For All Points-Of-The-View.
Eric Reeves: Border Control from Hell: How the EU's migration partnership legitimizes Sudan's "militia state"Today, the Enough Project released a new report, "Border Control from Hell: How the EU's…Continue
1884 oil on canvas painting by Danish artist Th. Jessen of the harbor of Christiansted, St Croix (Private collection of Wayne James)By Wayne JamesST CROIX, USVI -- League for league, square mile for…Continue
Philosophy — the rational investigation of the truths and principles of being, knowledge, or conduct.Broadly speaking, philosophy can be distinctly described as a socio-political and economic collage…Continue
Hundreds gathered in Ethiopia’s northern town of Adwa to…Continue
Reparation Master of Ceremony, Mr. Paramount Chief Vekuii Rukoro of the Herero people, Hon Madam Ida Hoffmann, the Chair Person of the Nama people, Distinguish Guest, friends and comrades, Brothers…Continue
AJPAS: Greetings Nahas Angula, and thank you for agreeing to participate in this (February 2017) interview. NA: My name is Nahas Angula, former Prime Minister of the Republic of Namibia and now a…Continue
African Liberation Day is celebrated on 25 May of each year. The origin of the event is at the First Conference of Independent African States held in Ghana on 15 May 1958. It was the first Pan-African conference held in the African Continent and in a newly independent nation.
The first President of Ghana Dr Kwame Nkrumah gathered in Accra the leaders of the then eight independent African nations: Egypt, Ethiopia, Ghana, Liberia, Libya, Morocco, Sudan and Tunisia. Representatives of the liberation movements of Cameroon, Algeria and other territories still under European colonial occupation also participated. The conference was instituted on May 15 as Africa Freedom Day to symbolise the determination of the African people towards freedom from colonial exploitation.
Session of the All-African Peoples Conference in Accra, Ghana 1958. Photo: Wikimedia.
This conference was followed by the All African Peoples Conferences of December 1958, January 1960 and March 1961 which advanced the agenda of the struggle against colonialist oppression. Subsequently, in 1963, after the founding of the Organisation of African Unity in Ethiopia by 32 newly freed African states, the day was renamed African Liberation Day. Today it is also known as The Africa Day.
Kwame Nkrumah and his Family with Egyptian President Gamal Abdel Nasser at the 1965 OAU Summit. Photo: Wikimedia.
It is important to understand the political significance of the Africa Day. It is not just a day to celebrate our African pride and culturally express ourselves but also a date to remember the freedom fighters of the continent and to keep in mind all the battles still to be fought for the definitive liberation from neocolonialism. It is also a day to denounce all foreign interference operations that continue to occur: Libya, Ivory Coast, Somalia…
At present, there are many movements and organisations that celebrate the anniversary. For those of us who understand that Africa and its diasporas are still in struggle until full liberation, this will always be the African Liberation Day; and generally for those people and organizations who do not know the political meaning of the day or prefer to highlight the cultural pride aspect of the celebration, today is the Africa Day. In any case, it is very important to understand that the day was born as a way of merging all the liberation struggles of the whole continent, of all African peoples in all corners of Africa. It can not, therefore, be claimed by only one of these peoples, as some movements claim, particularly in the United States, even if it is undoubtedly the largest majority in Africa and the most oppressed, exploited and massacred people in the world.
Omowale Malcolm X, El-Hajj Malik El-Shabazz, Mecca, 1964. Photo: profoundbandit.tumblr.com
The Afro-American perspective has been very useful in providing content for black liberation, but it is also true that African-American leaders must raise from the oppressive environment of American racism in order to see the struggle, in all its dimensions with greater realism and a broader view. That was the case of Omowale Malcolm X who came into contact with the African and Arab realities after his abandonment of the Nation of Islam (NOI) and greatly expanded his vision of the problem of white supremacism and Arab supremacism, which also exists. If we stick with a single part of his thinking, we will not understand what racist oppression has been in the world and how are we going to to get out of it.
The intellectual basis of the Pan-Africanist movement is antiracist since racism is a Western and Arab invention used for the oppression of the enslaved and colonised. There should not be any confusion about it. Every African in Africa and the Diaspora, and every sincere friend of Africa, whether or not African, regardless of origin, as long as they have the Africa and its Diaspora liberation and unity as primary objectives, is welcome to our fight. Pan-Africanism must not be confused with movements which, by defending something that is legitimate, recall to essentialist thoughts illegitimate for any human being. This essentialism undoubtedly will drive out of the movement those more ethically aware of the need to be consistent with our own thinking and thus will distance us from the goal of unification and empowerment of the African Continent. The All-African Peoples Conference was never the Most-African Peoples Conference or the Some-African Peoples Conference.
African liberation is an inspiration to many peoples of the world. This infographic is in Indonesian. Source: http://sahabatmkaa.com/
To demand the emancipation and independence of thought and action for black people is not racism but legitimate resistance, since the worst of historical oppression has been suffered by racialized black people. In the same way, one must demand respect for the diversity of colours, origins and cultures present in Africa because the contrary means assuming the fallacious categories of the oppressor. This is the spirit of the creators of Pan-Africanism, particularly Du Bois and Nkrumah, a Pan-Africanism that fights against all forms of oppression, including racism.
This thought which fights both for the physical and mental liberation of the black person as well as for that of the rest of Africans should not be contaminated by irrational thinking. African liberation is and should be the inspiration for all anti-imperialist struggles. For a true social liberation to happen, we must first liberate us from the mental bonds of the categories imposed by the slaveholders, colonialists, neo-colonialists and racists, and therefore, as Pan-Africanists, we must demand a scrupulous respect for the African people in Africa And outside it, in all its diversity.
Siku ya Ukombozi was Afrika!
¡Feliz Día de la Liberación Africana!
Happy African Liberation Day!
* Antumi Toasijé is a historian and Africologist. He is Director of the Pan African Studies Center (Spain) www.centropanafricano.com.
