#Senegal Military

[afriblaq]

[thashining]

Did Senegal finally take a definitive step toward true independence? Under the leadership of its new president, Bassirou Diomaye Faye, the nation has severed ties with France, expelling French military forces and dismantling lingering colonial influence. This bold move reflects Senegal’s determination to establish true sovereignty and chart its own path free from external control.

[postcard-from-the-past]

Military revue in Dakar, Senegal

French vintage postcard

[darnellafrica]

Senegal 🇸🇳 & Chad 🇹🇩 Double Team France 🇫🇷, Demand Removal Of Troops

In a move that should surprise no one, Senegal 🇸🇳 & Chad 🇹🇩 have officially requested the removal of troops from France 🇫🇷, the latter whose influence in Africa has been waning as of late. Chad 🇹🇩 requesting France 🇫🇷 to leave “After 66 years since the independence of the Republic of Chad, it is time for Chad to assert its full sovereignty, and to redefine its strategic partnerships according…

[historicminiaturesnorthernva]

Tirailleurs Sénégalais and some French infantry of the Great War.

[lightdancer1]

The war in Senegal has lasted even longer than the Congo Wars:

The Senegal War of 1982-present relies on a particular juxtaposition that makes its endemic length all but inevitable. Specifically the junction of both local separatism and the kind of Islamist insurgency that can never really be destroyed because the most nihilistic elements of the Islamic religion fasten to it like a vampire to a victim's neck and want a quick ticket to paradise that beats hollow actually living like a decent Muslim like most of the normal people of the Islamic world.

[zvaigzdelasas]

1 Jan 25

[reasonsforhope]

Note: I super don't like the framing of this headline. "Here's why it matters" idk it's almost like there's an entire country's worth of people who get to keep their democracy! Clearly! But there are few good articles on this in English, so we're going with this one anyway.

--

2024 is the biggest global election year in history and the future of democracy is on every ballot. But amid an international backsliding in democratic norms, including in countries with a longer history of democracy like India, Senegal’s election last week was a major win for democracy. It’s also an indication that a new political class is coming of age in Africa, exemplified by Senegal’s new 44-year-old president, Bassirou Diomaye Faye.

The West African nation managed to pull off a free and fair election on March 24 despite significant obstacles, including efforts by former President Macky Sall to delay the elections and imprison or disqualify opposition candidates. Add those challenges to the fact that many neighboring countries in West Africa — most prominently Mali, Burkina Faso, and Niger, but other nations across the region too — have been repeatedly undermined by military coups since 2020.

Sall had been in power since 2012, serving two terms. He declined to seek a third term following years of speculation that he would do so despite a constitutional two-term limit. But he attempted to extend his term, announcing in February that elections (originally to be held that month) would be pushed off until the end of the year in defiance of the electoral schedule.

Sall’s allies in the National Assembly approved the measure, but only after security forces removed opposition politicians, who vociferously protested the delay. Senegalese society came out in droves to protest Sall’s attempted self-coup, and the Constitutional Council ruled in late February that Sall’s attempt to stay in power could not stand.

That itself was a win for democracy. Still, opposition candidates, including Faye, though legally able to run, remained imprisoned until just days before the election — while others were barred from running at all. The future of Senegal’s democracy seemed uncertain at best.

Cut to Tuesday [April 2, 2024], when Sall stepped down and handed power to Faye, a former tax examiner who won on a campaign of combating corruption, as well as greater sovereignty and economic opportunity for the Senegalese. And it was young voters who carried Faye to victory...

“This election showed the resilience of the democracy in Senegal that resisted the shock of an unexpected postponement,” Adele Ravidà, Senegal country director at the lnternational Foundation for Electoral Systems, told Vox via email. “... after a couple of years of unprecedented episodes of violence [the Senegalese people] turned the page smoothly, allowing a peaceful transfer of power.”

And though Faye’s aims won’t be easy to achieve, his win can tell us not only about how Senegal managed to establish its young democracy, but also about the positive trend of democratic entrenchment and international cooperation in African nations, and the power of young Africans...

Senegal and Democracy in Africa

Since it gained independence from France in 1960, Senegal has never had a coup — military or civilian. Increasingly strong and competitive democracy has been the norm for Senegal, and the country’s civil society went out in great force over the past three years of Sall’s term to enforce those norms.

“I think that it is really the victory of the democratic institutions — the government, but also civil society organization,” Sany said. “They were mobilized, from the unions, teacher unions, workers, NGOs. The civil society in Senegal is one of the most experienced, well-organized democratic institutions on the continent.” Senegalese civil society also pushed back against former President Abdoulaye Wade’s attempt to cling to power back in 2012, and the Senegalese people voted him out...

