http://www.pambazuka.org/images/articles/296/china-africa.jpgPeluola Adewale examines China’s investment expansion into Africa and the impact on local markets and industries. However, alongside this massive investment exists a rising hostility by the Africans workers due to China’s appalling anti-labour practices, low wages and disregard for the environment.

'The need for a constantly expanding market for its products chases the bourgeoisie over the surface of the globe. It must nestle everywhere, settle everywhere, and establish connections everywhere.' With these words, Marx and Engels in the Communist Manifesto capture the basis for the expansionist instinct of capitalism. Perhaps, so far in this millennium, no state, the organ of the ruling class of a nation, has more aptly characterized this exposition than China, an ex-Stalinist-Maoist state on the irreversible transition to capitalism.

As for its predecessor, the western imperialism, Africa provides the choicest place for China’s products: oil to fuel its growing economy, natural resources to feed its industries and of course market for its manufactured goods. China dated its relations with Africa to 1956 when it supported liberation movements in the continent - Angola, Mozambique, etc. But that relationship was driven, in that 'cold war' era, by rivalry with both imperialism and Moscow's rival Stalinist regime. Often the Beijing and Moscow elites would back rival liberation movements not for ideological reasons, but to gain points of support. This time around the motivation is primarily business - a classical pursuit of naked economic interest.

With the visit to the Seychelles on 10 February, Chinese President Hu Jintao completed a 12-day tour of Africa. This visit, which had earlier taken him to other seven countries - Cameroon, Liberia, Sudan, Zambia, Namibia, South Africa and Mozambique - was his second to the continent in just nine months and the third since assumed office in 2003. This underscores the strategic importance of Africa to the phenomenal growth of China.

Quest for Africa's natural resources

China, the second biggest consumer of oil after the US, having overtaken Japan, is responsible for 40% of growth in global oil demand. It gets one-third of its imported oil from Africa. This is in addition to raw materials - minerals, farm products and timber - it gets in abundance from the continent. More than 50 per cent of China's investment abroad is in extractive resources and Africa has a fair share of it. It invested hugely in the exploration, production infrastructure and transportation of oil in Sudan. In return it gets almost 80 per cent of the Sudan's oil export. In a similar vein, it imports 25 per cent of Angola's oil. In Nigeria, last year it secured $2.3bn 45 per cent stake in an oilfield which will produce 225,000 barrels per day when coming on stream in 2008.

To guarantee supply of copper from Zambia, on the top of already over $500 million investment in Zambia, China is setting up a new economic partnership zone in Zambia's Copperbelt province expected to draw in $800 million in the next three years. The zone is expected to create 50,000 jobs in addition to 10,000 jobs already created by Chinese investment.

China earns concessions from Africa governments in oil and mining rights through aid, preferential loans and construction projects. At the end of the last November Sino-African Summit, Beijing announced the provision of $5bn in loans and credits for a three year period, the establishment of $5bn China-Africa development fund to encourage Chinese companies to invest in Africa and the cancellation of debt in the form of all the interest-free government loans that matured at the end of 2005 owed by the heavily indebted poor countries and the least developed countries in Africa that have diplomatic relations with China. Five African countries: Gambia, Burkina Faso, Sao Tome, Swaziland and Malawi do not have diplomatic relations with China for recognizing Taiwan, an independent state considered a renegade part by China. While preparing to set for the journey to Africa, Hu announced that 33 African countries would benefit from the debt write-off.

No free lunch

China does not however give free lunch. Its aid also has strings, though of much lesser degree than that of the West, and mostly commercial. For instance, in 2004 China granted Angola a $2bn credit for rebuilding infrastructure destroyed during the civil war, but in return Beijing would receive 10, 000 barrels of oil per day. On top of this was a condition that only 30% of the construction project would be subcontracted to Angolan firms. Similarly, last year after the visit of Hu, China gave Nigeria $2.5bn loan for infrastructure development, but secured an $8.3bn contract for modernization of the Nigeria's primitive railway. The Chinese firm handling what is called a "design, construct and maintain" project said 50, 000 Nigerians would be employed in the work. Ordinarily, this job promise would have been welcome with hurrah, but for the horrid experience of Nigerians working in Chinese companies, which are the worst forms of sweatshops in the country. Also attached to the loan is the control stake of the 110, 000 barrel per day refinery in Kaduna, northwest Nigeria, that has been won by China.