* THE VIEWS OF THE ABOVE ARTICLE ARE THOSE OF THE AUTHOR AND DO NOT NECESSARILY REFLECT THE VIEWS OF THE PAMBAZUKA NEWS EDITORIAL TEAM
* BROUGHT TO YOU BY PAMBAZUKA NEWS
* Please do not take Pambazuka for granted! Become a Friend of Pambazuka and make a donation NOW to help keep Pambazuka FREE and INDEPENDENT!
we were foetuses when they mapped out our lives
some of us would glide through birth canals
break open wombs
announce our arrival in bold wails
we were born protesting
then to be shushed at entry
and later made to believe our voices mattered little
some of us in luckless transit
trips cut short in detour to non-existence
ubiquitous culture guards
denying our admittance
and barring our descent with sex-selected foeticides
we were infants when they dressed us in expectations
some of us showered in a labyrinth of pastels
coaxed to carry subdued flags
or coated in pinks, glittery sequins and lace
that would later grace our wedding trails
some of us never made it to toddler-hood
swaddled in acrylic blankets
our tender bones and marrow crushed in dumpsters
through sanctioned infanticides
we were girls when they told us
to cross our legs and lock our thighs
till our “beloved” found the key
or a thief broke in to steal the prize
we were still girls when they warned us
to laugh in small doses
to walk on tip toes
shrink and fit
into crevices where spiders could not hide
we were still girls when
some of us brushed the hairs of dolls
where some of us braided responsibility in neat cornrows
upon our younger sister’s crown
while we fed, and bathed the boys
lathering away our childhood into
the roles we were forced to assume
because we are “nurturers”;
we are “carriers”;
we are vessels for humanity;
we are “caretakers”
we are told
some of us were probed and poked
without our consent
by those who told us to cross our legs and lock our thighs
and when we asked why
they hushed us once again
covered our mouths with stinging nettle
and sewed the gaps with thorns
to later penetrate it with force
we are not born
rather we have become women
riddled with the fallacies of ‘ought’ and ‘should’
continuously knitted into a fabric of archaic norms
that some of us remain shackled
to the fate of female foetuses
agreed in our absence
drawn without our sanction
stencilled before we were conceived
and yet we are forced to carry its weight
some of us chisel away
the heavy granite covering who we were born to be
wishing we were alabaster
but we are caked in years of conditioning
many cracks and fissures
demanding strenuous effort
to carve out an exquisite piece of art
but now that we have grown into
now that we have taken the role
now that we have become women
we are the sole bearers of what that becoming can mean
we can rewrite our stories
transform the landscapes of our narratives
define and redefine
what it means
to be a Woman!
* Billene Seyoum Woldeyes is a poet, feminist writer and curator at www.africanfeminism.com.
In November 2017, African and European leaders will converge in Abidjan, Ivory Coast, for the Africa-EU Summit. From the 9th-10th May 2017 I joined researchers, policy makers, heads of civil society organizations, activists, government officials, and AU and EU officials in Addis Ababa for a precursor conference aimed at addressing issues of common concern and interest in the Africa-EU partnership. It was jointly organised by the Nairobi-based Centre for Citizens’ Participation on the African Union (CCPAU) and the Friedrich-Ebert-Stiftung Addis Ababa office. We covered peace and security, migration, economic relations, the youth; and also assessed the progress made thus far. At the end of those dialogues, and in retrospect, it is clear that Europe needs humility in its relations with Africa.
For Dr. Admore Kambudzi, the acting Director for Peace and Security at the AU, Africa-EU partnership has assisted the AU in attaining the milestone of functional coherence in the African Peace and Security Architecture particularly the work in Burundi, South Sudan and Somalia. But the Head of Peace and Security section of the EU Delegation to the AU, Dr. Thorsten Clausing, sees it differently, arguing that the EU is not getting a return on investment. At the beginning of 2016, the EU cut its funding to African Union Mission in Somalia (AMISOM) by 20 percent.
A deeper conversation is needed beyond the ‘value-for-money’ capitalist interpretation. Europe is being disingenuous, thus needing a reminder that Africa’s problems are a direct result of incompatibilities of European state systems they imposed on Africa in the 1880s. See it this way: the fight is about who must cook and eat when, how, why and where in a European kitchen located in Africa, the state. Before this forceful unification in the European kitchen, Africans presided over their own, separate kitchens. Europe cannot, therefore, abscond its responsibilities resulting from its recreation and reconfiguring of Africa.
And it is not just 1880s-related coloniality. Europe and its diaspora (the US) moved into Libya in 2011, ignoring the AU, to kill President Muammar Gaddafi and install puppets. Libya is yet to recover. Francophone Africa is in a mess with wounded knowledge and confidence of self and perpetual conflicts. France continues to manipulate currencies, support dictators and remove (arrest and imprison) leaders (Laurent Gbagbo). Just imagine how our ancestors from Francophone Africa – Senghor Leopold, Frantz Fanon and Thomas Sankara – feel from Ancestry.
Most major conflicts in Africa hitherto have had a direct or indirect European hand. For Europe to assume its current stance is extraordinary arrogance. Europe needs humility!
Following its refugee crisis, Europe has introduced migration as a new condition for development cooperation. Certain African countries will now be forced to agree to those migration conditionalities. Strangely, of all migrants that come to Europe, Africa only accounts for less than 20 percent. Take France, for illustrative purposes, with its 36,000+ municipalities. For the 25,000 migrants it was asked to take, there will still be 12,000+ municipalities starved of migrants – taking one migrant per municipality. What is the hullabaloo, really? Europe, which purports to be a key promoter of human rights, fails to capture the human rights dimension of migration. Migrants do not risk their lives travelling to Europe in search of cigarettes. Sometimes it is really a matter of life and death.
But Europe needs to be reminded: Africa has experiencing a serious influx of brutal and violent European migrants since the 1880s. Those migrants are still in Africa today – 100 years later - controlling African economies and occupying millions of hectares of African land, particularly in Southern African countries. Europe’s introduction of migration conditionality on Africa is therefore pure arrogance. The imperial continent needs humility.
Europe still controls most African economies 50 years after political independence. The Economic Partnership Agreements (EPAs) serve to consolidate Europe’s grip on these economies. The EPAs have effectively undermined Africa’s common economic strategy. Interestingly, Britain – a big trading partner of most African countries – has exited the EPAs. It is not clear what will be Africa’s response in the context of the EPAs.
Africa’s sellout liberation generation has been effectively seduced and romanced to maintain the neoliberal economic order profiting Europe. But there is a new wave – a wave of decoloniality demanding the completion of the struggle against Europe colonialism. There is an awake generation of fearless and radical young men and women of Africa rejecting the lengthy ‘visions’ and promises of European-made bouncers/bodyguards masquerading as African leaders. Those who disagree must go ask Ben Ali, Hosni Mubarak, Blaise Compaore and other western stooges. It is a struggle that will complete and deal with coloniality of being, power and knowledge. Indeed, it is a struggle to resolve the remaining contradictions of economic power.
It is a struggle that is led by fearless young men and women of Africa, ready to surrender their lives. It does not exist in the boardrooms of European-funded civil society but on African streets and shacks. This generation of radical activists promises Europe nothing but a reversal of most, if not all, deals that have been concluded with their bodyguards. Everything will be renegotiated.
All is not lost, African leaders can still go to Abidjan in November 2017 and tell Europeans that there is an impatient generation that is tired of old formulas, a generation ready to tear up deals recolonizing Africa. If the European bodyguards masquerading as African leaders fail to do so, this third generation of freedom fighters, after the heavy celebratory drinks from celebrating European economic defeat, will search for their graves of current leaders and urinate on them.
Europe must quickly be told to review its stance of peace and security, on migration and economic cooperation. Indeed, Europe must urgently search and learn about this thing: humility!