Faye will still have his work cut out for him accomplishing the goals he campaigned on, including economic prosperity, transparency, food security, increased sovereignty, and the strengthening of democratic institutions. This will be important, especially for Senegal’s young people, who are at the forefront of another major trend.

Young Africans will play an increasingly key role in the coming decades, both on the continent and on the global stage; Africa’s youth population (people aged 15 to 24) will make up approximately 35 percent of the world’s youth population by 2050, and Africa’s population is expected to grow from 1.5 billion to 2.5 billion during that time. In Senegal, people aged 10 to 24 make up 32 percent of the population, according to the UN.

“These young people have connected to the rest of the world,” Sany said. “They see what’s happening. They are interested. They are smart. They are more educated.” And they have high expectations not only for their economic future but also for their civil rights and autonomy.

The reality of government is always different from the promise of campaigning, but Faye’s election is part of a promising trend of democratic entrenchment in Africa, exemplified by successful transitions of power in Nigeria, Liberia, and Sierra Leone over the past year. To be sure, those elections were not without challenges, but on the whole, they provide an important counterweight to democratic backsliding.

Senegalese people, especially the younger generation, have high expectations for what democracy can and should deliver for them. It’s up to Faye and his government to follow."

-via Vox, April 4, 2024

[alpaca-clouds]

Colonialism Never Ended - The French Colonial Tax

Something I definitely wanted to talk about in terms of my Castlevania Nocturne in historical context essays is this one thing: People think that somehow colonialism has ended. The general idea goes something like this: "The first world war happened, and in the aftermath, the colonial countries realized that actually colonialism was immoral, so they stopped it." And this once more is another thing, in which history class lies to you.

First: No, they did not end colonialism out of the goodness of their hearts. They ended it because the world war had eaten up so many of their finances, that they could no longer support their colonial power. Because - this is the other thing they do not tell you - there were violent revolts happening constantly in the colonies. And beating those down with counter-violence cost money.

Second: But they actually for the most part did not end colonialism. Instead they just put some sort of puppet government into power to create a sense of independence among the colonial subjects, while that government worked for them and a lot of the land (especially the land that was worth some money because of resources to be gained from it) was still in the ownership of the colonialists.

Nowhere is this more clear than in the former French colonies.

I think no matter where you are from, if you have looked into colonial history, you have at some point wondered this one thing: Why is Haiti so poor?

See, yesterday I talked about the aftermath of the Haitian Revolution and how the massacre of the French happened. (Please note, it is quite interesting how history books tend to use the word "massacre" for the killing of about 5000 white people, but see the 200 000 Black people killed as just "victims of war".) But technically that "massacre" was not the end of te Haitian revolution.

Because over the next few decades there were again and again attempts by the colonial powers to assert their dominance over Haiti again. And eventually Charles X had his marine come up to Haiti and offer the people a choice: Either he would rain down the entire military might of France down on the island, or the island would agree to pay an "independence tax" amounting to 150 million francs at the time. Adjusted for inflation, that is more than 20 billion today.

It was not really a choice. They had to agree. And just for reference: When the US bought Louisiana from France, they paid way, way less - because they were other white people after all.

And with some on and off payments... Well, Haiti spend more than 122 years paying off their freedom, while they are very small and do not have a whole lot of resources. Just as an example: Haiti has about 27,560 square miles of landmass, which is just about a tenth of the landmass of France.

In any fair world, France would have paid the Haitians money for the years and years of slavery that France had profited from - but that is not the world in which we live.

And Haiti is not the only land. While a ton of former colonies of France - especially in Africa - are still made to pay a colonial tax to France. And if you think this is some small sum, think again. In many cases France takes more than 80% of the governmental takes in those countries.

Currently these countries pay that tax: Benin, Burkina Faso, Côte d’Ivoire, Guinea, Mali, Niger, Senegal, Togo, Cameroon, Central African Republic, Chad, Congo, Equatorial Guinea, and Gabon.

The money they take from these countries is close to half a trillion US dollars each year!

Now, of course, technically while some of this money is indeed paid as a tax for the "independence" of the countries, most of it is appropriated through other means. Often times colonial people who hold power will propose a new project to build that is needed in the former colony, and France simply is the one country gladly willing to borrow the money to that former colonies - at often very high interest rates.

(Please note, this is the reason western countries hate China: because China right now offers a lot of African countries loans under better conditions than the former colonial powers, in a way that in some cases helps stabilize those countries.)

But in the end, yeah: Most of those countries will use most of the money they get from taxes to France. And if anyone says: "Hey, that is unfair," it just so happens that sometime soon a "coup d'etat" will happen in the country and get rid of that specific rebellious country leader.

France is the most ruthless country in this regard, but do not be mistaken. Pretty much all colonial powers treat some of their former colonies this way. And this is an issue. It is why the global south is so darn poor - while the global north is often so rich. They exploit those former colonies to this day.

