From World Afropedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Is Continental Union Government necessary for the total liberation of Black Africa?
By Chinweizu
Copyright © Chinweizu 2011

Cartoon of Muammar Gadaffi selling the AU to the EU.


It is important that we remember the ideas of our ancestors, especially those ideas that have helped to bring us this far on our way out of imperialist bondage. But it is also very important that we evaluate these ideas for their usefulness to the next generation. Ideas are not immortal. Reality is ruthless in punishing those who act out unsound ideas. Even the best ideas can become obsolete with time and with changes in our circumstances. Our journey to total liberation is still uncompleted. We are still stuck in the ravines of neo-colonialism. And our obligation to future generations is not just to hand over to them a body of inherited ideas with which to start their work, but also to evaluate, winnow and upgrade these ideas for them, in the light of experience, so they can avoid the disaster of arming themselves for future combat with obsolete weapons. We wouldn’t want our grandchildren to march off to battle with bows and arrows in an age that needs machine guns and atom bombs, would we? We must rectify the errors of our ancestors before they enslave future generations. We, therefore, need to bring some rigor to Pan-Africanist thinking. What specific kinds of African unity, if any, do we need today and in future for our total liberation? How might we reformulate Nkrumah’s African-Unity-doctrines to make them serve us better? Which of them are still sound, and which of them must we discard as obsolete or unsound? I would therefore suggest to the African scholars of today to get to work on such rectifications and improvements.

The African Unity Axiom

In the early 1960s it became an axiom of Pan-Africanism that African unity is necessary for the total liberation of Black Africa. But is it? In the last 50 years, evidence emerged that should have called that “axiom” into serious question. I shall present that evidence and argue that it may no longer be assumed that a Continental Union Government [the specific form of African Unity that Nkrumah insisted on] is a necessary step in the direction of total African liberation.

We do not need to unite these ex-colonial territories; we need, instead, to develop our technological and industrial power within each of them and organize the many kinds of cooperation that would actually build our collective power, and so produce for us unity-in-strength rather than unity-in-weakness.

The argument is that African Unity is not necessary for the two key things Nkrumah correctly identified that we need for total liberation, namely: escape from the clutches of neo-colonialism and building industrial complexes in Africa. Furthermore, in the light of the resurgence of Arab expansionism and colonialism in the Sahel belt (Sudan to Mauritania), a Continental Union Government is most likely to trap all Black Africans in the dungeons of Arab colonialism, and would thus bring about the very opposite of our total liberation.

Furthermore, balkanization has been presented as a major obstacle to African development. I will argue that this is not the case and that we have to reconsider our accepted ideas about the root causes of Africa’s condition, and about what we must do to get Black Africa out of its chronic mess.

Nkrumah’s claims and theses

In 1963, at the founding of the OAU, Nkrumah advanced two theses that quickly became orthodoxy, namely
(a) That under the structures of neo-colonialism at that time, only a country as vast and populous as the African continent could save itself from the clutches of neo-colonialism and imperialism; and

(b) That under the structures of neo-colonialism at that time, only a country as vast and populous as the African continent could amass the capital to establish the great industrial complexes required to achieve such development as would match that of the most advanced countries.

Thesis (a) was formulated as the claim that

But is that true?

Thesis (b) was implied and justified by the following claims:

But is that true?


The part of this claim whose validity we need to examine here is this: it is only in a united Africa that we can establish great industrial complexes. Now, is that true?


At the time these claims were put forth, they appeared plausible. But there was no evidence at hand to prove or disprove them. Luckily, the last 50 years have supplied counter-examples from the laboratory of history as it were. Now, if someone claims that it is only with distilled water that beans can be cooked, all that is needed to show that his claim is false is to produce a pot of beans that has been cooked without using distilled water. Similarly, it is now possible to show that these African-unity claims are false simply because several ex-colonial countries have found the capital to build great industrial complexes, without joining with any other country in political union; and because at least one country, Cuba, has escaped from the clutches of neo-colonialism since 1959, without forming a political union with any other country.

Thesis (a)

The thesis that no African country was big enough to save itself from the clutches of neo-colonialism and imperialism has been disproved by the example of Cuba. Cuba, an American neo-colony from 1898-1958, was no bigger in population or area than Ghana [Cuba’s population in 1960 was 7m; Ghana’s was 6.7m; Cuba’s area of 44,218 sq. mi. is only half of Ghana’s 92,090 sq mi.], yet under Fidel Castro, Cuba in 1959 escaped from US imperialism, and has maintained its escape till today, 52 years later. The difference between Castro’s Cuba and Nkrumah’s Ghana was not size but the anti-imperialist determination and skill of the leadership. If Castro’s Cuba could escape from the clutches of imperialism in the 1960s by adroitly playing on the configuration of global forces, so too might Nkrumah’s Ghana had Nkrumah and his key associates and his party, the CPP, been so minded and so bold and resourceful. But Nkrumah’s mind, alas, was elsewhere. He was obsessed with a Continental Union Government project, rather than with defeating neo-colonialism in Ghana alone. Within a few years, neo-colonialism defeated him and pushed him out of office. In contrast, Castro, who focused on defeating neo-colonialism in Cuba alone, and was not distracted by some regional unification project, survived in office for 49 years, defeated neo-colonialism and left office voluntarily in 2008. And, what is more, despite the economic blockade, still on since 1962, by the USA, Cuba, which ranked (41) on the UNDP’s Human Development Index (HDI) for 2007, has achieved for its citizens much of the advanced standard of living that Nkrumah claimed could be achieved in Africa only by a continental union government.