* Job Shipululo Amupanda is a commissioner for the African Diaspora and External Affairs of the African Youth Commission (AYC). He lectures political science at the University of Namibia. email@example.com or @Shipululo
* THE VIEWS OF THE ABOVE ARTICLE ARE THOSE OF THE AUTHOR AND DO NOT NECESSARILY REFLECT THE VIEWS OF THE PAMBAZUKA NEWS EDITORIAL TEAM
* BROUGHT TO YOU BY PAMBAZUKA NEWS
* Please do not take Pambazuka for granted! Become a Friend of Pambazuka and make a donation NOW to help keep Pambazuka FREE and INDEPENDENT!
By organisational failure of the Nigerian Socialist movement we mean its inability to sustain itself as a body of independent, more or less stable and coherent organisations capable of effective effort to connect with, learn from and influence the oppressed social forces in their struggles against the bourgeoisie and imperialism in pursuit of Socialist aims. Quite a few groupings of Socialists exist, some of which self-delusionally describe themselves as “the Socialist Party” or “the Communist Party” of Nigeria. However, the brutal truth is that all of them fail by the crucial criterion of possessing sufficient interventional capacity for sustained and broad-based influence over the agenda, course, pace, and outcomes of the social conflict between the oppressed and the oppressors.
There is certainly no more eloquent testimony of this than the extremely odd phenomenon of the social conflict in Nigeria being at this time primarily of a system-safe and system-reproductive character despite the devastating attacks on the interests of the oppressed occasioned by the bourgeoisie’s programme of neoliberal restructuring of the economy. That an otherwise objectively radicalising material situation has not resulted in a subjectively radicalised mass of the oppressed is, of course, primarily a function of the ideological hegemony of the bourgeoisie. That this hegemony itself has remained unchallenged, however, is in significant part a function of the organisational failure and impotence of the Nigerian Socialist movement.
Nigerian Socialists have sought to explain this failure and impotence by one or a combination of the following: the repression of the Socialist movement by the bourgeois state; the outbreak and consolidation of opportunism within the movement; and the movement’s ideological collapse following the fall of existing Socialism in the late 1980s and early 1990s.
It is indubitable that these factors have indeed featured in the organisational failure of the Nigerian Socialist movement and in its impotence in the social conflict since at least 1966.  Repression by the bourgeois state – under colonialism as well as under the military dictatorships of Olusegun Obasanjo and Ibrahim Babangida – repeatedly decimated the movement as an organised structure by degrading its capacity to reproduce itself. Employing measures including the detention of activists and leaders without trial, the outright banning of Socialist organisations, and the suppression of public activities by these organisations, these campaigns of decimation have sought to prevent the process of organic interaction and interchanges between the movement as an organised social force and the oppressed social forces, the very process that builds them into a unified social force in the class struggle against the bourgeoisie and its own allied forces.
For the Socialist movement – the possessor and material embodiment of the most advanced and best-organised consciousness of the proletariat in its pursuit of its immanent and transcendent interests – is effectual in the social conflict only to the extent that it transforms in its own image the consciousness and practice of the class and its allies. This transformation cannot take place except by this organic interaction between the movement and the oppressed; theory cannot grip the masses and become a material force in the social conflict except by the two-way interaction of the two. By preventing this interaction, the bourgeois state sought to prevent the establishment of the organic relationship between the movement and the oppressed, which is necessary for the interventional capacity of the former; it sought to prevent theory from becoming a material force. The effectiveness of this campaign of repression is certainly a key factor in the impotence of the Nigerian Socialist movement.
The cancer of opportunism in the movement is similarly a key factor. If state repression aimed to incapacitate the socialist movement by preventing its interaction with the oppressed masses, opportunism functioned objectively – i.e. irrespective of the intentions or rationalisations by its agents in the movement – to subject the extent and terms of that interaction to the accumulation and career interests of these agents.
Sacrificing the interests of the whole working class and other oppressed groups for their own sectional interests, these agents built a Socialist movement whose organisation, operation and intervention in the social conflict was governed not by the dictates of the struggle of the oppressed but by those of their personal interests. Thus, “the struggle” meant for these agents and the Socialist movement they created not really the engagement of the oppressed with the oppressor but the conflict with rival groups (of other opportunists in some cases but also of genuine revolutionaries in others) over control of power and the resources of the movement’s organisations.
In other words, the dynamics of conflict in the Socialist movement found its basis, just like those of conflict in the bourgeois polity, in the contradictions of the process of accumulation of power and wealth. This, rather than any serious ideological, programmatic, or strategy differences, has been the principal source of the long and pernicious history of factionalism and splits within the movement, even to this day. Driven by the imperatives of personal accumulation, a leader (and the group built around him or her) who cannot gain control or adequate access to the resources of the organisation would rather destroy it or split off to create another that would be under his or her own control.
Similarly, as the demise of the 1964 Joint Action Committee demonstrates, these leaders prefer to lead tiny organisations over which they have personal control – although such organisations have little capacity to intervene in and influence the social conflict – than to merge them into a larger and more effective organisation over which, however, they would have no personal control or over whose resources they would not have unrestricted access. This has been a key factor in the organisational failure of the Nigerian Socialist movement.
Finally, there is the ideological collapse of the Nigerian Socialist movement, by which we mean the more or less complete disintegration of its organic body of premises, methodological principles, theories, concepts, practical goals, ethics, and strategies that receive their logical coherence and social rationale from the transcendent interests of the proletariat and that constitute the movement’s instruments of ideological intervention in the social conflict as an organised social force. This collapse involved any one or combination of the following in the political practice of the organisations or individuals that previously constituted the Socialist movement and many of which still considered themselves socialists:
1. Rejection of a proletariat-led Socialist revolution in Nigeria as a socio-historical necessity whose realisation should be the goal of immediate political practice;
2. Abandonment of the perspective of the proletariat in the analysis of social reality;
3. Abandonment of Socialist propaganda among the oppressed classes in the practical social conflict.
Crisis of existing Socialism
Babangida’s war on the Socialist movement left its organisational structure in tatters and severely degraded its interventional capacity. However, the movement would probably have recovered subsequently and begun to rebuild its organisations and capacity, especially in the less repressive environment that came with the demise of General Sani Abacha in 1998 and the advent of bourgeois civilian rule in 1999. That it did not do so was due primarily to its ideological collapse following the fall of existing Socialism in the last years of the 1980s and the early ones of the 1990s.
This ideological collapse of the socialist movement resulted directly from the crisis and collapse of the formations of existing Socialism and of the ideology of their ruling classes. In its history having attained a generally high degree of theoretical development, Socialist thought in Nigeria – especially in its dominant tendencies – always was susceptible to a sterile dogmatism that equated existing Socialism with the only socialism possible in existing world conditions and took the ideology of its ruling classes to be the true Marxism of the epoch. Thus, for the dominant sections of the Nigerian Socialist movement, the crisis of the countries of existing Socialism translated more or less directly into the crisis of Socialism and of Marxism, and the eventual collapse of those countries meant for these sections the collapse of Socialism as a historical project and of Marxism as a worldview and a science of society.