And frankly, we need to pay back that money. It is only fair.

[blackstarlineage]

The Founding of the Organization of African Unity (OAU): A Garveyite Perspective on African Unity, Missed Opportunities, and the Struggle for True Sovereignty

The Organization of African Unity (OAU) was founded on May 25, 1963, in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia, with the goal of promoting African unity, ending colonial rule, and strengthening economic and political cooperation among independent African nations. The OAU was an important step in the Pan-African movement, but from a Garveyite perspective, it failed to fully realize Marcus Garvey’s vision of a powerful, economically self-reliant, and militarily strong United States of Africa.

Garvey believed that Africa must be united not just symbolically, but as a single political and economic force capable of defending itself from Western imperialism and economic exploitation. The OAU represented a compromise between two competing visions of African unity—one that sought a strong, centralized Pan-African government (in line with Garveyism) and another that prioritized national sovereignty over full unification.

This analysis will explore:

The historical context leading to the formation of the OAU.

The competing visions of African unity among the founding leaders.

The successes and failures of the OAU from a Garveyite perspective.

How Garvey’s vision of African unity provides a more complete path to true sovereignty.

1. The Historical Context: Why Was the OAU Necessary?

By 1963, most African nations had gained political independence, but neo-colonialism, economic exploitation, and Western interference threatened the continent’s future.

A. The Wave of African Independence (1950s–1960s)

Between 1957 and 1963, over 30 African nations became independent, but their economies were still controlled by European powers, multinational corporations, and international financial institutions.

Many new African states lacked strong economies, militaries, and infrastructure, making them vulnerable to Western manipulation.

Cold War politics divided Africa, with the U.S. and the Soviet Union competing for influence over newly independent African nations.

Example: France, Belgium, and Britain retained control over African banking systems, trade routes, and military alliances, keeping Africa economically dependent.

B. The Legacy of Colonial Borders and Divisions

The borders of African nations were drawn by European colonialists at the Berlin Conference (1884-85), splitting ethnic groups and weakening African unity.

Many African nations focused on maintaining their colonial-era boundaries instead of working toward a united Africa.

Example: The CFA Franc, used in former French colonies, remained under French control even after independence, proving that Africa was still financially enslaved.

Key Takeaway: Political independence did not free Africa from Western economic domination—only complete unity and economic self-reliance could.

2. Competing Visions of African Unity: The Casablanca Group vs. The Monrovia Group

At the heart of the OAU’s founding was a power struggle between two opposing visions of Pan-Africanism:

A. The Casablanca Group – Advocates for a Strong United Africa

Led by Kwame Nkrumah (Ghana) and Sekou Touré (Guinea).

Called for a fully united African state with one government, one military, and one economy.

Emphasized self-reliance, socialism, and economic independence from Western powers.

Garveyite Perspective: This vision was closest to Garvey’s dream of a powerful, centralized African empire, capable of defending itself from Western interference.

B. The Monrovia Group – Defenders of National Sovereignty

Led by Leopold Senghor (Senegal), Felix Houphouët-Boigny (Ivory Coast), and leaders of pro-Western African nations.

Believed in gradual cooperation between African nations without creating a single African government.

Supported maintaining ties with former colonial powers and Western institutions.

Garveyite Perspective: This group represented a watered-down version of Pan-Africanism, prioritizing European economic partnerships over true African self-rule.

Key Takeaway: The OAU was founded as a compromise between these two groups, preventing Africa from achieving full unity and strength.

3. Achievements of the OAU: Steps Toward Pan-Africanism

Despite its weaknesses, the OAU played a role in supporting African liberation struggles and promoting continental cooperation.

A. Support for Anti-Colonial and Liberation Movements

The OAU provided funding, weapons, and diplomatic support for liberation movements in Angola, Mozambique, Zimbabwe, Namibia, and South Africa.

The OAU pressured apartheid South Africa and supported the African National Congress (ANC) and other anti-apartheid movements.

Example: The OAU refused to recognize South Africa’s apartheid government and called for global sanctions against the regime.

B. Preventing Open Warfare Between African Nations

Established diplomatic channels to resolve border disputes and conflicts between African nations.

Helped prevent large-scale wars between African states, though internal civil wars and Western-backed coups still occurred.

Key Takeaway: The OAU provided some protection for African nations, but it lacked the economic and military power needed to enforce real Pan-African sovereignty.

4. The Failures of the OAU: A Garveyite Critique

While the OAU made progress, it ultimately failed to achieve the true liberation and unification of Africa due to four main weaknesses:

A. Failure to Create a United African Government

The OAU operated as a loose alliance rather than a strong, centralized African state.

African nations remained divided by colonial borders, languages, and economic policies.

