquerors.

Why do we dwell on these issues? If only to prove the bad faith of the false Marxists who, by adopting positions of absurd indifference towards the anti-colonial revolution, accuse us of unconditional and indiscriminate support for Afro-Asian nationalist parties. The truth is that we realise at all times that the anti-colonial revolution acts within the limits of the nation-state, and thus entails all the contradictions inherent to that stage of historical evolution. We support, even if only with the help of the press, the political movements best placed to clear away the obstacles in the former colonies which are preventing the emergence of new forms of production, which cannot arise without increasing the weight of the wage-earning proletariat in the world and objectively laying the industrial and social foundations of socialism in backward areas. Therefore, we refuse to be navel-gazers, mere spectators of what is happening in the continents that are waking up to new life; and we are not afraid of contaminating ourselves, as Marx and Lenin were not, by taking positions in favour of one and against the other. Only those drunk on sectarianism can recite the false theorem: anti-colonialism = capitalism = reaction. Only imbeciles can think that the world ‘stays the same’ whether colonialist imperialism or national-democratic movements are in charge in Africa; or whether, having defeated colonialism, local forces of conservation or parties of renewal take power.