The ideological collapse paralysed much of the movement and threw it into disarray. Having lost its own ideological bearings, the movement could not provide enlightenment and ideological leadership as an organised body representing a viable alternative to the variety of bourgeois ideologies present in the mass of the oppressed. Indeed, in many a case, the Socialist organisation simply collapsed and expired, or, what amounts to the same thing, lost itself in bourgeois ideologies in the self-delusion of radicalising them.
These are the principal explanations socialists have offered of the organisational failure of the Nigeria socialist movement. However, deeper thought reveals these to be only immediate and contingent factors in a mediated causation with deeper and in fact structural roots. This becomes obvious as soon as we consider the fact that many Socialist movements across the world and particularly in the capitalist periphery have experienced these same conditions without then suffering organisational failure in such a sustained and apparently intractable manner as has the Nigerian movement.
The socialist movements in Brazil and other South American countries in the 1960s and 1970s and in South Africa and other Southern African countries all through the 1960s to the late 1980s suffered repression of such brutality, intensity, duration, and totality as the Nigerian socialist movement has never experienced. Yet they were able to sustain themselves in most cases and for most of these periods and after as a body of more or less coherent and effective organisations with the capacity to intervene in the social conflict on a class-wide basis. Even granting for a moment that the Nigerian movement has experienced repression with similar features and that this has played a key role in the persistency of its organisational failure, it still remains to explain this failure in periods relatively devoid of such repression. The movement has experienced the sort of repression capable of incapacitating it and decimating its organisational structure only under the Babangida regime (and to a much lesser extent under the military regime of Obasanjo). Before, between, and after these episodes of repression–which in all cases were relatively brief–the political conditions were relatively benign (even if not conducive) and the Socialist movement could have reconstituted itself organisationally, even if only operating illegally. Why could it not do this?
The problem of opportunism does not answer this question satisfactorily. Many Nigerian Marxists have given a correct explanation of opportunism in the movement. The question is why it has produced organisational failure in the Nigerian movement when it has not in many others. For opportunism has been a global problem in the world Socialist movement since the rise of imperialism in the later decades of the 19th century. It has not, however, had the same organisational result in all the national Socialist movements: some have disintegrated under its influence but others have not. What differentiates the first group from the second? Why has opportunism resulted specifically in organisational failure in the Nigerian Socialist movement when it has not in many others?
Similarly, the ideological collapse of the movement cannot be taken as given datum but must itself be problematised. This collapse only took place in the late 1980s and early 1990s; yet the problem of organisational failure has been with the movement since its inception in the 1940s. While it is certainly a factor in explaining the current organisational state of the movement, this collapse itself still needs explanation. For not all national Socialist movements experienced ideological collapse due to the fall of existing Socialism. Why was the Nigerian socialist movement so ideologically susceptible to the fall?
This indeed is the crux of the matter: why has the Nigerian movement been so susceptible to the organisationally destructive effects of repression, opportunism, and ideological collapse when other socialist movements have not? Why have these important but nonetheless contingent and immediate factors resulted in its organisational failure when they have not in other movements?
Organic divorce from the oppressed
As we already said above, the causation of this problem is mediated and has structural roots. These consist in the organic divorce of the Nigerian Socialist movement from the oppressed and their struggle, i.e., the fact that its organisations have functioned not as organic instruments of the struggle of the oppressed, but either as interventional instruments in that struggle by an affinitive but nonetheless extraneous social force or as instruments for the internalisation of alien conflicts. 
As an organic instrument of the struggle of the oppressed, the Socialist organisation is called up by the objective necessities of the domestic struggle of the oppressed and is given both its purpose and reason by those necessities. As we have said above, the organic interaction and interchanges between the Socialist organisation and these oppressed social forces build both into a unified social force in the class struggle. On the one hand, this makes the organisation not just a necessary product of the struggle but also a necessary instrument for furthering it, which gives the oppressed a stake in its survival and effective operation.  On the other, the interests of the oppressed and the demands of the struggle for those interests become the governing imperatives of the organisation’s operation and self-reproduction, defining what practices, attitudes, and beliefs are acceptable and what are not, i.e. defining its organisational morality. Thus, the necessities of the struggle provide not only the being and purpose of the organisation, but also its morality and the enforcer of that morality.
As either interventional instruments of extraneous social forces or instruments for the internalisation of alien conflicts, the Socialist organisation is called up by the necessities of an alien struggle or of the ideological persuasion of an extraneous social force, and it receives both its purpose and reason from those necessities, which become the governing imperatives of its operation and self-reproduction. Unless it somehow transforms into an organic instrument of the domestic struggle, such a Socialist organisation has little need for the organic interaction with the oppressed that we have described above and its interaction with them remains entirely theoretical, perfunctory, and decorative; for its real driving force is external to their struggle. Thus, the oppressed have little stake in it and no reason to take an interest in its survival and proper operation, and the organic interstices created by its divorce from the necessities of the domestic struggle become room for the sprouting and flourishing of practices, attitudes, and moralities other than those disciplined by those necessities.
Thus, the organic socialist organisation is disciplined by the necessities of the struggle of the oppressed of which it is an instrument; those necessities define the mores of the organisation, provide the enforcers of the mores, and furnishes them with a powerful incentive for action to enforce them. The non-organic organisation lacks this disciplining force and the disciplining mechanism it creates. Its discipline is only as strict as the personal discipline and morality of its individual members and no external force exists to control its internal conflicts.
The foregoing provides the basis for understanding the structural susceptibility of the Nigerian socialist movement to the devastating organisational effects of opportunism, repression and ideological collapse.
The dominance of opportunism (as opposed to its mere presence) and its resulting in organisational failure in the Nigerian Socialist movement are a structural function of the absence of an organic relationship between Socialist organisations and the struggle of the oppressed masses. Freedom from the harsh discipline of the necessities of this struggle invites into these organisations persons who cannot bear that discipline and provides liberty for opportunism to flourish in them and to overwhelm them. For, here, the governing principle in every discussion and manoeuvre is not the implications for the interests of the oppressed as a whole but the implications for the personal or factional interests of the leaders and members of the organisation. This freedom from the discipline of the struggle at once also prevents the development of any mechanism that can counter and correct the flourishing of opportunism. Since the organisation is not to the oppressed a necessary instrument in the struggle to achieve their goals, they have no reason to become part of it or, if they are members, to enforce the morality of the struggle in its theory and practice. Either they shun it or themselves become more or less willing instruments of the opportunism of its leaders. Thus, where this opportunism is not only an ideological one but also involves the pillage of the resources of the organisation – as it has often been in Nigeria – there exists no mechanism to control the avarice of the leaders and to subject it to the dictates of the struggle. The conflict over the pillage of the organisation, therefore, knows no bounds and it spirals until it destroys the organisation.