Garveyite Perspective: Garvey’s vision called for a single African government, military, and economy—without this, Africa remained weak and fragmented.

B. Continued Economic Dependence on Europe and the West

African economies remained controlled by European powers, multinational corporations, and foreign banks.

Many African leaders chose to work with Western institutions (IMF, World Bank) instead of building self-sufficient African economies.

Example: France continued to control the CFA Franc, preventing African nations from having independent financial systems.

C. No Strong Pan-African Military or Defence System

Africa remained militarily weak and dependent on Western arms and training.

Western-backed coups overthrew Pan-African leaders (e.g., Nkrumah, Lumumba, Sankara), showing Africa had no defence against foreign intervention.

Example: The CIA-backed assassination of Patrice Lumumba (1961) proved that Africa needed military strength to defend its sovereignty.

Key Takeaway: The OAU failed to protect Africa from economic exploitation and Western-backed regime changes, proving that political independence was not enough.

5. The Garveyite Solution: Completing African Liberation

To fulfill the goals of the OAU and achieve real Pan-African sovereignty, Africa must:

Create a single, unified African government with strong leadership.

Establish a Pan-African military to protect Africa from Western and Chinese exploitation.

Nationalize African resources—gold, oil, diamonds—so wealth benefits Africans, not foreign corporations.

End reliance on European financial systems and establish an independent African monetary system.

Strengthen Pan African trade and economic cooperation to reduce dependency on the West.

Final Takeaway: The OAU was a step forward, but without economic and military power, Africa remains vulnerable to neo-colonialism. The struggle for African unity is not over—it is just beginning.

Conclusion: From the OAU to the African Union—The Next Phase of Pan-Africanism

The OAU was eventually replaced by the African Union (AU) in 2002, but Africa still lacks the full independence, strength, and unity Garvey envisioned. The future of Pan-Africanism depends on:

Rejecting foreign control over African economies and governments.

Building true African self-reliance through internal trade and development.

Creating a powerful, independent African military to defend the continent.

As Marcus Garvey warned, political independence without economic and military power is an illusion. Africa must complete the revolution—only then will true Pan-African unity be achieved.

[justinspoliticalcorner]

Sanjana Karanth at HuffPost:

Israel’s actions since it laid siege to war-torn Gaza last year are “consistent with the characteristics of genocide,” according to a new report by the United Nations committee investigating how the state’s policies and practices impact the Palestinian people’s human rights. Since launching its military offensive more than 400 days ago, Israel has “publicly supported policies that strip Palestinians of the very necessities required to sustain life — food, water and fuel,” the committee said in a Thursday statement about its report, which will be presented to the General Assembly on Nov. 18.

“These statements along with the systematic and unlawful interference of humanitarian aid make clear Israel’s intent to instrumentalize life-saving supplies for political and military gains,” it continued. The Israeli government has not yet publicly responded to the report, though officials have repeatedly denied any violations of international law and framed such accusations as antisemitic. Israeli officials have also consistently criticized the U.N. as being biased against their country. The U.N. established the Special Committee to Investigate Israeli Practices in 1968 to monitor the state of human rights in the occupied Syrian Golan, the West Bank, East Jerusalem and the Gaza Strip. The committee is made up of representatives from Sri Lanka, Malaysia and Senegal, who said they were unable to visit the areas in question because Israel never responded to their requests.

The new report covers the first nine months of Israel’s ongoing military campaign, which began in October 2023 after Hamas militants launched an attack in Israel that killed around 1,200 people and took about 250 hostage. Some 100 Israelis remain in captivity. Israel has since displaced 1.9 million Palestinians in Gaza and killed more than 43,000, most of whom are believed to be women and children. Outside experts and medical workers estimate the true death toll is much higher, but that deaths have been undercounted because the Ministry of Health’s infrastructure has been destroyed; because bodies remain stuck under rubble, where rescuers can’t reach; and because some victims’ bodies were damaged so severely that they can’t be identified. The casualty count from the war likewise does not account for deaths from starvation, from diseases that the collapsed health care system in Gaza couldn’t treat or from what the committee called “an environmental catastrophe.”

[...] The findings are consistent with those from other U.N. agencies, human rights groups, humanitarians and media investigations. On the same day the U.N. committee released its conclusions, Human Rights Watch published its own thorough report describing Israel’s actions as the mass “forced displacement” and “ethnic cleansing” of Palestinians — actions that amount to war crimes and crimes against humanity.

The latest UN report reveals that Israel Apartheid State’s actions towards Palestinians in occupied territories since October 2023 qualify as genocidal.

[postcard-from-the-past]

Infantry military camp by Dakar, Senegal

French vintage postcard

[mariacallous]

The sun was just coming up on March 19, 2023, as gunmen invaded the Chimbolo gold mine in the Central African Republic and opened fire on the Chinese employees residing there. The site’s security guards were easily overpowered, and nine Chinese, part of a contingent that had launched the site only days earlier, were killed.