It is not only China that sees the Sino-Africa cooperation as a strategic partnership for development, the African leaders also do. They jointly formed Forum on China-Africa Cooperation (FOCAC), which had its maiden summit in 2000. The trade between China and Africa rose from $10bn in 2000 to $55.5bn last year and projected to hit $100bn by 2010. Of course, oil, minerals, other raw materials and Chinese made goods make up most of the trade. Largely connected to this trade, Africa, for instance in 2005, witnessed 5.5% growth in its economy, though concentrated among the mineral-rich countries. Besides, on the surface, the trade is more favourable to Africa which records surplus in relation to China. However, in reality Africa is the net loser. While it imports raw materials particularly oil to enhance its growth, China floods the continent with cheap goods that contribute to killing of local industries, particularly the textile and clothing. This is a major element in the growing hostility against China's presence in Africa, which will be addressed in a greater detail later on.

The West frightened

The West has appeared green with envy on the China's success in Africa. Though it still trails the West in term of investment and trade in the continent, China has overtaken Britain to become Africa's third biggest trading partner after the US and France. This new situation has allowed some African regimes some limited room to play off different foreign powers against one another. The western imperialism is worried about increased diplomatic and economic competition from China as regards access to resources. The US which at present gets 15% of its imported oil from Africa, in the face of the growing geo-political threat to oil supply in the Middle East, has projected to secure 25% of oil import from Africa, particularly the Gulf of Guinea, within a decade. Achieving this target may be threatened by China. But to protect its interest the US has constituted the oil-rich countries in the Gulf of Guinea into what is called Gulf of Guinea Energy Security.

France is also feeling the heat on its tracks. The effect of China on the France’s influence in Africa has become an issue in the on-going campaign for the forthcoming presidential elections. The two leading candidates, Segolene Royal and Nicolas Sarkozy have promised to improve on the relation with Africa where France’s traditional influence has come under threat from China red-hot quest for resources. Apparently trying to incite African leaders against China, French President Jacques Chirac, at this year biennial France-Africa summit in February whose one of the themes was "how to tap and protect Africa's natural resources", admonished, "Africa is rich, but Africans are not. The continent holds one-third of the planet's mineral reserves. It is a treasure trove. But it must be neither pillaged nor sold off cheaply". Good talk! But it is a kettle calling pot black. The West including France is the worst culprit, however not the only one, in rendering Africa underdeveloped and poverty stricken in the midst of its colossal wealth. Right from trans-Atlantic slave trade through the colonial epoch to the current era of neo-liberal capitalism and multinational domination, the West has continued to pillage the resources of the continent.

While it can only make murmur on the China's 'encroachment' on its sphere of influence, the West ostensibly hinges its grumble on the Beijing's lack of qualm about dealing with dictatorial regimes rendered pariah by the West like Sudan and Zimbabwe. Of course this does not prevent the West fully backing the oil rich feudal Saudi dictatorship. China a veto-wielding member of the UN Security Council has severally prevented sanction against Khartoum for its role in Darfur conflict where government sponsored militia has killed some 200, 000 people and left 2.5 million homeless since 2003. Paul Wolfowitz a former US Deputy Secretary of Defence in the Bush Jnr administration and currently President of World Bank has reportedly accused China of ignoring human rights in Africa. But China is treading the path already charted by the West. Thus, the west does not have moral authority to condemn China's support for repressive regimes. History is replete with several instances of the West supporting repressive regimes all over the world out of economic and strategic interest. The US and Britain have severally vetoed criticisms against the belligerent Israeli government over its repression of Pakistani and Lebanese people. The New York Times in its editorial of February 19, 2007 aptly captured the point, 'China is not the first outside power to behave badly in Africa. But it should not be proud of following the West’s soory historical example'.

Who ruined Africa's local industries?

Inside Africa it is not all a pat on the back for China on its economic expedition in the continent. Workers and poor masses have protested the flooding of Africa with Chinese cheap goods that kills local industry particularly textile and clothing, and makes hundreds of thousands to lose jobs in Zambia, Namibia, Nigeria, South Africa and elsewhere in the continent. The opposition has already taken to the street thousands of South African textile workers where about 100 manufacturing units have been closed and close to 100,000 jobs lost. In Nigeria though there has not been political action, textile trade unions have been grumbling over closure of about 100 factories and loss of about 200, 000 jobs in the last eight years.