This absence of an organic relationship between the socialist organisations and the struggle of the oppressed masses also explains the absence of organisational tenacity and durability in the Nigerian socialist movement in the face of repression, why repression so easily results in the failure of its organisations. A socialist organisation that functions as an organic instrument of the struggle of the oppressed is a practical necessity, one that drives Socialists who are committed to this struggle: if the organisation does not exist, they must create it; if it exists but is under repression, they must protect it; if it existed but has been destroyed by repression, they must re-create it. Thus, they invest every ingenuity they possess into creating and sustaining the organic socialist organisation. Although repression could be so severe as to cripple such an organisation and to make its open operation impossible, it has hardly ever been so severe anywhere as to make absolutely any operation impossible. Even in the face of the most severe repression many Socialist movements have been able to undertake measures to sustain their organisations and to maintain some level of operation, including going underground, relocating their command and control organs beyond the reach of the repression, etc. That the Nigerian Socialist movement has collapsed under repression in most cases – i.e. dissolved its organisations – is a function of the absence of an organic relationship between those organisations and the struggle of the oppressed masses, a function of their structural superfluity in the struggle.
The ideological collapse of the Nigerian socialist movement in the face of the fall of existing Socialism was immediately a function of the ideological dependence of the bulk of the movement on the states of that Socialism, which itself was due to the absence of an organic relationship between Nigerian socialist organisations and the struggle of the oppressed masses. Governed by the necessities and challenges of the struggle of the oppressed, an organic socialist organisation develops its theories, programmes and strategies under the imperative of achieving the goals of that struggle. Although it may borrow ideas, lessons, and insights from another Socialist movement, its perspectives and borrowings are determined in the final analysis by the needs and realities of the struggle in which it is a necessary, organic instrument.  This is because its performance – in terms of the correctness of its perspectives, programmes, strategies and tactics, and of their effectiveness in the struggle – determines not only the fate of that struggle but also its own fate as an organisation; for it will quickly lose relevance in the struggle if it keeps failing in it. It, therefore, cannot afford to depend blindly – i.e., uncritically – on a foreign socialist movement for its theories, programmes, and strategies.
This imperative does not exist for the non-organic Socialist organisation, which can therefore afford such ideological dependency. That the bulk of the Nigerian Socialist movement was so ideologically dependent on foreign Socialist movements and for so long is supreme evidence of its organic superfluity in the struggle of the oppressed. That is why with a very few exceptions it has made little contribution of any great significance to Socialist theory but has engaged mostly in wooden and deadbeat academic Marxism, or in merely exhortatory and declamatory popular Marxism. Lacking that organic interaction with the practical struggles of the oppressed that at once grounds theory in concrete reality and yet challenges it to soaring flights of creativity and insight, Nigerian Marxism has mostly just waddled and hopped along the ground after Soviet Marxism like a quacking duckling after Mother Duck.
Now, how do we explain this organic divorce of the Nigerian socialist movement from the struggle of the oppressed? The movement has failed to establish an organic relationship with the oppressed, not simply because of its predominantly petty bourgeois class origins, but because the Nigerian petty bourgeoisie as a class has until the advent of neoliberal structural adjustment generally escaped the extreme privation and oppression that the labouring classes have experienced. It has yet to have a deeply and generally radicalising experience, an experience of privation and oppression out of which it can find no escape but revolution.
The class was generally comfortable and upwardly mobile in the pre-SAP period, receiving a good share of the surplus from the exploitation of the labouring classes and the dispossession of the oil-bearing communities. Although the neoliberal restructuring of the neocolonial formation has occasioned a drastic reduction in state-mediated transfers to the petty bourgeoisie, the class still receives a significant portion of the social surplus through various sources. These include transfers through expanded employment by foreign monopoly capital operating in Nigeria, foreign and domestic grants to non-governmental organisations, and legitimate and illegitimate enrichment through politics and political activities. Occupational emigration (the brain-drain problem, American Visa Lottery, etc.) and the booming music and film industries serve as important options and escape routes for many of those who cannot find accommodation within these other mechanisms. Although unemployment and underemployment are rife within the petty bourgeoisie – as within the proletariat – a large and growing portion of the class staves off complete destitution by entering into the informal sector.
The class has also experienced little political repression. The period of its most intense and extensive repression – Babangida’s and Abacha’s war from 1986 to 1998 to squash anti-SAP and anti-military rule forces – ended in a bourgeois civilian rule that has restored many liberties of the class almost completely. Thus, this general absence of an objectively radicalising situation has enabled the bulk of the petty bourgeoisie to still see options and escape routes from its situation and to continue nursing hopes of actually escaping.
Those who have come to the struggle of the oppressed have, therefore, not done so as of practical necessity but in most cases as an expression of ideological conviction or as the necessary conclusion of their theoretical analysis. Others have come out of occupational necessity (trade union and human rights workers, for instance). In both cases, they have come to the struggle of the oppressed as extraneous social forces and their Socialist organisations have served as interventional instruments without organic links to that struggle. This has also made possible the transformation of these organisations into instruments of the internalisation within it of alien conflicts.
Thus, Socialists who are absolutely committed to the struggle of the oppressed have been few and far between. Their efforts at forging organic links with the oppressed have been generally hindered and frustrated by the majority who cannot or will not make that commitment. That is why they are heroes.
It follows from the foregoing that the structural basis for overcoming the organic divorce between the Nigerian Socialist movement and the struggle of the oppressed – and, therefore, of overcoming the organisational failure of the movement – is that the Nigerian petty bourgeoisie (at least a significant portion of it) must undergo an experience of privation and oppression out of which it can find no escape but revolution. The movement’s history provides strong evidence of this.
It was surely no coincidence that the most successful bottom-up organising effort of the Socialist movement – in which it established a nationwide network of base and intermediate structures with good links with the struggle of the oppressed – occurred during the 1978-1995 structural crisis of Nigeria’s neocolonial formation and during the worst years of the structural adjustment programmes pursued by the bourgeoisie and imperialism to resolve it at the expense of the working people and the middle classes. While the problems of opportunism and infantile schism were abundantly in evidence in the movement in this period, it is a telling fact that it took the brutal campaign of repression by the Babangida regime to break the developing organic links between the movement and the oppressed masses and to decimate the movement itself as an organised force. The privation and oppression suffered specifically by the petty bourgeoisie in the period was such a radicalising experience for the class that it was driven increasingly to revolution and increasingly to make efforts at forging organic links with the urban working masses, in the realisation that it could not make revolution without them. In addition to Babangida's war against the movement, the momentum toward an organic socialist movement was frustrated by the de-radicalising effects of, on the one hand, the massive infusion of funds from countries of the capitalist centre into the growing civil society movement and, on the other, the corruption-fuelling introduction of “free money” into the economy by the military regime.