Rebel groups quickly blamed the assault on Russian Wagner Group operatives, who the rebels claimed were intent on scaring the Chinese. According to this account, the Russians were jealous of China’s long-standing presence in the country and wanted to deter Beijing so that Moscow could enlarge its own operations in the Central African mining sector.

No evidence was provided for these assertions, and the identities of the perpetrators of the attack remain unclear two years later. Yet the incident raises questions over the potential clash between growing Russian and Chinese influence in sub-Saharan Africa.

On the most basic level, the two countries have fundamentally different objectives on the continent. Whereas China has sought stability to ensure its considerable investments can come to fruition, Russian involvement seems to be motivated by and thrive in insecurity and instability. This could put them on an unintended collision course.

China’s presence is much larger than Russia’s, with China-Africa trade reaching $295 billion in 2024—making it the continent’s biggest single trading partner. This compares to just $24.5 billion for Russia.

China has been involved in Africa for decades, while Russia’s resurgence on the continent is much more recent, dating to the 2010s.

“Russia tends to focus on building political alliances, selling weapons, and using private military contractors, like the Wagner Group, to provide security,” said Justus Nam, an independent research consultant focusing on China-Africa relations. “On the other hand, China has centered its strategy on long-term economic ties.”

The Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) is at the center of this strategy. The BRI is a foreign economic policy and investment program, which now includes all but two African countries. The extent of the initiative is underscored by the fact that at least 46 African ports have been built or financed or are currently operated by Chinese state-owned shipping companies.

Moscow, by contrast, has provided defense assistance to a number of countries where armed groups are widespread and has often helped fledgling or failing presidents to remain in office, where they otherwise might have been overthrown by militias or coups.

It is not a coincidence that Mali, CAR, and Sudan, all of which are currently experiencing widespread insecurity and fragility, are some of the major hot spots of Russian influence on the continent.

While Russian and Chinese interests have often diverged, they have frequently been mutually beneficial because of their shared desire to counter Western influence.

China has likely been pleased by the widespread use of pro-Russian propaganda to encourage states with already anti-French and anti-Western beliefs to boot out French and U.S. troops and bases.

“China is generally happy to use Russia’s behavior opportunistically if it counters U.S. influence,” said William Matthews, a senior research fellow for China and the world at Chatham House. “They are typically not working together but keeping out of each other’s way.”

In November 2024, two countries that had increasingly showed signs of becoming closer to Russia—Chad and Senegal—asked France to withdraw its troops and bases, followed quickly by Cote d’Ivoire in December 2024, bringing to six the number of countries in West Africa that had made such requests in the past five years.

Despite these convergences of interests, areas of competition and contention are likely to emerge in the next decade.

China and Russia are now the two largest arms suppliers to sub-Saharan Africa. Russia provides 21 percent of arms imports, marginally ahead of China, which brings in 18 percent. Western sanctions against Russia in recent years have made it more difficult for Moscow to sell weapons to the continent and have created an opportunity for China in this market.

“Russia dominated this sector before, but now China is moving into it as well, creating the scope for heightened competition between the two countries,” said Chris Alden, a professor of international relations at the London School of Economics and Political Science.

Meanwhile, battles for access to crucial minerals could also become problematic. China controls around 30 percent of African copper and 50 percent of cobalt production, giving it significant control over global supply chains, which it will want to protect.

This determination to protect its access to resources has been underscored in eastern Democratic Republic of the Congo, where conflict has reignited in recent months between Rwandan-backed M23 rebels and the Congolese state.

Chinese companies own the majority of cobalt, uranium, and copper mines in eastern Congo, and China has provided drones and weapons to the Congolese government and neighboring Uganda to fight the insurgent rebels. Beijing has even urged Kigali to end its support to M23, most likely because it wants to restore stability around its mines in eastern Congo.

This Chinese preference for subtle influence and maintaining stability in areas of investment to ensure that it gets good returns could gradually come into conflict with Russia’s efforts to sow and encourage violence and division. Without instability, Russia’s model of exchanging security assistance for natural resources is likely to be ineffective.

“If African countries turn to Russia for security needs,” Nam said, “they might deprioritize China’s infrastructure investments in conflict-prone areas.”

This may not matter much when China and Russia do not look to build influence or investment in the same countries. Yet where their presence overlaps, as in the case of CAR and increasingly in Equatorial Guinea—where China has plans to build a naval base and Russia is also providing Wagner security assistance—this may pose some challenges.