But can one reasonably blame the collapse of local industry in Africa solely on cheap Chinese goods? Let's take Nigeria as an example. Despite being blessed with the world 10th largest reserve of gas in addition to vast availability of coal and hydroelectric potentials, Nigeria generates only 3,000 MW of electricity. Even recently this dismal output has plummeted to ridiculous 1,500 MW for a population of over 140 million. Yet, the government claimed to have spent over $2bn on the power sector in the last six years. The attendant inadequate and epileptic power supply has meant that companies are run on generating set powered by expensive fuels that are sometimes scarce commodity in spite of the country being the seventh largest producer of crude oil in the world. As a result the cost of doing business is dearly and products are expensive. Yet, the anti-poor neo-liberal economic policies have meant that the purchasing power of workers and poor masses are low. Factories are closed and workers thrown into labour market. In January, Michelin, a tyre manufacturing company that had over 2,000 Nigerian workers in its workforce, announced closure of its operations in Nigeria citing high cost of energy that makes business unprofitable. Chinese cheap apparel has only worsened the situation in textile industry.

Rising hostility against China

But the Chinese anti-labour practices and contemptuous disregards for rights, safety and improved living and working conditions of workers have attracted to the Chinese the deep-seated odium of workers and poor masses in the continent. Chinese companies are characterized by unsafe working conditions and poor environmental practices. In 2005, 51 workers died in explosion at the Chinese run mine in Copperbelt while 5 workers were shot dead during a protest over working condition at the same mine last year. Similarly, in Lagos Nigeria, 29 workers were roasted alive in inferno at a Chinese firm in 2002. The workers in the firm were always locked inside without emergency exit. The affected workers died because they could not escape.

Chinese firms do not respect minimum wage and labour laws of the host country. The workers are usually engaged as casuals on low pay and with no benefits and rights to form or belong to a trade union. Some of the firms also bring to Africa their own low-paid Chinese workers who however earn much more than the average African worker. But it is important for African workers to see that workers in China could be one of their strongest allies, their common enemy is capitalism. Today the Chinese working class is the largest in the world and when it starts to struggle for democratic rights and better living conditions this will be in the interests of workers and poor around the world.

While in Zambia President Hu himself had a taste of bitterness against Chinese by ordinary workers and the poor. To avoid being embarrassed by a planned protest over poor working conditions by workers at the Chinese mine, he had to cancel at the last minute his scheduled visit to Copperbelt province, the economic heartland of Zambia, where china has heavily invested and planned to build a stadium. For the same reason, the University of Zambia was heavily cordoned off with the armed police for the two days the visit lasted.

In the same Zambia, the Chinese investment became an issue in the last year general election with the main opposition leader, Michael Sata capitalizing on the growing hostility against the Chinese. He promised to chase away the Chinese and recognize Taiwan if he won. Though, the incumbent, Levy Mwanawasa won the presidential election, the Sata's party, Patriotic Front, swept the parliamentary seats in Lusaka, the capital, and Copperbelt province.

In apparent attempt to launder its image in Africa, the China on the eve of the last Sino-Africa summit issued 'nine principles' to 'encourage and standardize enterprises' overseas investment'. The principles require Chinese companies operating overseas to abide by local laws, bid contracts on the basis of transparency and equality, protect the labour rights of local employees, protect the environment, etc. But can the Chinese give what they do not have? The Beijing government is undemocratic and does not accord any rights to workers in China. Implementing the 'nine principles' will be a tall order, though they could be forced by circumstance to shift ground to an extent.

Some African leaders like Thambo Mbeki of South Africa have also warned against Africa relations with China assuming colonial relations. Mbeki told a youth conference in Capetown in December 2006 that, 'China cannot only just come here and dig for raw materials and then go away and sell us manufactured goods'. He opined such arrangement could condemn Africa to underdevelopment. However Mbeki himself is not concerned about the plight of African workers, he is worried about the future of the South African ruling class.

Who underdeveloped Africa?