Thesis (b)

The thesis that under the structures of neo-colonialism at that time, only a country as vast and populous as the African continent could amass the capital to establish the great industrial complexes required to achieve such development as would match that of the most advanced countries. Is this true? Let us see.
Let us consider the record of some non-African ex-colonial countries that were not afflicted with the states-integration mindset, or with concepts and projects like those of Pan-Africanism— Singapore, Malaysia, Qatar, North Korea, South Korea, Pakistan—countries that were no less the “balkanized” creation of colonizers than the ex-colonies of Africa. Since 1950, these non-African ex-colonies, despite their “arbitrary” boundaries, have somehow amassed the necessary capital and industrialized themselves, and have either achieved a high standard of living or joined the club of nuclear military powers—two key tests of successful development. And they all started from conditions similar to, or even worse than, those of the Black African ex-colonies. On the UNDP’s Human Development Index (HDI) for 2007, Singapore ranked (25); South Korea ranked (26); Qatar ranked (35); Malaysia ranked (63); Pakistan ranked (136) and there was no data on North Korea. But, whatever their HDI ranking, Pakistan and North Korea were nuclear military powers by 2007. Of the Black African countries, Gabon ranked highest at (119); Ghana ranked (135); Nigeria ranked (158) while the last 22 positions (156-177) were solidly occupied by Black African countries. Those “artificial” Asian countries, working singly and individually, have clearly passed the key tests of development whereas the Black African countries, which have made much noise about the African unity project, have failed. Those who bemoan the ‘balkanization’ of Africa, and claim that most African countries are too small for development, should particularly consider the case of Singapore. In 1965, tiny Singapore, with its population of under 2 million, without resources, and with a territory smaller than the smallest African country, set out to develop itself; its phenomenal success disproves this alleged consequence of balkanization.

Singapore, a city state, is smaller in area than every Black African country, and it has no natural resources, yet it has developed into Southeast Asia’s most important seaport, financial center, and manufacturing hub, and its citizens enjoy one of the world’s highest standards of living. This was principally because, its founder, Lee Kuan Yew, set out deliberately to industrialize its economy. Explaining that to survive as a city state, Singapore had to leapfrog its neighbors economically, he said: “I had one simple guiding principle of survival from the very start, that Singapore had to be better organized than the countries of the region.” [11] We must note that Lee’s overriding concern was the “survival” of Singapore, not the uniting of Singapore with others to form a bigger country, an option he first tried in 1963, but whose failure led to Singapore pulling out of the Federation of Malaysia in 1965 to seek its own individual destiny. The result of this focus, this guiding principle, has been magnificent: “Manufacturing now accounts for 29 percent of Singapore’s GDP. Industry has grown rapidly since the 1960s, and Singapore now produces a diversity of goods, including electronic items, chemicals, transportation equipment and machinery, petroleum products, rubber and plastic products, and fabricated metal products. Electronic goods—notably computer disk drives, communications equipment, and televisions—account for about half of the country’s manufacturing output. Singapore is one of the world’s largest petroleum refining centers and is also an important shipbuilding center.”

The example of Singapore alone is sufficient to invalidate Nkrumah’s thesis that, in the 1960s, and under the structures of neo-colonialism at that time, only a country as vast and populous as the African continent could amass the capital to establish the great industrial complexes required to achieve such development as would match that of the most advanced countries. But lest it be thought that Singapore’s success was a fluke, we should note some other successes.

Malaysia, at independence in 1957, was roughly comparable in population [7.4 million] and resources and social complexity with Ghana, yet whereas Ghana remains unindustrialized and poor, Malaysia has made itself into a manufacturing economy with a high living standard. “In 2004, manufactured items accounted for 75 percent of Malaysia’s exports by value. Electronic goods constitute most of Malaysia’s manufactured exports. Principal industrial activities are the processing of palm oil, petroleum, timber, rubber, and tin; and the production of electrical and electronic equipment, processed food, textiles, chemicals, building materials, and handicrafts. In addition, Malaysia produces its own automobile, the Proton.”

North Korea was bombed to rubble in the Korean War in the early 1950s: virtually the entire population of North Korea lived and worked in man made underground caves for three years to escape relentless attack by U.S. planes, yet today North Korea is a nuclear power. “Metallurgical industries and the manufacture of heavy machinery represent a major share of North Korea’s national income. Other manufactures include trucks, diesel locomotives, heavy construction equipment, cement, synthetic fibers, fertilizers, and refined copper, lead, zinc, and aluminum.” How was this transformation accomplished?
After the end of the Korean war in 1953, N. Korea set about rebuilding and industrializing itself through state planning. It did so under the direction of President Kim Il Sung and the Korean Workers Party, and guided by its official slogan Juche—self-reliance. The four self-reliance (juche) principles were: “autonomy in ideology, independence in politics, self-sufficiency in economy, and self-reliance in defense.” Given the devastation the country had suffered during WWII and under American bombardment during the Korean War, high priority was, understandably, given to industrialization and defense, not the provision of consumer goods. Nevertheless, even according to an eyewitness report by an American journalist, by 1974, N. Korea was industrialized to the point where it was manufacturing everything that was sold in its stores: toys, electric rice cookers, electric light bulbs, shoes, wool blankets, bicycles, sewing machines, pianos, etc. N. Korea’s heavy industries were also turning out tractors, bulldozers, small ships, and electric and diesel locomotives. North Korea was exporting locomotives to the Soviet Union, synthetics to China, machine tools to Europe, farm machinery and chemical fertilizers to Africa and Latin America. The North Koreans had modernized their agriculture and, by 1974, claimed self-sufficiency. “I am surprised to see so much farm machinery, irrigation channels lacing the fields, and sprinkler systems watering the vegetable crops,” the American journalist reported.

The government gave priority to food, housing, and clothing needs—and provided everyone with free school, free medical care, and old-age and disability pensions.

In President Kim Il Sung's words, 'Children are kings, and they should have nothing but the best.' According to the American journalist: In a family, both parents usually work. Day care, usually at workplaces, is free. North Korea's schools are clean, spacious, well-equipped. Under the compulsory education program, children attend six days a week for ten years. Stress is placed on group singing, gymnastics, and dance, and such individual skills as wireless communication, automotive repair, and sewing. Everyone learns to play a musical instrument.[12]

South Korea was poor and backward at the end of the Korean War in 1953, but it rose from devastation to become one of the world’s largest economies in the 1990s. Today it is industrialized and has even joined in the new scramble for African farmlands. “South Korea is an important producer of telecommunications and sound equipment and transportation equipment. Shipbuilding is a major industry. Other leading industries include the manufacture of chemicals, machinery, food products and beverages, basic metals, and textiles.” Automobiles are produced by three major companies—Hyundai Motor Company, Kia Motors Corporation, and Daewoo Motor Corporation. How was this transformation accomplished?