This is not a battle Russia wants. Moscow is already struggling with its military quagmire in Ukraine, and it has relied heavily on China to help it circumvent Western sanctions following its invasion of Ukraine in 2022. Given China’s importance to Vladimir Putin’s political survival, Beijing holds most of the cards in this diplomatic dance: Moscow would almost certainly have to back down if China demanded it.

But influence and investment in sub-Saharan Africa are vital to Russia, both as a means of ensuring access to crucial minerals and as a buffer to Western sanctions. It is therefore unlikely to withdraw its operations on the continent unless it is forced to.

Equally, although it would likely pose less of an existential risk to China, Beijing would also much rather avoid any confrontation with Russia.

China currently has no interest in dealing with security issues in the vicinity of its African investments. But the more bullish Russia is on the continent, the more likely it is that security challenges will spill over borders and pose problems for China’s investments and influence in these countries.

More than 10,000 Chinese firms now operate in Africa, and the value of Chinese business there since 2005 has risen to more than $2 trillion.

“The stability question is more important to China in the long term,” Alden said. “The question will then be, how does China stop Russian actions from damaging Chinese interests?”

A notable flashpoint could be Ivory Coast, which finds itself in an increasingly unstable neighborhood where Russian influence is prevalent. Russia is eager to build a presence in Ivory Coast and appears to have helped countries in the Sahel run disinformation campaigns in Ivory Coast in recent months.

At the moment, Ivory Coast remains relatively stable, though elections are due this year with the potential for greater unrest. China, which is Ivory Coast’s most significant trading partner, with trade more than doubling between 2017 and 2022, would likely be extremely frustrated if Russia were to create disruption there that undermined its economic ties.

Not only is there a security challenge, but if countries partnering with Russia are increasingly facing civil unrest and conflict, they are also unlikely to be able to pay back Chinese infrastructure loans, posing another problem for China.

Chinese loans account for around 12 percent of African public and private debts, and some countries are in a particularly bad way. For instance, by 2021, Equatorial Guinea’s debt to China was 49.7 percent of GDP, and in 2019, Djibouti’s had reached 71 percent and Zambia’s 65.8 percent.

Then, there is the added conundrum of what happens when Russian havoc antagonizes the West.

On the one hand, the chaos created by Russia distracts the West from countering Chinese activities and expansion because it is too concerned by Moscow’s more belligerent acts.

Yet there is also a possibility that while Chinese influence went relatively unimpeded prior to Russian involvement, the West will now fight harder to maintain a presence on the continent to counter Russia, in turn frustrating China’s ambitions or competing directly for resources.

This is perhaps most notable in the advent of the Lobito Corridor, an 800-mile railway that will link Congo’s mining regions to Zambia and the Angolan port of Lobito, on the Atlantic Ocean. The railway line, for which the first feasibility studies were completed in September 2024, is funded by the United States and the European Union and is a direct counter to the BRI.

Then-President Joe Biden visited Angola in December to promote this project and demonstrate U.S. commitment to the continent, while Angolan President João Lourenço has described the United States as the ideal partner to reequip Angola’s military.

None of this was good news for China, a long-standing Angolan ally, which has countered aggressively with new investments in Angola, including an announcement that Beijing will construct Angola’s first highway. The project will link southern and northern Angola and is due to begin construction this year.

For China, African nations are indispensable; they provide it with considerable trade and wealth as well as access to strategic ports. Yet despite all the destabilization that Russia potentially brings, Moscow’s involvement is also beneficial because of the way it further undermines Western influence in the region.

In such circumstances, over the longer term, China may opt to adapt so that it can have its cake and eat it too. Beijing may start to mimic Russia’s use of mercenaries and develop its own private security sector to reduce its reliance on stability.

By deploying its own mercenaries, it could better defend its operations abroad, enabling it to continue its investments in spite of Russian-inspired chaos while also keeping Moscow involved on the continent as a counter to the West.

[brandonwritesgames]

Check out Dieselpunk 1921 on Itch.io for more!

The End of The Great War and The Shadow of the Ruins

After the guns were finally silenced, and the German machines finally withdrew from Paris, people found themselves stuck living in the bullet-scarred hellscape that was the Western Front. In the months since the signing of Paris, France has found its military forced to withdraw from its borders, and worse yet they’ve found Paris policed by a pro-German police force. The establishment of the Paris demilitarized zone has been met with outrage, both from a burgeoning nationalist movement and an increasingly radical labour movement.

While the National Assembly argues whether or not to move the meeting place from Palais Bourbon, The German Empire continues to spread its influence by providing arms and machines of war to pro-German and imperial movements across Europe. In the chaos of the British Civil War, there are rumours that German arms are finding their way into the hands of the monarchists.

In the ruins of the Western Front, gangs mingle in the shadows with resistance movements, both formed by veteran soldiers and citizens seeking escape from the squalor from the bombed out boulevards and buildings.