Similarly, we find that in South Africa, Guinea-Bissau, Angola, Mozambique, Cuba, Nicaragua, Brazil and many other countries, the radical petty bourgeoisie predominantly formed an organic link with the oppressed masses in the social conflict when and where they suffered such privation and oppression as they could find no escape from but by the revolutionary path. To the extent and as long as they saw or thought they saw a way out of their situation, they tended to pursue a reformist approach and built alliances with the oppressed masses only to harness them to their reformist programme.
More directly relevant to the question we are dealing with, those who in these circumstances nevertheless chose a revolutionary path tended to intervene in the struggles of the oppressed masses as extraneous agents acting on their behalf, as messiahs bringing salvation to the hapless multitudes; and their organisations tended to remain insulated from the masses. In other words, although they intervened in the struggle of the oppressed masses and in many cases made great sacrifices in aid of that struggle, they did not build organic relations with the oppressed masses and their struggle. They did not themselves become one with the oppressed and their organisations did not become the oppressed themselves organised for their struggle against their oppressors; they remained an extraneous, alien social force intervening in the struggle of the oppressed on their behalf.
A radicalizing experience
Any meaningful prospect, therefore, of the Nigerian socialist movement becoming organic, i.e. developing organic links with the oppressed masses on a structural basis, depends on the petty bourgeoisie – or at least significant sections of it – having a radicalising experience of privation and oppression so severe, total, and implacable that it can find no way out but through revolution. It is, of course, in the very nature of historical things that we cannot predict them with exact scientific rigour. It is, therefore, not possible – and in fact not necessary – to fix exactly when and exactly how this radicalising experience will occur. Yet Marxism would not be the revolutionary science that it is of society in both its diachronic and synchronic dimensions if it did not consist in analytical tools enabling thought to grasp the material premises and logic of social dynamics and statics.
We are, therefore, able to offer the prognosis that the current immiseration and pauperisation of the Nigerian petty bourgeoisie will worsen in the course and immediate aftermath of the next structural crisis of the neocolonial formation if it is grave and long enough. As we have said above, we believe the probability of such a crisis to be very good in light of the current structural crisis of global capitalism and given the structural vulnerability of the Nigerian formation to the vicissitudes of the global capitalist system.
Already, the crisis in the countries of the capitalist centre is occasioning deep cuts in development aid for sub-Saharan Africa, with the result that the externally-dependent civil society is experiencing a funding crisis that is causing many CSOs to downsize drastically or even to suspend operations. The crisis is causing a slowdown in the economies of the centre, thus limiting their capacity to absorb migrant labour from the periphery and especially from Africa. If the analyses of Marxists like Samir Amin and Istvan Mészáros are correct, we should expect the crisis to be persistent and to grow worse over time, with any recovery being weak, short-lived, and followed by another long and intractable crisis.
Should the Nigerian neocolonial capitalist formation go into a prolonged and severe structural crisis in these circumstances, the situation will indeed be most dire for the working masses but also for greater sections of the petty bourgeoisie. This will block off the routes of escape for more and more of the latter and almost certainly drive more of their numbers to revolution, creating simultaneously objective and subjective grounds for the forging of organic relations between them and the struggle of the oppressed.
This is not to say, however, that all effort at building a socialist movement with such relations with the struggle of the oppressed must wait until the next structural crisis. That would be to subscribe to the most brutish sort of mechanistic determinism; it would be to reject the Marxist notion of the dialectical determination of the superstructure by the substructure. For such crude determinism is completely alien to Marxism, a scientific worldview that accords full recognition to the creative and thus active role of the subjective factor in the historical labour process both of reproducing the existing social relations and of fashioning a new society.
That is surely the import of the first of Marx’s Theses on Feuerbach: “The chief defect of all hitherto existing materialism – that of Feuerbach included – is that the thing, reality, sensuousness, is conceived only in the form of the object or of contemplation, but not as sensuous human activity, practice, not subjectively...”  Thus, all through its history there have been individuals and organisations in the Nigerian socialist movement who have tried to build organic links with the oppressed and their struggles, even in the periods of greatest affluence ever enjoyed by the petty bourgeoisie.
The task of building an organic socialist movement in Nigeria must commence today even as we anticipate the next structural crisis of the neocolonial formation and the infinitely more favourable circumstances it will create for success at the task. The question is how to do that.
* Osaze Lanre Nosaze is formerly Executive Director of the Civil Liberties Organisation (CLO). This article, part of a larger work, was written in May 2013.
 Edwin Madunagu, The Tragedy of the Nigerian Socialist Movement and Other Essays (Calabar, Nigeria: Centaur Press Ltd., 1980), p.2.) dates the impotence of the movement from 1966, but this is tenable only if one accepts his implied conflation of the socialist movement and the workers movement (Ibid.). We insist, however, on differentiating them from each other. We therefore define the socialist movement as that body of organisations and individuals engaged in the struggle to abolish the social relations undergirding Nigeria’s neocolonial capitalist formation and to replace them with socialist ones. This at once differentiates between the two movements. For it is obvious that not all organisations of the workers movement are engaged in the struggle for socialism, some of them limiting their goals only to achieving the immanent (bourgeois) interests of the working class. They reject its transcendent (communist) ones – the latter however being precisely those that demand the abolition of capitalist social relations and their replacement with socialist ones. Based on this distinction, it becomes possible and indeed necessary to reconsider the question of dating the impotence of the socialist movement. For instance, was the 1944 General strike or even that of 1964 evidence of the potency and interventional capacity of the socialist movement as such or of the workers movement under the influence of bourgeois radicalism rather than socialist ideology? This is one of the very few flaws in Madunagu’s otherwise splendid (although too brief) study of the Nigerian socialist movement.
 For instance, the global struggle between the USA and the USSR, or between Maoism or Trotskyism and Stalinism.
 Fanon said something relevant to this in connection with the nationalist party in the decolonisation struggle. See Frantz Fanon, The Wretched of the Earth (Middlesex, England: Penguin Books, 1982).
 We see this clearly in the case of Maoism, for example. See Isaac Deutscher, “Maoism: Its Origins, Background, and Outlook,” The Socialist Register 1, no. 1 (1964): 11–37. The South African Communist Party furnishes an interesting case of a socialist organisation that experienced a measure of ideological dependence on the Soviet Union but survived the collapse of Existing Socialism and struggled to re-establish its own independent ideological bearings. See “Focus on Socialism,” South African Labour Bulletin 15, no. 3 (September 1990); and “Towards a New Internationalism?,” South African Labour Bulletin 15, no. 7 (April 1991). See also the continuation of the debate in the pages of The African Communist.