After the Korean War, South Korea was unable to produce any significant economic development despite much aid from the United States. Then in May 1961, Park Chung Hee and his group of officers of the South Korean army took control of the government. The Park regime initiated a successful program of industrialization for South Korea based upon export-oriented industries which were guided and aided by the government. In his 18-year rule, 1961-1979, Park Chung-Hee converted an economic basket case into an industrial powerhouse. Why did he do it? He believed, as he said in 1965, that it was "time for South Korea to wean itself from a passive position of receiving help or suffering intervention.” And as he said in 1974, his agenda was to make South Korea “economically strong and militarily secure” How did he do it? Park's program for the economic development was modeled on Meiji-era Japan. To achieve the industrialization of South Korea that he thought was necessary for defense and prosperity Park Chung Hee generally relied upon private businesses, the chaebol, the South Korean counterparts of Meiji Japan’s Zaibatsu. He nationalized the banks to gain control of the flow of capital in the country so it could be directed into the sectors that the government wanted to develop. He supplemented domestic capital by doing whatever was necessary to obtain additional capital from Japan and the USA. To woo Japanese capital, Park took the very unpopular step of normalizing diplomatic relations with Japan, and abandoned claims for reparations from Japan for Japan’s colonial occupation of Korea. This sparked campus demonstrations in Seoul in 1964, and Park imposed martial law until quiet was restored. Normalization with Japan was achieved in 1965, bringing with it $800 million in economic aid.

To get capital from the USA, Park made the Americans an offer they couldn’t refuse. He sent two Korean divisions to fight alongside U.S. forces in Vietnam. For this mercenary army, Korea was richly rewarded by Washington. Soldiers were paid by the United States government and their salaries were remitted directly to the South Korean government. In the mid-'60s, revenues from the Vietnam War were the largest single source of foreign-exchange earnings for Korea. In return for troop commitments, South Korea received tens of billions of dollars in grants, loans, subsidies, technology transfers, and preferential markets, all provided by the Johnson and Nixon administrations. These funds helped launch the country's transformation over the next two decades from economic basket case to world leader in iron and steel production, shipbuilding, chemicals, consumer electronics and other commodities. Korea's percapita income increased tenfold during Park's tenure.

Pakistan, an artificial country carved out of India in 1947, suffered partition in 1971, but has managed, despite social and political turmoil, to become a nuclear state. “In 2006, manufacturing accounted for 20 percent of Pakistan’s GDP. About 21 percent of the labor force is engaged in industry, including manufacturing and mining. Important products include processed foods, cotton textiles, silk and rayon cloth, refined petroleum, cement, fertilizers, sugar, cigarettes, and chemicals. Many handicrafts, such as pottery and carpets, also are produced.”

Qatar “came under British protection in the early 20th century. It became fully independent in 1971. The emirate was a relatively poor state until the mid-20th century, when its vast petroleum reserves were discovered and exploited. Qatar is now one of the world’s wealthiest countries per capita.” “The emir at independence was Ahmad bin Ali al-Thani, whose hoarding of oil income and extravagant expenditures led to a bloodless coup, [in 1972,] by his cousin and prime minister, Khalifa bin Hamad al-Thani. Emir Khalifa oversaw tremendous economic growth, supported by revenues from oil and other natural resources. He also established a more modern, bureaucratic governmental system, created a 10-year development plan, and distributed oil moneys to the state treasury rather than the royal family.” “Emir Khalifa implemented farsighted social welfare policies to provide all Qataris with a share of the country’s wealth.” “The industrial sector—including mining, manufacturing, construction, and power generation—produces about half of Qatar’s GDP and employs 41 percent of the country’s labor force. Petroleum accounts for much of industry’s share of GDP, but the government has encouraged diversification of the sector. Consequently, numerous new enterprises were established in the late 20th century, including a petrochemical plant, a fertilizer factory, steel and aluminum smelters, a flour mill, and a cement plant. Qatar’s gas and oil reserves power thermal generators that produce enough electricity to meet all of the country’s needs.” [13]

No Black African ex-colony, no matter how big or small, no matter how well endowed with natural resources, no matter whether it professed capitalism or socialism, has anything similar to show after decades of self-government.
All the instrumental claims supporting the African unity thesis (the necessity of amassing capital, building industrial complexes, and mobilizing material and moral resources-- all on a continental scale) have been invalidated by the great achievements of Singapore, Malaysia, North Korea, South Korea, Pakistan, Qatar, etc. If they could, as small separate countries, make great achievements despite the global regime of neo-colonialism, Black Africa has no excuses for its failures, and these African-unity-as-precondition arguments, (for instance President Wade’s oft-repeated claim that “We cannot develop within the present borders.”) are exposed for what they are when invoked today-- alibis for failure, alibis that won’t stand up to examination.
Given the now evident falsehood of these claims and theses, we can see that it is not true that the unification of the existing African countries—whether regionally or continentally—is necessary for defeating neo-colonialism and for industrializing Africa and thereby raising the living standard of Africans to the highest levels on earth. In as much as escaping from neo-colonialism and building industrial power are key factors for the total liberation of Africa, it is not true that unifying the existing African countries is necessary for the total liberation of Africa.
One lamentable implication of the falsity of the ‘only through unity’ claims and theses is this: For 50 years we have been wasting our precious time on a unity project that was never necessary for our objective of total liberation.

Had Nkrumah’s false theses not been accepted by his generation, what might the Black countries have achieved by now? Had Ghana done a Malaysia; had Jamaica done a Cuba; had Trinidad done a Singapore; had Nigeria done a South Korea; had Ethiopia or Congo-Brazzaville done a North Korea between 1960 and 2000, would the universal contempt for the black race not be reduced today, if not entirely ended? Such is the price we have paid for uncritically accepting Nkrumah’s ideas.

What do we need to cure-- Disunity or powerlessness?

It is mind boggling that the “independence” generation and its leaders focused on African disunity as the key factor in our condition, and did not raise the separate question of African powerlessness. It did not occur to them to ask: Was it simply disunity that defeated us and got us colonized or was it more crucially our lack of the appropriate kinds and magnitudes of power? Yes, we were not united in the 19 th century; but we were also powerless, particularly in the economic and military aspects that counted in a showdown with invaders. Disunity would be the key factor in our defeat only if we had many separate armies equipped with weapons of the same technological level as the European armies, and if we failed simply because our polities and our armies did not cooperate or co-ordinate. Nkrumah and his generation were obsessed with the adage that unity is strength. But they did not apply it correctly to our situation. They did not see that unity does not automatically result in victory. To appreciate this point, consider a tug-of-war contest between ten kwashiorkor skeletons on the one side and a big and beefy Goliath on the other side. Of course, ten kwashiorkor skeletons pulling together are stronger than any one of them, but not by much; but are they together strong enough to defeat a heavyweight muscleman in the tug-of-war? To stand a chance against the heavyweight muscleman, they have to first get well, put on some weight and then train hard for the tug-of-war; alternatively, they could recruit a sumo wrestler into their team or get at least one of themselves to pump iron and grow into a heavyweight muscleman. Contrary to the premise of the unity argument, the size of our polities, and therefore the size of the army each could put on the battlefield, was not the decisive factor in our defeat. Our bigger polities, such as the Asante and Sokoto Empires went down to defeat because their armies were inferior in weaponry and organization rather than in numbers. And Menelik’s Ethiopia, the only late 19 th century African polity that escaped being conquered, did so, not because of its geographical size, but because it had upgraded the weaponry of its army and improved its organization. The Ethiopian army, using breech-loading rifles and artillery, annihilated the Italian force at the Battle of Ādwa in 1896. Even if we were politically united in 1884, could we, with our spears and bows and arrows and flintlocks, have overcome the invading European armies with their rifles, artillery and maxim guns?