Agreed, on the basis of logic of capitalism, any economy rested on primary commodities, which are usually non-renewable, is doomed. But, it is shameless for any leader of mineral-rich Africa to impute continent's underdevelopment solely to China and other industrialized nation, which need raw materials for their economies. Nigeria, for instance, has realized about $400bn from the sales of crude oil alone since 1958, yet there is nothing to show for it, besides being looted by its thieving capitalist ruling elite. This huge revenue, a study reveals, is six times what the US spent through the Marshal Plan to successfully rebuild the Western Europe devastated by the Second World War. The primitive accumulation was so alarming that the World Bank was forced to reveal in 2004 that only 1 per cent Nigerian thieving elite consumes 80 per cent of the country's oil and gas revenue. If the resources rich countries had used the enormous wealth to provide infrastructure and industrialize, they themselves could as well become net importer of raw materials. China is oil-rich and only import 40 per cent of its oil consumption.

However, it is apposite to state that besides the parasitic nature of African leaders, the western imperialism created the pre-condition for the underdevelopment of Africa. The World Bank that was originally established to assist in reconstruction and development of the war-devastated Western Europe through state interventionist economic model today prescribe to Africa and the third world the market oriented neoliberal economic policies for their development. The African leaders are encouraged by the Western imperialism to cut social spending on basic needs like education, health care, housing etc, and thus left with huge but loose resources for looting. But they are advised to provide infrastructures not for the sake of their populace but in order to make their economies more easily exploitable. In its Newsletter of November 9 2006, the World Bank Group stated, 'Africa is enjoying economic resurgence but a focus on social spending means poverty-stricken lack sufficient roads and communication to attract foreign firms.' The dictate of World/IMF explains why workers and poor masses in Africa have not seen improvement in their living condition despite the increased wealth and economic growth brought about by rise in commodity prices occasioned by China's growth and other factors.

Genuine path to development

To set stage for development the African countries have to commit their huge resources to build viable industrial base that could produce manufactured goods of international standards and engender diversification of economy. But to mobilize adequate resources to finance its industrialization along with the provision of basic needs for its populace, the commanding heights of the economy have to be nationalized and put under democratic management and control of the working masses. This however entails attack on the rapacious interest of multinationals and greed of the local capitalist elite. Therefore, achieving this will require a mass struggle of workers and poor masses of Africa, with the international working class solidarity including with Chinese workers, aimed at defeating capitalism and enthroning genuine socialism on the continent.

* Peluola Adewale writes for the Socialist Democracy, Lagos Nigeria

* Please send comments to or comment online at www.pambazuka.org

Kwame Nkrumah: From pan-African visionary to one-party state dictator? Peluola Adewale looks back on the legacy of one of Africa's most famous political leaders.

The independence of Ghana on 6 March 1957 was a watershed in the history of Africa, being the first in black Africa. It was a catalyst in the struggle for liberation from colonial rule on the continent. For the African masses one man's stood out, Kwame Nkrumah. Inspired by the independence of India from Britain in 1947, he saw the possibility of defeating imperial Britain with coordinated and consistent political struggle. He thus became a quintessential anti-colonialist. His return to Ghana and formation of the anti-colonialist Convention Peoples Party (CPP) gave radical impulse to the independence struggle and set the stage for the exit of the British colonialists.

Unlike the current generation of African leaders who are mostly only satisfied with earning foreign exchange from the sales of natural resources and self-enrichment, Nkrumah was genuinely committed to using the resources of Ghana for industrial development and economic growth. Ghana was rich in bauxite which could be used to manufacture aluminum, even for exports if there were a reliable power supply. This together with the need to produce electricity for industrialisation informed the Volta Dam project. The project was only half-succeeded, but nobody could reasonably doubt the positive intention behind it.

Nkrumah openly asserted that capitalism was too complicated to achieve the goals of development. But beyond the rhetoric of anti-capitalism and scientific socialism in his celebrated speeches and writings, he never truly cut links with capitalism and imperialism. His socialism was based on the Stalinist Soviet Union model and a utopian African version. This was the undoing that made it impossible to achieve his lofty goals. For instance, his government relied on a bureaucratically run marketing board - a colonial invention - to mobilise the required resources from the sales of cocoa, the country's economic mainstay. This created a more enabling avenue for official corruption than the provision of basic needs and infrastructure development that it was originally designed to achieve.