The Republic of France

Nobody expected Germany to win the war. As the front pushed deeper and deeper into France, and the years dragged on and on, hope began to die. In the shadow of the war, families have found themselves on opposite sides of a hostile border, farmers have found what little remains of their fields filled with lead, and grocers have found their shelves empty. Paris itself, once a gleaming symbol of hope in Europe, has found itself under the whims of a demilitarization order, enforced by a policing militia loyal to Germany. Yet amidst this turmoil, radicals and free thinkers have begun organizing campaigns of hope against the crowns of Europe, again calling for the restoration of the ideals of Liberté, égalité, fraternité, with some calling for a workers revolution against capital and the state.

But for all the talk of egalitarianism in France, the suffering of those subject to colonialism are given little chance to speak on their own behalf. While Paris cants of peace and liberty, French soldiers arm for repression and slaughter in Senegal. With uprisings against the faltering French Third Republic across their colonial territories, colonial administrators have begun campaigns of terror to consolidate their limited control. With only a handful of major cities under their control, the French Government finds itself scrambling to mount a defence of it’s colonial machine while also negotiating treaties at The Paris Peace Conferences.

Desperate to prevent another crisis like Britain, France desperately attempts to promote unity in mainland territories like Basque and Corsica. Yet through it all, the toilers persist, their resilience and courage to fight and survive driving them forward though the thorns towards a brighter future.

[ptseti]

KÉMI SÉBA FREED AFTER DAYS OF QUESTIONING BY FRANCE

French police have released pan-African activist and founder of @urgencespanaf (X) Kémi Séba - after days of questioning. He was arrested in Paris on 14 October 2024 in connection with a probe into alleged collusion with a foreign power “with the aim to foster hostility or acts of aggression against France." Although no charges were pressed, he could face decades in jail if eventually prosecuted and found guilty.

Séba, a citizen of Benin and bearer of a Nigerien diplomatic passport, was stripped of his French nationality in summer. The technical reason given was a clause 237 of the Civil Code: "A French citizen who in fact behaves like the national of a foreign country may, if he or she holds the nationality of that country, be declared to have lost the status of French citizen by decree following the assent of the Conseil d'État." Yet it was widely seen as punishment for his anti-French activism in Africa.

Séba is a prominent organiser in the francophone part of our continent - known for his staunch anti-imperialist and pan-African stance. His NGO, Urgences Panafricanistes, has chapters across Africa and the Caribbean, including in Benin, Burkina Faso, Congo, Ethiopia, Niger and Senegal, as well as Haiti and Martinique. Its website states that the organisaiton is known "to contribute more effectively than any other African organisation in the 21st century to the resurgence of the fight against neocolonialism, in particular through its actions against the CFA franc and Western military bases on Mother Earth."

Séba is a proponent of so-called multipolarity, the idea that global power should not be concentrated in the hands of any one civilisation or bloc.

[reddest-flower]

The Soviet intervention in Hungary and the Khrushchev revelations produced in Europe a process that led – gradually – to the Eurocommunism of the Communist Party of Spain’s leader Santiago Carrillo, who said, in 1976, ‘once Moscow was our Rome, but no more. Now we acknowledge no guiding centre, no international discipline’. This was a communism that no longer believed in revolution but was quite satisfied with an evolutionary dynamic. The European parties, correct in their desire for the right to develop their own strategies and tactics, nonetheless, threw themselves onto a self-destructive path. Few remained standing after the USSR collapsed in 1991. They campaigned for polycentrism but, in the end, achieved only a return to social democracy.

Amongst the Third World communist parties, a different orientation became clear after 1956. While the Western European parties seemed eager to denigrate the USSR and its contributions, the parties in the Third World acknowledged the importance of the USSR but sought some distance from its political orientation. During their visits to Moscow in the 1960s, champions of ‘African socialism’ such as Modibo Keïta of Mali and Mamadou Dia of Senegal announced the necessity of non-alignment and the importance of nationally developed processes of socialist construction. Marshal Lin Biao spoke of the need for a ‘creative application’ of Marxism in the Chinese context. The young leader of the Indonesian Communist Party – Dipa Nusantara Aidit – moved his party towards a firm grounding in both Marxism-Leninism and the peculiarities of Indonesian history. [...]

In the Third World, where Communism was a dynamic movement, it was not treated as a religion that was incapable of error. ‘Socialism is young’, Che Guevara wrote in 1965, ‘and has its mistakes.’ Socialism required ceaseless criticism in order to strengthen it. Such an attitude was missing in Cold War Europe and North America [...] After 1956, Communism was penalized by the Cold Warriors for the Soviet intervention in Hungary. This played some role in the Third World, but it was not decisive. In India, in 1957 the Communists won an election in Kerala to become the ruling party in that state. In 1959, the Cuban revolution overthrew a dictatorship and adopted Marxism-Leninism as its general theory. In Vietnam, from 1954, the Communists took charge of the north of the country and valiantly fought to liberate the rest of their country. These were communist victories despite the intervention in Hungary.