For some unexplained reason, the “independence” generation was allergic to explicitly raising the question of power, Black African power; and it did not seem to realize the decisive importance of the enormous gap in technology and military organization which had developed between European and Black African polities in the past few centuries. This obtuseness to the question of power—economic as well as military power—has persisted for the last 50 years during which Pan-Africanists have harped on our need for unity, without explicitly emphasizing our separate need to build our technological and military power. Because of this obtuseness, they have carried on as if uniting a vast landmass would be enough to overcome our technological, military and economic backwardness. They have failed to see that a weak and disunited people is not made powerful simply by uniting them; they must, above all, consciously build their power, not just their unity.

This error persists till today. At the summit of African intellectuals held in Dakar, in July 2009, this misplaced focus on uniting into a vast territory was reiterated in President Wade's cry that "we cannot be kept into a limited space" by African leaders who are holding on to petty little states. He lamented the weakness of Africans at a time when other people have pooled political power in vast territories like China, India, Brazil, Russia and the United States of America. That this emphasis on territorial size is misplaced must be sharply exposed by the question: Will our emancipation from imperialist domination be effected simply by uniting our territories? Or rather by having a powerful member even within our present disunity? What do we need: Territorial unification without enhanced power or enhanced power even without further territorial unification? If Nigeria made itself as powerful as Japan or Germany, and carried out its responsibility as the core state (i.e. the leader and protector) of the Black race, would continental union still be necessary for our emancipation from the world’s contempt? Our African Unity enthusiasts need to recognize that if you want your side to win a high jump contest, you send someone who can jump eight feet; you don’t send eight midgets who can each jump one foot, and then chain their feet together in unity.
Pan-Africanism desperately needs to shift its focus from African unity to Black African power. The root cause of our centuries of humiliation is not disunity but powerlessness. And, furthermore, continental union is not a prerequisite for building Black African power. Unity should be pursued only as a means to Black African power and not as an end in itself. Only unity of the type and extent that would yield Black African power is relevant to our defeating our enemies and redeeming ourselves from the world’s contempt.

Now to the reason why Continental unification, in particular, is not necessary for Africa’s total liberation.

Continental unification and Africa’s total liberation

There is a great and present danger that continental unification, in the form of Gadafi’s USofAfrica, would thrust all the countries of Black Africa into the dungeons of Arab colonialism. If that should happen, then Black Africa would not have been totally liberated but totally subjugated. Let us briefly examine this danger.

We must keep in mind that whoever bankrolls the projected USofAfrica will surely control it, on the one-dollar-one-vote principle that governs international organizations such as the World Bank and IMF. As it is, the AU is dependent on Western donors to finance a third of its budget, since the member countries are unable to foot its bills. Since he who pays the piper calls the tune, we must acknowledge that an AU that is donor funded cannot be an instrument for African liberation from the imperialist donors. Given the ability and eagerness of Libya and other petrodollar-rich Arab countries to fund it, the USofAfrica will assuredly be in the pocket of Libya and the Arabs. It will become the instrument for their centuries-old ambition to colonize and Arabize Black Africa and enslave our population. Black Africans will then be colonized and enslaved by the Arabs under the sovereign authority of the USofAfrica that many highly vocal Pan-Africanists are clamoring for! In the light of this danger, it is our duty to educate ourselves on the Arab ambitions in Africa. Since they invaded Egypt in 639 AD, it has been the Arab ambition to empty the continent of blacks and replace us with Arabs. Gadafi’s hidden agenda in promoting his USofAfrica is precisely to use it to gain control of all of black Africa so as to facilitate this Arabization project. In line with this, here is what Gadafi told an Arab League meeting:

The root problem with Continentalist Pan-Africanism is that it formed an alliance of Black Africans with the Arabs without knowing or caring about the designs of the Arab neighbors of Black Africa.
Half a century on from the Nkrumah’s CIAS of 1958, where the alliance was initiated that became institutionalized in the OAU, it is in Black Africa’s interest to educate itself on Arab ambitions and designs on Africa.

Arab ambitions in Africa

Since the early 19 th century, Arab leaders have been bluntly proclaiming what they want in Africa— to procure black slaves and to grab our lands and settle Arabs on them, like they had already done in North Africa since the 7 th Century. Here are a few examples of what they said:

In his 1955 book on the orbital scheme [the three circles at whose center he envisioned Egypt to be], President Nasser characterized Africa as "the remotest depths of the jungle," and the target of an Arab civilizing mission. In a manner reminiscent of European pologists for colonialism as a civilizing mission, he patronizingly wrote:

{{cquote|“We want to Islamise America and Arabise Africa” [21]

This thrusting of Arab spears into the body and soul of a despised Black Africa through campaigns of deAfricanization and Arabization was, of course, not confined to Sudan, but has been done wherever the Arabs spotted an opportunity to exploit African weakness, such as Mauritania, Chad, Somalia, Eritrea, Uganda. In the past 40 years, Libya’s Gadhafi has been particularly active in sponsoring chaos, anarchy and civil wars in Chad, Liberia, Cote d’Ivoire, Uganda, the CAR etc.
Sudan, a country of black Africans dominated by an Arab settler minority, is a prototype of the USofAfrica. We should be warned by its experiences.