Nkrumah set up state owned companies and public utilities, apparently to provide some basic needs for the people. But lack of democratic management and control of the companies by the workers themselves bred crippling mismanagement and corruption. They did not only fail to largely achieve their objectives, they became a curse rather than a blessing. Since Nkrumah could only use the revenue from cocoa to bail out public companies, he had to sacrifice poor farmers. The government, through the market boards, reduced the price paid to farmers for cocoa in order to raise more revenue. This was at a period when there was an increase in the price of cocoa on the world market, and farmers expected fortunes. They were thus highly disappointed and demoralised. This culminated in a series of events that made Ghana lose its place as the world's largest producer of cocoa.

The economic downturn created a social crisis that made the government of the self-styled Osagyefo ('the Redeemer') - the once hope of Ghana and beacon of Africa - unpopular. The government's response to the various worker agitations worsened the situation. Rather than mobilising workers and the poor to break completely with capitalism, Nkrumah became dictatorial and took draconian measures against the widespread protest and disaffection to his government. Unfortunately, Nkrumah who had once proclaimed during the anti-colonial struggle, 'if we get self-government, we will transform the Gold Coast (Ghana) into a paradise in 10 years', almost turned the country into hell for workers and opposition alike. He declared strike actions by workers to be illegal, arrested and detained opposition without trial, and declared Ghana a one-party state with him as life president.

There remains no doubt that Kwame Nkrumah was one of the greatest African nationalist leaders. The military coup in 1966 that dethroned him, provided him the opportunity to give more speeches and writings on Africa's development. He was a pan-Africanist, par excellence, with a radical and socialist flavour. However, Nkrumah was not a fully rounded Marxist. This limitation largely contributed to his inability to actualise his objectives and goals.

Their limitations notwithstanding, Nkrumah and his kindred spirits still tower above the current generation of African leaders who have rolled back, the gains of the 1960s that saw massive investment of public resources in developmental projects. The rapacious colonialists refused to develop the continent despite sitting on its fabulous wealth. They only provided infrastructure that would aid exploitation of the resources of the continent. This placed enormous responsibility on the new African leaders after the independence to begin the process of necessary development and develop a welfare state. The idea of a welfare state, built on the Keynesian theory of state interventionism in the economy was fashionable globally in the period after the independence.

In the present era of neo-liberalism the current corrupt leaders of Africa have embarked on the shameless sale of the patrimony of their nations, built with public resources, to the rapacious capitalists locally and internationally. The new set of African leaders has bastardised the original idea of African solidarity, championed by Nkrumah and others. They have come up with initiatives such as the New Partnership for Africa Development (NEPAD) designed to rely on the exploitation of Africa's resources in the service of the West, and the anti-poor neo-liberal economy, as vehicles for development. With this vicious, anti-poor, pro-capitalism, it is no surprise that the idea of Nkrumahism, despite its limitation, has remained alluring to many individuals, genuinely interested in the development of Africa.

It is possible to state that the shortcoming of an Nkrumahist welfare state was not due to the personal failings of Nkrumah; rather that it arose from his attempt to seek improvement and development within the confines of capitalism. Africa is the weakest link of global capitalism. Here a revolutionary movement could start, with international working class solidarity, that could defeat capitalism and imperialism.

Kwame Nkrumah in his speech, 'I Speak of Freedom: A Statement of African Ideology', spoke of economic cooperation and political union among African countries as the viable means of bringing about full and effective development of the continent's natural resources for the benefit of African people. This statement is still largely relevant today. But to be truly valid, and achieve the desired objectives, such economic cooperation and political union was intended to be built on genuine socialist programme that aimed at formation of socialist confederation, if possible, a federation of Africa in solidarity with the working class internationally. This together with discovery of the first-hand ideas of Marxism as taught by Marx, Engel, Lenin and Trotsky should be the task of workers and poor masses in Africa.

* Peluola Adewale writes for the Socialist Democracy, Lagos, Nigeria

* Please send comments to or comment online at pambazuka.org

The Supreme Court of the Democratic Republic of Congo has declared Joseph Kabila the winner of a controversial presidential run-off election held on 29 October. After the elections, Jean-Pierre Bemba filed an electoral fraud petition with the Supreme Court and asked it to nullify the vote. After reviewing the petition, the court rejected Bemba's objections, on grounds of insufficient evidence. Peluola Adewale argues that “to avoid a serious post run-off election crisis, foreign diplomats were reportedly trying to persuade both presidential contestants to agree to grant a measure of personal, financial and legal protection to whoever loses. This is to assure the would-be loser and perhaps, his backers, that their share of the looted mineral wealth of the Congo will not be lost.”