[...]

Much the same history propelled the Indonesian Communist Party (PKI) forward from 1951, when it had merely 5,000 members, to 1964, when it had two million party members and an additional fifteen million members in its mass organizations (half of them in the Indonesian Peasants’ Front). The party had deep roots in the heavily populated sections of east and central Java but had – in the decade after 1951 – begun to make gains in the outer islands, such as Sumatra. A viciously anti-communist military was unable to stop the growth of the party. The new leadership from the 1953 Party Central Committee meeting were all in their thirties, with the new Secretary General – Aidit – merely thirty-one years old. These communists were committed to mass struggles and to mass campaigns, to building up the party base in rural Indonesia. The Indonesian Peasants’ Front and the Plantation Workers’ Union – both PKI mass organizations – fought against forced labour (romusha) and encouraged land seizures (aksi sepihak). These campaigns became more and more radical. In February 1965, the Plantation Workers’ Union occupied land held by the US Rubber Company in North Sumatra. US Rubber and Goodyear Tires saw this as a direct threat to their interests in Indonesia. Such audacity would not be tolerated. Three multinational oil companies (Caltex, Stanvac and Shell) watched this with alarm. US diplomat George Ball wrote to US National Security Advisor McGeorge Bundy that in ‘the long run’ events in Indonesia such as these land seizures ‘may be more important than South Vietnam’. Ball would know. He oversaw the 1963 coup in South Vietnam against the US ally Ngô Đình Diệm. The West felt it could not stand by as the PKI got more aggressive.

By 1965, the PKI had three million party members – adding a million members in the year. It had emerged as a serious political force in Indonesia, despite the anti-communist military’s attempts to squelch its growth. Membership in its mass organizations went up to 18 million. A strange incident – the killing of three generals in Jakarta – set off a massive campaign, helped along by the CIA and Australian intelligence, to excise the communists from Indonesia. Mass murder was the order of the day. The worst killings were in East Java and in Bali. Colonel Sarwo Edhie’s forces, for instance, trained militia squads to kill communists. ‘We gave them two or three days’ training,’ Sarwo Edhie told journalist John Hughes, ‘then sent them out to kill the communists.’ In East Java, one eyewitness recounted, the prisoners were forced to dig a grave, then ‘one by one, they were beaten with bamboo clubs, their throats slit, and they were pushed into the mass grave’. By the end of the massacre, a million Indonesian men and women of the left were sent to these graves. Many millions more were isolated, without work and friends. Aidit was arrested by Colonel Yasir Hadibroto, brought to Boyolali (in Central Java) and executed. He was 42.

There was no way for the world communist movement to protect their Indonesian comrades. The USSR’s reaction was tepid. The Chinese called it a ‘heinous and diabolical’ crime. But neither the USSR nor China could do anything. The United Nations stayed silent. The PKI had decided to take a path that was without the guns. Its cadre could not defend themselves. They were not able to fight the military and the anti-communist gangs. It was a bloodbath.

[...]

There was little mention in Havana of the Soviet Union. It had slowed down its support for national liberation movements, eager for detente and conciliation with the West by the mid-1960s. In 1963, Aidit had chastised the Soviets, saying, ‘Socialist states are not genuine if they fail to really give assistance to the national liberation struggle’. The reason why parties such as the PKI held fast to ‘Stalin’ was not because they defended the purges or collectivization in the USSR. It was because ‘Stalin’ in the debate around militancy had come to stand in for revolutionary idealism and for the anti-fascist struggle. Aidit had agreed that the Soviets could have any interpretation of Stalin in terms of domestic policy (‘criticize him, remove his remains from the mausoleum, rename Stalingrad’), but other Communist Parties had the right to assess his role on the international level. He was a ‘lighthouse’, Aidit said in 1961, whose work was ‘still useful to Eastern countries’. This was a statement against the conciliation towards imperialism of the Khrushchev era. It was a position shared across many of the Communist Parties of the Third World.

Many Communist parties, frustrated with the pace of change and with the brutality of the attacks on them, would take to the gun in this period – from Peru to the Philippines. The massacre in Indonesia hung heavily on the world communist movement. But this move to the gun had its limitations, for many of these parties would mistake the tactics of armed revolution for a strategy of violence. The violence worked most effectively the other way. The communists were massacred in Indonesia – as we have seen – and they were butchered in Iraq and Sudan, in Central Asia and South America. The image of communists being thrown from helicopters off the coast of Chile is far less known than any cliché about the USSR.

Red Star Over the Third World, Vijay Prashad, 2019