The lessons of Sudan

In pursuit of their proclaimed mission of Arabizing Sudan,

Though unrecognized by many Black Africans, Darfur is the scene of the latest Arab campaign to seize land from black Africans and settle Arabs on it. In Darfur, as Dr El-Tom reports, the Janjaweed agents of the Khartoum regime are:

effectively executing Musa Hilal’s call: “change the demography of Darfur and empty it of African tribes”. . . . Attempts to change demography of Darfur are still going on to this day. As recently as July 2007, Bloomfield accused the government of Sudan of “cynically trying to change the demography of the whole region”. Monitoring the Chadian-Sudanese borders, Bloomfield wrote:

“An internal UN report, obtained by The Independent [of London], shows that up to 30,000 Arabs have crossed the border in the past three months. Most arrived with all their belongings and large flocks. They were greeted by Sudanese Arabs who took them to empty villages cleared by the government and Janjaweed forces. .... further 45,000 Arabs from Niger have also crossed over.” [23]

Darfur is a contemptuous spit in the face of Black Africa by the Arabs; a humiliating expression of their total and ancient contempt for us black Africans. They have, before our very eyes, snatched from us a territory the size of France; and to do it, they have played on the intelligence of our black African presidents. And they are confident that we won’t do anything about it.

US of Africa: Gate to the trap of Arab colonialism

Judging by the statements of Arab leaders in the last two centuries, [samples quoted above] and by what has been going on in Darfur, and in Mauritania as well, the African continental unity doctrine and project, as embodied in Afro-Arab schemes like the OAU/AU and the USofAfrica, will achieve the exact opposite of our total liberation. It turns out that for 50 years, we have been enthusiastically building and marching down the road that would lead us into the trap of Arab colonialism. In other words, without thinking properly about the consequences of our action, we have been enthusiastically digging our own graves, thereby justifying the Arabs in their contemptuous opinion of blacks. As Ibn Khaldun put it, back in the 14 th century:

We can now understand that the Continental Union Government project was a great strategic mistake. Those who championed it in the early 1960s presumably did not know the history of Arab colonialism in Africa and did not bother to investigate Arab ambitions in Africa. Consequently they violated the ancient strategic principle, enunciated by Sun Tzu more than 2000 years earlier, namely that “One who is not acquainted with the designs of his neighbors should not enter into alliances with them.” Nkrumah and his generation of Black African leaders institutionalized this error in the OAU in 1963 , and it has been carried over into the AU and is now being exploited by the Arab colonialists led by Gadafi. We have, as a result, for half a century been, as the Chinese put it, “feeding a close enemy who is a tiger.” What suicidal foolishness.

If the total liberation of Black Africans (Negroes) is still the paramount aim of Pan-Africanism; and if it is the ultimate justification for the OAU/AU and the USofAfrica, then it is in the interest of Black Africa that the push for a USofAfrica be discontinued, and that the AU be disbanded. In fact, with hindsight, we can see that we were fortunate that Nkrumah failed to persuade his OAU peers to hurriedly create a Continental Union Government in the 1960s. We would all, just like Sudan and Mauritania, have fallen under Arab colonialism long ago. We must be thankful to those who rejected Nkrumah’s rush-rush approach.

Continental Union Government not a step towards Africa’s total liberation

All in all, the African unity idea is a bad idea, a dangerous mistake. As we have seen, it won’t help us escape from neo-colonialism. And because it won’t help us get industrialized, prosperous and powerful, it won’t help to liberate us from the justified contempt of the world. And what is more, in its Continental Union Government version, it is about to hand us over to the Arabs to colonize and enslave. Accordingly, in its current form, our dream of African unity is wrong and dangerous. If it came true, it would be our nightmare. If we are wise, we should give up our obsession with African unity, and drop it from our agenda and our discourse. And we must now concentrate on the prosperity and power agenda that could yield the economically and militarily powerful black countries we need for our total liberation.

In the light of all the above, the debate about the correct paths to total African liberation, and the role of African unity in that project, a debate which was effectively closed with the formation of the OAU in 1963, needs to be reopened. And among the issues to be reconsidered is the ‘balkanization’ notion: that these ex-colonial countries of Africa are too fragmented and too small for development, or to escape neo-colonialism. If tiny Singapore could develop, all on its own, why didn’t any African country? If Cuba could escape neo-colonialism, why didn’t Ghana or Nigeria or the Congo? Hence the entire unity business should be re-examined. Contrary to what Nkrumah and his generation believed, the fragmented condition of Africa and the small size of many of its countries, were not decisive factors in their failure to escape neo-colonialism or to develop in the last 50 years. We are now obliged to investigate the true causes of Black Africa’s chronic inability to develop itself. We might want to investigate factors that have never entered our calculations, e.g. why Black Africa’s loot-and-squander elites are addicted to neo-colonialism and are so allergic to organizing and industrializing their countries. Why do they lack the will-to-industrialize? Why are they so lacking in public spirit? Why do they lack the stubborn drive to immediately give the best of everything to all their people?

Why don’t we in Black Africa produce leaders who just want the best things in the world for their people, all their people; leaders like Dubai’s emir, Sheikh Mohammed ibn Rashid al-Maktum, who, it is reported, said: “I want my people to live better lives now, to go to the highest school now, to get good healthcare now, not after twenty years,” and rhetorically asked CBS’s Steve Kroft why Dubai should not aspire to have the best things in the world if European countries could have such dreams. Or leaders like Emir Khalifa bin Hamad al-Thani of Qatar, who overthrew his predecessor for siphoning off and squandering the country’s oil revenues, and then instituted a social welfare system that allows all citizens to enjoy the country’s wealth. Or leaders like North Korea’s Kim Il Sung who wanted the best for all the children of his country.

Why have we been afflicted with vampires-in-power? The Mobutus, the Bokassas, the Obasanjos, the Omar Bongos –-leaders who have no ambition or ideology beyond self-enrichment, and for whom the proper use of power is to plunder and rape their own society! In all of 50 years, why hasn’t a Castro or a Lee Kuan Yew or a Sheikh Maktum or an Emir Khalifa emerged in Black Africa? What in our bastardized neo-colonial culture gets in their way?

What to do to undo the damage from 50 years of error

That we have, for fifty years, accepted the false claims about what African unity would do for our liberation is no reason for future generations of Black Africans to passively submit themselves to its dire consequences. It is true that Nkrumah’s generation didn’t have the evidence of the counter-examples to promptly expose these falsehoods, but we do. Now that, with hindsight, we know that the Continental Union Government doctrine is a false doctrine with potentially dangerous consequences for us, what are we obliged by common sense and selfinterest to do about it?
What do you do when you find out that you have been traveling on the wrong road; on a road that does not lead to your desired destination, a road that will lead you into a nightmare? You can either doggedly continue on the wrong road, but now knowing it is the wrong road, or you can take your correct bearings and find a road that goes from where you are to where you’ve wanted to get to all along. This might even involve your retracing part or all of your steps. The first option is the way of the fool. The second is the way of the wise. Which option will Black Africans now take?
Assuming we take the wise option, what then do we do?