Voters in the Democratic Republic of Congo (DR Congo) went back to the polls on 29 October 2006 for the run-off presidential election. The contest was between Joseph Kabila, the incumbent, installed in 2001 after his father Laurent was murdered by a presidential security aide, and Jean-Pierre Bemba, a former warlord and one of four vice presidents in a power-sharing government that was set up to end a five year war. The 30 July election did not produce a clear winner out of 33 presidential candidates. Kabila got 45%, while Bemba got 20% of the votes on a 70% turnout.

‘The Economist’ magazine (London, October 26, 2006), described the choice the Congo’s voters had to make in the run-off election as choosing between “cholera and the plague”.

The provisional results for the second round of elections, released on 15 November, suggest Kabila has won the election. Kabila won 58.05% and Bemba got 41.95%. Bemba however, alleged there was fraud, with more than one million fake votes for Kabila and filed a complaint at the Supreme Court of Justice. This means that the final results will not be ready until November 30 when the court is expected to give its verdict on the election.

The results, like those in the first round, reflect the sharp division along ethnic lines, between the East of the country, where Kabila has the upper hand, and the West, including the capital, Kinshasa, where Bemba has a big following. This is ominous for the post-election situation.

Many Bemba supporters believe the UN and Western powers financed and organised the elections to establish Kabila as president and to have a ‘legitimate government’. The powers hope this will allow giant corporations to fully exploit the Congo’s natural wealth, as well as allowing EU States a pretext to stop refugees fleeing the Congo from entering Europe.

After the first round of elections in August, 30 people were killed in gun battles. For the second round, UN and EU troops tried to gather weapons in Kinshasa, and used armoured vehicles and helicopters to patrol the city’s streets.

However, the people of the Congo apparently expect the electoral process, the first in more than four decades, to provide relief for a country whose only history is that of rapacious and ruthless colonialism, parasitic dictatorship, official corruption and brutal war. The country, which is two-thirds the size of Western Europe, has only 300 miles of paved roads! Yet, the Congo is potentially one of the richest countries in Africa, due to its enormous natural resources and mineral wealth.

For 32 years (1965 - 1997) the country (formerly known as Zaire) was ruled and ruined by a staunch ally of the West in the Cold War era, Mobutu Sese Seko, who plundered the economy and repressed the people.

Mobutu so personified corruption that it was for his government the term ‘kleptocracy’ – a combination of kleptomaniac (compulsive thief) and autocracy - was originally coined. Mobutu was installed with the support of the US and Western European powers, which earlier supervised the overthrow and killing of Patrice Lumumba, the left-leaning first prime minister of post-colonial Congo after winning independence from Belgium in 1960. As was the practice in the Cold War era, the Western imperialist powers enthroned Mobutu to secure Congo for continued imperialist exploitation and to act as a launching site against “communism” in the region, particularly Angola. The USA provided more than $300 million in arms and $100 million in military training for the dictatorship. Western imperialism also provided Mobutu with loans that plunged the country into a serious debt burden, even when they knew that Mobutu accumulated money for self-enrichment. The dictator amassed a personal fortune estimated at $4 billion and ran up a $12 billion external debt.

The removal of Mobutu from power, in 1997, by Laurent Kabila-led guerrilla insurgents, not only failed to provide a solution to the terrible poverty facing most people in the Congo, but, in reality, set the stage for worse disaster. The 1998 insurrection by rebels linked to Rwanda and Uganda triggered a war involving six other nations. Between 1998 and 2003, the Congo was plunged into what was described as the bloodiest conflict since the Second World War. Over four million people were killed in the conflict, which was termed “Africa’s world war” because it involved six other African countries; Rwanda, Uganda, Burundi, Angola, Namibia and Zimbabwe. Kabila has had his own army since the 1990s, while Bemba has had an armed force since the early 2000s, when he ruled parts of northeast Congo.