 See the following by Samir Amin: “A New Phase of Capitalism, or Rejuvenating Treatment for Senile Capitalism,” accessed December 4, 2012, http://www.forumtiersmonde.net/fren/index.php?option=com_content&view=ar... of-capitalism-or-rejuvenating-treatment-for-senile-capitalism&catid=54:critical-analysis-of- capitalism&Itemid=116; and Ending the Crisis of Capitalism or Ending Capitalism, trans. Victoria Bawtree (Cape Town, South Africa: Pambazuka Press, 2011). See also the following by Istvan Meszaros: “A Structural Crisis of the System,” interview by Judith Orr and Patrick Ward, Socialist Review, January 2009, http://www.socialistreview.org.uk/article.php?articlenumber=10672; “Structural Crisis Needs Structural Change,” Monthly Review 63, no. 10 (2012), http://monthlyreview.org/2012/03/01/structural-crisis-needs- structural-change; and The Structural Crisis of Capital (New York: Monthly Review Press, 2009), http://www.readingfromtheleft.com/Books/MR/structural%20crisis%20of%20ca... http://monthlyreview.org/press/books/pb2082/.
 Karl Marx, Theses on Feuerbach, 1888
The text below is a transcript of an interview by Alex Knyazev of Russia TV24 with Peter Koenig. Koenig is an economist and geopolitical analyst. He is also a former World Bank staff and worked extensively around the world in the fields of environment and water resources. He lectures at universities in the US, Europe and South America. He writes regularly for Global Research, ICH, RT, Sputnik, PressTV, The 4th Media (China), TeleSUR, The Vineyard of The Saker Blog, and other internet sites. He is the author of Implosion – An Economic Thriller about War, Environmental Destruction and Corporate Greed – fiction based on facts and on 30 years of World Bank experience around the globe. He is also a co-author of The World Order and Revolution! – Essays from the Resistance.
Questions Russia TV24: What were the reasons Mr. Gaddafi was killed and NATO invaded Libya?
PK: Mr. Muammar Gaddafi was certainly not killed for humanitarian reasons.
Mr. Gaddafi wanted to empower Africa. He had a plan to create a new African Union, based on a new African economic system. He had a plan to introduce the ‘Gold Dinar’ as backing for African currencies, so they could become free from the dollar-dominated western monetary system, that kept and keeps usurping Africa; Africa’s vast natural resources, especially oil and minerals. As a first step, he offered this lucrative and very beneficial alternative to other Muslim African states, but leaving it open for any other African countries to join.
At the time of Gaddafi’s atrocious murdering by Hillary Clinton, then Obama’s Secretary of State, and the French President Sarkozy, driven by NATO forces, on 20 October 2011 – Libya’s gold reserves were estimated at close to 150 tons, and about the same amount of silver. The estimated value at that time was $7 billion.
It’s your guess who may have stolen this enormous treasure from the people of Libya. As of this date, it is nowhere to be found.
Gaddafi also wanted to detach his oil sales from the dollar, i.e. no longer trading hydrocarbons in US dollars, as was the US/OPEC imposed rule since the early 1970s. Other African and Middle Eastern oil and gas producers would have followed. In fact, Iran had already in 2007, a plan to introduce the Tehran Oil Bourse, where anyone could trade hydrocarbons in currencies other than the US dollar. That idea came to a sudden halt, when Bush (George W) started accusing Iran of planning to build a nuclear bomb which was, of course, a fabricated lie, confirmed by the 16 most prominent US security agencies- and later also by the UN body for nuclear safety – the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), in Vienna. Washington needed a pretext to stop the Tehran Oil Bourse which would have decimated the need for dollars, and thereby most probably would have meant the end of the dollar hegemony.
Saddam Hussein had the same idea. He promised as soon as the murderous and criminal embargo imposed by the UN – of course dictated by Washington – would end in 2000, he would sell his petrol in euros. He was killed.
Gaddafi’s new plan for Africa would have meant an entirely new banking system for Africa, away from the now western (mainly France and UK) central banks dominated African currencies. It would have meant the collapse of the US dollar - or at least an enormous blow to this fake dollar based western monetary system.
So, the Gold Dinar was not to happen. Anybody – to this day- who threatens the dollar hegemony will have to die. That means anybody other than China and Russia, because they have already a few years ago largely detached their economy from the dollar, by implementing hydrocarbons as well as other international contracts in gold or the respective local currencies. That alone has already helped reducing dollar holdings in international reserve coffers from almost 90% some 20 years ago to a rate fluctuating between 50% and 60% today.
Also the Washington/CIA induced “Arab Spring” was to turn the entire Middle East into one huge chaos zone - which today, of course, it is. And there are no plans to secure it and to return it to normalcy, to what it was before. To the contrary, chaos allows to divide-and-conquer – to balkanize, as is the plan for Syria and Iraq. One of the Washington-led western goals of this chaos of constant conflict is to eventually install a system of private central banks in the Middle Eastern/North African countries controlled by Washington – privately owned central banks, à la Federal Reserve (FED), where the neocons, the Rothschilds and freemasonry would call the shots. That is expected to help stabilize the US dollar hegemony, as the hydrocarbons produced in this region generate trillions of dollars in trading per year.
Gaddafi also wanted to introduce, or had already started introducing into Africa, a wireless telephone system that would do away with the US/European monopolies, with the Alcatels and AT&Ts of this world, which dominate and usurp the African market without scruples.
Gaddafi was not only the leader of Libya, he had ambitions to free Africa from the nefarious fangs of the west. Despite being called a dictator and despot by the west – they do that to anyone who doesn’t submit to Washington’s rules – he was very much liked by Libyans, by his people. He had a more than 80% approval rate by the Libyan people. Libya’s oil fortune had allowed him to create a social system in his country where everybody would benefit from their land’s riches – free health care, free education, including scholarships abroad, modern infrastructure, top-notch technology in medicine, and more.
Russia TV24: Why would the gold Dinar be unacceptable for the western leaders?
PK: Yes, the gold Dinar was totally unacceptable to western leaders. It might have devastated the US dollar hegemony, as well as Europe’s control over the African economy – which is nothing less than neo-colonization of Africa – in many ways worse than what happened for the past 400 or 800 years of murderous military colonization and oppression - which is, by the way, still ongoing, just more discretely.
Look at the Ivory Coast 2010 presidential elections. Their arguably ‘unelected’ President, Alassane Ouattara, was in a tie with the people’s candidate, Laurent Gbagbo. Gbagbo said he won the election and asked for a recount, which was denied. Ouattara, a former IMF staff, was pushed in, basically by ‘recommendation’ of the IMF. He is the darling of the neoliberal international financial institutions – and is leading a neocon government – an economy at the service of western corporations. That’s what they wanted. That’s what they got. Modern colonization is well, alive and thriving. I call this a financial coup, instigated by foreign financial institutions.
Gbagbo was accused of rape, murder and other atrocities and immediately transferred to the International Criminal Court (ICC) – what justice? – at The Hague, where he was waiting five years for a trial which started on 28 January 2016 and is ongoing. On 15 May 2017, it was extended at the Prosecutor’s request to collect further evidence.