We must accept the fact that the countries of the world, for the last two centuries, have been competing for power, prosperity and prestige through industrializing their economies, and we should enter that competition wholeheartedly and with even more seriousness than we enter the Olympics and other world sports competitions. Black Africa is so rich in mineral resources that almost every country there could, from its minerals revenue, dramatically improve the quality of life of its population, along Cuban or Qatari lines --where many social services and all the amenities of any modern state are made avaiable to all citizens -- if the elites make that their paramount goal, end their addiction to looting-and-squandering and give up their fixation on building infrastructure. They should recognize that the engine of development is industries, not infrastructure. Accordingly,

  1. Every black African country should undertake to industrialize its economy, within the scope of its resources. And should do its best to advance as fast as possible in the HDI league tables. Each should heed what Garvey told the people of tiny St. Kitts in 1937: “Try to make your little country the best spot in the world.”[24] By 2040, Gabon, Nigeria, Angola and the new oil producing countries (Ghana, Uganda, Namibia, South Sudan) should have made it into the top 50 in the HDI league table. Each of them has or will have more than enough petrodollar income to finance its own industrialization without resort to foreign aid or foreign investment. Every other Black African country should strive to get into the top 100.
    We should note that a strong driving force for the integration of African economies would emerge after each is industrialized, as each industry would strive for a bigger African market for its products. As it is, raw materials economies have no products to exchange and thus no pressing need to integrate. What would drive two producers of bananas or bauxite to integrate? Economies of scale do not seriously apply to the labor-intensive production of raw materials.
  2. Countries like Nigeria and South Africa should also strive to become military powers in the footsteps of Pakistan and North Korea.
  3. ECOWAS and SADC should set themselves the task of becoming economic and military superpowers by 2060.
  4. The countries of Global Black Africa should set up a Black World League where they can, in racial privacy, discuss matters of concern to the black race. And where they can, in particular, plan and coordinate efforts to defeat the Arabs in the centuries-long war of aggression that the Arabs have waged on us.

And let there be no more excuses and alibis like ‘balkanization’, small population, no resources, neo-colonialism etc. As we have seen, others have industrialized, become prosperous and powerful within 30 years despite these factors. If Black Africans compete among themselves they can achieve these goals. And when they do, they will gain the respect of the world and stop being treated with racist contempt. If Black Africans don’t achieve these goals, they will have demonstrated their inferiority beyond any shadow of doubt and can no longer complain about being undeservedly treated with contempt by the other races of humanity.

So let the AU be disbanded and let the HDI competition begin. 

The OAU path to unity, development and liberation

By the way, those who still invoke Nkrumah’s name in support of the OAU/AU route to African unity should be reminded that, by 1968, Nkrumah himself had written off the OAU as a wrong path to African unity and, by implication, as a wrong instrument for the African development and liberation which he expected to flow from a Continental Union Government. He wrote:

As it is now constituted, the OAU is not likely to be able to achieve the political unification of Africa. This is obviously why imperialists, although against the idea of political union, will do nothing to break the OAU. It serves their purpose in slowing down revolutionary progress in Africa. [25]

What he said about the OAU is even more true of its AU successor which is heavily funded by the imperialists.

Nkrumah’s contradictory legacy

It has been little noticed that Nkrumah’s Continental-unity doctrine contradicted his actual economic development practice: On the one hand he taught that no black African country could industrialize itself under neo-colonialism, and that continental union government was a prerequisite for industrialization in Africa; on the other hand he went ahead to attempt the industrialization of Ghana. With hindsight we can see, from the examples of Singapore etc, that his industrialization-in-one-country project was correct, and that his continental-union-first doctrine was wrong.

Unfortunately for Black Africa, it is his continental-unification project that has been institutionalized while his industrialization-in-one-country example has been ignored. If we want to honor Nkrumah, let us build on those parts of his legacy that would advance his mission of total African liberation, e.g. industrialization in each country, however small; political education, for the youth-- as with the Young Pioneers, and for adults—as with The Ideological Institute, Winneba. Of course, while we need to accept the principle that we should give political education to our children and adults, and while we must honor Nkrumah for implementing that principle in his time, we must also realize that today in the 21 st century the content and structure of political education cannot simply replicate Nkrumah’s Young Pioneers and Winneba Institute. We must therefore discover new ways of giving the kind of political education that is needed today.

Nkrumah’s practice

The prime lesson for us in Nkrumah’s practice was that he derived his proposed solutions from an investigation of the situation in his time, the early 1960s. We should do likewise today and not cling to solutions he devised based on the situation in the 1960s. The world has moved on, many things have changed. Our situation and our problems are in many ways different and far worse than in the 1960s. We need to remind ourselves that a doctor who prescribes a cure today based on an examination done a year ago is a quack. A good doctor prescribes a cure based on current, up-to-date examination of the patient. So a good Nkrumahist today would not insist on implementing unchanged the solutions that Nkrumah proposed back in the 1960s; he would, following Nkrumah’s example, comprehensively examine our situation today and base his prescriptions on present-day findings. Are we prepared to do that? We should ask ourselves: If Nkrumah were alive today, don’t you think he would be re-examining the African situation and coming up with fresh solutions appropriate for today? Why don’t we do likewise?