The war led to the United Nations’ (UN) biggest and most expensive mission, involving an 18,000-strong peace-keeping force and expenditure of $1.1 billion a year. However, a journalist, Aidan Hartley, described ‘Monuc’ (as the UN force in Congo is known), as an ill-equipped ‘Third World’ army, which had to make do with old American and Soviet aircraft dating back to the Vietnam era. He also queried the morality of the UN using contingents from a military dictatorship (Pakistan) and from monarchies (Nepal and Morocco) to ‘help’ Congo become democratic. Hartley wrote that the UN’s approach in the Congo was similar to the disastrous US-led mission in Somalia, in 1993. During that conflict, the imperialist powers sub-contracted the task of stabilising the crises to their allies in African and other developing nations while ensuring their continued exploitation of Africa.

The Congo war was fuelled by the country’s vast mineral wealth with all sides, including multinational corporations from the West, taking advantage of the anarchy to plunder the natural resources. The resources were also used to finance the conflict. The country is rich in diamonds, water, coltan, copper, timber and other natural resources. A 2001 UN Security Council report on the illegal exploitation of natural resources in the Congo, estimated that Rwanda, alone, might have gained at least $250 million over a period of 18 months from the pillage of coltan. This was said to be substantive enough to finance the war. Burundi and Uganda were also seriously indicted by the report. Coltan is used in high-tech industries as a key component in the manufacture of mobile phones, computers, stereos and VCRs. Its price soared substantially in 1999 and 2000 when the world supply was decreasing and demand was increasing, thereby leading to a large increase in production of coltan in the Congo.

The US, Belgium, Britain and France are also implicated in the Congo conflict. They manipulated the conflict for their economic interests and supplied millions of dollars of weapons to different sides in the conflict. Large quantities of arms were transferred by US and Britain to the Congo, via Eastern European countries.

Perhaps more than any other country in Africa, the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC) deserves peace, having known only exploitation and crisis - economic, social and political – since its inception as a state.

The ‘Independent’ newspaper (London, 28 July 2006) described the country as “the most blighted nation on the earth”. But the November election will not bring the peace so yearned for by working people in the Congo, if events since the first election round are anything to go by. The results of the first round elections in August, were greeted by three days of fighting between the armies of Kabila and Bemba. Less than a week before the 29 October election, violent clashes took place daily. Between August and late October over 30 people were killed in street battles. Fighting, which left two people dead, broke out on 13 November, after the second round provisional results put Kabila ahead.

To avoid a serious post run-off election crisis, foreign diplomats were reportedly trying to persuade both presidential contestants to agree to grant a measure of personal, financial and legal protection to whoever loses. This is to assure the would-be loser and perhaps, his backers, that their share of the looted mineral wealth of the Congo will not be lost.

The long-suffering masses of the Congo desperately yearn for an end to war. But ‘peace’ established under the auspices of former warlords and imperialist powers will not end poverty, joblessness and all the other abundant social ills facing working people. Only a policy of transforming the devastated economy, including building adequate infrastructure, and fundamentally improving living standards, could allow the poor masses to expect to see light at the end of the tunnel. But this will not happen as long as the Congo is run on the basis of anti-poor, neo-liberal policies, as dictated by the IMF/World Bank, and for as long as the Congo’s huge mineral wealth is plundered by the multinationals.

To free up resources to guarantee basic needs, like education, health, water, electricity and proper roads, the huge natural resources of the Congo have to be taken into public ownership, under the democratic management and control of working people. Disastrous neo-liberal economic policies have to end.

Transforming the lives of the mass of people in the Congo is impossible under capitalism, which sees it remaining a neo-colonial country under the stranglehold of imperialism.

Whether the presidential election ends conflict or not, and irrespective of whether Kabila or Bemba is in power, under capitalism workers and the poor of the Congo will discover that their living standards cannot be meaningfully improved, despite the enormous resources of the country. This can open up possibilities for the ideas of mass struggle in opposition to the local rulers and imperialism, and the growing support for a socialist alternative. Of course, workers’ organisations are weak, due to years of dictatorship and devastating war, but only by building independent organisations of workers and the poor can the grip of the local looters and imperialists be broken in the DR Congo.

• Peluola Adewale is the editor of the Socialist Democracy, Lagos Nigeria.
• Please send comments to or comment online at www.pambazuka.org