This by all likelihood is just a farce to dupe the public into believing that he is getting a fair trial. Already in hearings in 2014, Gbagbo was found guilty of all charges, including murder, rape and other crimes against humanity. Like Slobodan Milošević, he is an inconvenient prisoner, or worse, would he be as a free man. So, he will most likely be locked away – and one day commit ‘suicide’ or die from a ‘heart attack’. The classic. That’s how the west does away with potential witnesses of their atrocious crimes. End of story. Nobody barks, because the ‘free world’ has been made to believe by the western presstitute media that these people are inhuman tyrants. That’s precisely what the western media’s headlines proclaimed about Muammar Gaddafi: ‘Death of a Tyrant’.
On the other hand, in 2015, Ouattara was “reelected by a landslide”. That’s what western media say. Colonization under African ‘leadership’. He is protected by the French army.
Back to Libya: Take the specific case of France and West and Central Africa. The French Central Bank, the Banque de France, backs the West and Central African Monetary Union’s currency, the CFA franc. The West African Central Bank, for example, is covered, i.e. controlled, by about 70 per cent of the Banque de France. Banque de France has an almost total control over the economy of its former West African colonies. No wonder, Sarkozy, a murderer and war criminal – sorry, it must be said - backed Hillary’s – also a murderer and war criminal - push for NATO to destroy the country and kill thousands of Libyans, including Libya’s leader, Muammar Gaddafi. Hillary’s infamous words: ‘We came, we saw, he died’. And that she said shamelessly, jokingly, laughing. Would the term human being still apply to such a monster?
Russia TV24: What countries are mostly interested in the Libyan recovery and why? What are the chances for the economy of Libya to be repaired?
PK: Well, if anybody should be interested in Libya’s recovery it would be first the Libyans who are still living in Libya, because they are now living in a Libya of chaos and high crime, of mafia-economics, of tyranny by gang leadership. They certainly have an interest to return to normalcy. North African neighboring countries should also be interested in restoring order and rebuilding Libya’s infrastructure and economy, stopping the spill-over of high crime and terrorism. They have lost an important trading partner.
Of course, the rest of Africa, who have suffered from continuous colonization by the west, after Gaddafi’s demise, should also be interested in re-establishing Libya. They know, it will never be the same Libya that was there to help their economy, to help them prying loose from the western boots and fangs of exploitation.
And Europe should be most interested in re-establishing order and a real economy in Libya - cleaning it from a murderous Mafia that promotes drugs and slave trade ending up in Europe. Libya today is one of the key hubs for the boat refugees from Africa to Europe. Instead of helping Libyans to come to peace within its borders and to rebuild their country, the European Commission launched in 2015 a new European Border and Coast Guard Agency, targeting specifically Libya – destroying refugee boats, if they cannot stop them from leaving Tripoli, Benghazi and other Libyan Sea ports.
Of course, spineless Europe doesn’t dare say they would like to remake Libya into a functional state. Libya is Washington’s territory – and Washington wants chaos to continue in Libya. As such Libya is a formidable ground for training and recruitment of terrorists, drug and slave trading; a country where crime prospers and the CIA takes their cut, as these criminal activities are directed by the CIA and their affiliates. The rest of the world doesn’t see that. For them it’s all the fault of the dictator Gaddafi, who thank goodness was eliminated by the western powers, lords of money and greed.
Russia TV24: Decades ago Libya was very successful from an economic point of view. What main things could you remember?
PK: Libya was economically and socially a successful country, arguably the most successful in Africa. Prosperity from oil was largely shared by Gaddafi with his countrymen. Libya had a first-class social safety net, an excellent transportation infrastructure, free medical services, and modern hospitals, equipped with latest medical equipment, free education for everyone – and students could even receive scholarships to study abroad.
Under President Gaddafi, Libya built friendly relations based on solidarity with other African States and was always ready to help if a ‘brother nation’ was in trouble. Gaddafi was a bit like Hugo Chavez in South America. He had a large heart and charisma, maybe not so much for western leaders, but certainly for Libya’s own population. Yet, he is accused of tyranny by the West, and is said of having financially supported Sarkozy’s presidential campaign – Sarkozy, the very ‘leader’ who then helped Hillary lynch Gaddafi. If that doesn’t say a lot about Europe’s criminal leaders – what will?
Muammar Gaddafi was accused by Washington – an accusation immediately repeated by the spineless European puppets - of being responsible for the December 1988 PanAm Flight 103 bombing over Lockerbie, Scotland. More than 240 people perished in the crash. Not a shred of evidence was discovered that Libya was behind the plot. But it was a good reason to start a program of sanctions against Gaddafi’s regime. It was most likely a false flag. What interest would anybody have to bring down that flight, other than clamping down on an oil-rich country?
Russia TV24: Now we see oil production has grown to at least 50% of the 2011 level. Can we expect it to continue growing and affecting the oil market?
PK: Yes, Libyan oil production has increased to about 50% of its 2011 level. Libya is known for her high premium light oil, commanding premium prices. It is a market niche which might well be affected by Libya’s stepped up production. But who really benefits from this production increase? Most likely not the Libyans, but the international corporations, mostly American and French oil giants. They call the shots on the production levels. They are part of the international cartel of oil price manipulators, as are the Wall Street banksters, predominantly Goldman Sachs.
Russia TV24: The sanctions against Libya are lifted and all barriers to foreign investments have disappeared as well. Does it mean the county will face recovery soon?
PK: Sanctions may be lifted, but that does not mean that foreign investments will now flow to Libya. The country is still in chaos and disarray and- in my opinion - will stay so in the foreseeable future. That’s in Washington’s interest. Investors are reluctant to put their money into a crime nest and a terrorist breeding ground which is working closely with Washington and its secret services – to provide terrorists to fight US-proxy wars around the Middle East, for example in Syria and Iraq – and now even in Afghanistan – and who knows where else.
Russia TV24: How do you assess the political situation in the country today?
PK: As much as I would like to end on a positive note, it is difficult. As long as the CIA, chief instigator of all wars in the Middle East, is using the purposefully created Libyan chaos to train and recruit Islamic State fighters, Al-Qaeda and other terrorist groups which vary only in name but have the same objective – namely regime change in Syria – prospects for a foreseeable bright future are dim.
Of course, a lot depends on the unpredictable Trump presidency. Will he seek peace in the Middle East? – That would be the surprise of the Century – or will he continue on the track dictated by the Deep State (not least to save his skin) – continue destruction of the Middle East, balkanization of Syria – all as a stepping stone to full spectrum dominance – as is written in the American Bible – the PNAC – Plan for a New American Century – which outlines the ‘American Pax Romana’? They were the bloodiest 200 – 300 years of the Roman Empire.
Here comes the positive note: It is unlikely that the American empire will last that long. It’s on its last legs. When it finally falters, Libya may recover, and so may the rest of the world.
This article previously appeared in Global Research.