Nkrumah’s most important legacy

Nkrumah’s most important legacy may not be his specific doctrines and projects, but rather his methodology. Nkrumah was a man who studied matters and continually learned from experience. In the late 1960s, in his exile, he continued to update his understanding of imperialism as it evolved its arsenal of methods. He was also keen to learn from his setbacks. June Milne, Nkrumah's research and editorial assistant for many years and later his literary executrix, reports:

We should note that Nkrumah himself did not treat his ideas and programs as immutable dogma. Nkrumah was not one to persevere with failed policies or fruitless projects. For example, when, by 1963, as he put it: “it was clear to everyone that the South African situation cannot be dealt with by attempts to maintain the normal channels of diplomatic and commercial association, or by appeals to morality and religion, justice and codes of ethics”, Nkrumah switched to a policy of “total economic and political boycott” of South Africa. [27] Another example is that after his overthrow, he wrote from his exile in Guinea: “We must start afresh in the light of the tragic experiences of the past two years. New thinking and action is needed.” [28] Furthermore, it is significant that, before he died, Nkrumah told Amilcar Cabral: “Cabral, I tell you one thing, our problem of African unity is very important, really, but now if I had to begin again, my approach would be different.”[29] We don’t know what specific changes in approach he had in mind. Cabral did not report on that. But clearly, Nkrumah was not averse to new approaches. On such evidence, after half a century of the fruitlessness of the Continental government approach, is it likely that Nkrumah would insist on that project today? I don’t think so. After all, by 1968, he had already dismissed the OAU as a false path to Continental-Union-Government and its expected benefits. If Nkrumah could be asked about it today, I believe he would encourage us to rethink the doctrines and projects of Pan-Africanism and upgrade them. So, let us start afresh in the light of the changes of the last half-century; let us do the new thinking that is needed and follow it up with the necessary new action.

The world has changed considerably since the 1960s when Nkrumah, Black Africa’s pioneer researcher and expert on neo-colonialism, suggested a program to combat it. As we all know, the Cold War is over. The EU has emerged whereas the Soviet Union is gone and China has gone unabashedly capitalist. China and India are on the verge of becoming the leading economies on earth. The Arabs, our one-time allies against imperialism, have reverted to their centuries-old habit of being enslavers, colonialists and expansionists in Africa. We must investigate what these changes imply for Africa’s total liberation and modify our doctrines and projects accordingly.

Of special importance is the fact that Neo-colonialism has evolved: its structures and methods are not exactly what they were in the 1960s. For example, the OAU/AU, which was founded as an organ for the fight against imperialism and colonialism, has been co-opted and added to the structures of imperialism. It is in their pay. The AU, as a paid instrument of Western neo-colonialism and Arab colonialism, is no longer an instrument for African liberation.

Africa is now saturated with imperialist media and propaganda. African cultures have become much more shattered and atrophied and Europeanized. Our governments and economies are now even more tightly controlled than ever before by imperialism--through the strings of foreign aid, foreign debt and foreign investment. The IMF, World Bank and WTO are now accepted economic dictators to our governments. A class of Black Colonialists has emerged and entrenched itself in power in each Black African country. The missionaries of neo-colonialism, organized in imperialist-funded NGOs, are now active even in our remotest villages, undermining our societies and cultures. Such is the present form of the principal enemy that Pan-Africanism is ostensibly still pledged to fight and defeat. In addition, a resurgent Arab colonialism has added itself to our enemies’ list and must also be combated.

Would Nkrumah be a continentalist today?

Probably not, given that he specifically wrote about “the need for self-critical objective diagnosis” [30]; and, as we saw, he abandoned policies that failed or proved fruitless. I believe that he would have abandoned Continentalism in the light of the changes that emerged by 2000. Nkrumah might have come to advocate a Sub-Sahara Pan-Africanism, just like Nyerere did at the end of his life.

Though the resurgence of Arab colonialism began in 1955 in Sudan, it was either not identified or was tactically ignored by Nkrumah. Whatever the case, by the time it became too blatant to ignore, and a Pan-Africanist response was required, Nkrumah was no longer on the political scene. Nyerere, in 1974, took the tactical line that Black Africans simply could not afford to take on both the Arabs and the Boers at one and the same time, saying that “It could be disastrous if [Pan Africanism] resulted in a division between . . . Black Africa and Arab Africa.”[See Opoku Agyeman, The Failure of Grassroots Pan-Africanism, p. 42, n.122] But after 1994, with black governments in Zimbabwe, Mozambique, Angola and Namibia, and a black president installed in South Africa, that forbearance was, surely, no longer necessary, and Nyerere’s line needed to be changed. Nyerere, bless him, actually did so in his 75 th birthday celebration speech in December 1997, at a conference in Dar-es-Salaam, in which he recommended a Sub-Sahara Pan-Africanism for the 21 st century and stressed the following points [emphases, in bold italics added]:

(a) the new leadership of Africa will have to concern itself with the situation in which it finds itself in the world of tomorrow —in the world of the 21st century. And the Africa I'm going to be talking about, is Africa south of the Sahara, Sub-Sahara Africa. I'll explain later the reason why I chose to concentrate on Africa south of the Sahara. . . .

Europe, Western Europe, is very wealthy. It has two Mexicos. One is Eastern Europe.... Europe has a second Mexico. And Europe's Second Mexico is North Africa. North Africa is to Europe what Mexico is to the United States. North Africans who have no jobs will not go to Nigeria, they'll be thinking of Europe or the Middle East, because of the imperatives of geography and history and religion and language. North Africa is part of Europe and the Middle East.
Nasser was a great leader and a great African leader. I got on extremely well with him. Once he sent me a Minister, and I had a long discussion with his Minister at State House here [Dar-es-Salaam], and in the course of the discussion, the Minister says to me, "Mr. President this is my first visit to Africa". North Africa, because of the pull of the Mediterranean and I say history and culture, and religion, North Africa is pulled towards the North. When North Africans look for jobs they go to Western Europe and Southern Western Europe, or they go to the Middle East.

(b) Africa, South of the Sahara is different, totally different. . . . Africa South of the Sahara is isolated. That is the first point I want to make. Africa South of the Sahara is totally isolated in terms of that configuration of developing power in the world of the 21st Century — on its own. There is no centre of power in whose self-interest it's important to develop Africa, no centre. Not North America, not Japan,

not Western Europe. There's no self-interest to bother about Africa South of the Sahara. Africa South of the Sahara is on its own. Na sijambo baya. Those of you who don't know Swahili, I just whispered, "Not necessarily bad". . . . That's the first thing I wanted to say about Africa South of the Sahara. African leadership, the coming African leadership, will have to bear that in mind. You are on your own...
The second point about Africa and again I am talking about Africa South of the Sahara; it is fragmented, fragmented....

(c) “Africa south of the Sahara is isolated. Therefore, to develop, it will have to depend upon its own resources basically. Internal resources, nationally; and Africa will have to depend upon Africa. The leadership of the future will have to devise, try to carry out policies of maximum national self-reliance and maximum collective self-reliance. They have no other choice.” ...
(d) “The countries in Africa [south of the Sahara] should . . . come together.... If we can’t move towards bigger nation-states, at least let’s move towards greater co-operation. This is beginning to happen. And the new leadership in Africa should encourage it.”[31]

Nyerere gave a wise elder’s parting advice to Black Africa to be self-reliant and go it alone; to not rely on Arabs or Europeans or Americans or Japanese or Russians or Indians or Chinese or on any other people whatsoever, as none of them have it in their self-interest to help develop Black Africa. That we are on our own means that Black Africa should organize itself, by itself and for itself. In other words, because of our separate and unique situation in the world, Black Africans should, in effect, extricate ourselves from the problem and confusion Nkrumah created forty years earlier by joining us in an embrace with the Arabs of North Africa in his quest for continental unification.

An implication of Nyerere’s advice is for us Black Africans to withdraw from the Afro-Arab AU, USofAfrica, etc. and organize our own Blacks-only collective outfit to solve our peculiar problems.

But unfortunately, Nyerere, by 1997, was old and out of office and in no position to implement his new line. Nevertheless, tackling the problems of the Afro-Arab encounter should have been put on the agenda of Pan-Africanism in 1994. It still needs to be put there. Perhaps we should, following Nyerere’s advice, abandon Continentalism and retreat to Sub-Sahara Pan-Africanism.


This paper has presented five arguments against the Continental Union Government project:

  1. Contrary to claims made in the early 1960s, it is not necessary for Africa’s industrialization, or for its liberation from neo-colonialism.
  2. We do not need to unite these ex-colonial territories; we need, instead, to develop our technological and industrial power within each of them and organize the many kinds of cooperation that would actually build our collective power.
  3. Continental Union Government will, almost assuredly, lead Black Africa into the dungeons of Arab colonialism and enslavement.
  4. Nyerere’s point: In the global power disposition in the 21 st century, Sub-Sahara Africa is entirely on its own and should become self-reliant and not tie its fortunes to any other

groups, as none have it in their self-interest to help develop or liberate Black Africa.

  1. Nkrumah’s point: African unity, and therefore its expected results, is never going to

come about through the OAU/AU route.

Like a wise man said: “If at first you don’t succeed, try, try again. Then quit. No use being a damn fool about it.” So after 48 years of seeking unity through the OAU/AU route, isn’t it time we buried and forgot that futile project? It’s a mirage. Let’s stop chasing this mirage. Let’s disband the AU and throw away the idea of a USofAfrica; and let’s seek other paths out of our poverty and powerlessness. Let’s see what we can learn from the examples of Castro’s Cuba, Lee Kuan Yew’s Singapore, Sheikh Mohammed Maktum’s Dubai, Park Chung Hee’s South Korea and Emir Khalifa’s Qatar as we embark on a competition to raise the ranking of each Black African country in the HDI tables.

Epilogue: Building on Nkrumah’s legacy

A good heir doesn’t just go about bemoaning his loss of his benefactor or boasting about his inheritance; he builds on the legacy he inherited. He builds on those parts that are sound and discards those that are unsound. Let us become good heirs to Nkrumah. Of his ideas and projects, let us sort out the sound from the unsound. Instead of merely parroting his ideas, we should compete to show how much further we have developed them, how much further we have helped our society advance on the road to total liberation since Nkrumah departed. In his 1962 broadcast introducing Ghana’s Seven-year Development plan, Nkrumah said he wanted “a healthier, happier and more prosperous life for us all.” [32] Note that he wanted a better life, not for a few, but for everybody in his country. Do you, in his footsteps, seek the good things of life for everybody in your country, or do you, like the Mobutus, Omar Bongos, Obasanjos and Bokassas, crave them only for yourself, or for only a few in your society? This is what divides Nkrumah, Castro, Lee Kuan Yew, Sheikh Maktum and Emir Khalifa on the one hand, from Mobutu, Bongo, Bokassa and Obasanjo on the other hand; and what would make the former socialists and the latter not socialists. Perhaps a socialist is, in practice, a person who wants the good things of life for everybody in his society.
Have we carried forward Nkrumah’s project of political education as exemplified by the Winneba Institute, and by the Young Pioneers? On political education, Nkrumah correctly urged:

{{cquote|“Our youth from the primary schools, through the secondary schools to the universities and higher institutions of learning, . . . must be taught to know the workings of neo-colonialism and trained to recognize it wherever it may rear its head. They must not only know the trappings of colonialism and imperialism, but they must also be able to smell out the hide-outs of neo-colonialism.”[33]

Have we been following this wise prescription? Are we teaching Pan-Africanism, or exposing colonialism and neo-colonialism in our primary schools, secondary schools and tertiary institutions? Are we implanting in the minds of our children the motivating vision of an industrialized and powerful and respected Black Africa? Do we teach them to defend, at any price, the honor and the land of the Black race? Are we updating our knowledge of imperialism as it evolves? Are we promoting industrialization like Nkrumah did? How many industries have we established since 1966? Are we even encouraging young entrepreneurs to create industries? Are we advocating industrialization as state policy? Are we putting forward and agitating for policies that will bring prosperity to the poorest in our society? What is the evidence that we have been doing these things? Where are the results?

Why have we, as Pan-Africanists, neglected these sound aspects of Nkrumah’s legacy? Why have we fastened with desperate tenacity on the unsound, and even dangerous, project of Continental Union Government, even after a half century of its getting us nowhere? To continue our march to total liberation, which is the ultimate goal of Pan-Africanism, we need new thinking and new initiatives. Let us get down to do serious work on them. And whatever we do, we must never forget that total liberation is a matter of power: A people is totally liberated only when it has built up enough power to deter any others from messing with it.


Chinweizu is a Nigerian, an advocate of Neo-Garveyism [Black Power Pan-Africanism], and the author of several books including the following: The West and the Rest of Us, (1975; New edition, 1987) Decolonising the African Mind, (1987) Voices from 20 th Century Africa, (1988) Anatomy of Female Power, (1990; New Edition, 2005) His weekly column: “The Black Power Pan-Africanist Perspective”, currently appears every Thursday in the Lagos newspaper BusinessDay. His anthology Pan-Africanist Wisdom, 1791-2011: selections from Pan-Africanist thinkers since Boukman, will be published in 2012. References Batsa, Kofi The Spark: Times Behind Me, London: Rex Collings, 1985. Cabral, Amilcar Return to the Source, New York: Monthly Review Press, 1973 Du Bois, W. E. B. Dusk of Dawn, (1940) New Brunswick, N.J.: Transaction Publishers, 1984 Encyclopædia Britannica. Ultimate Reference Suite, 2010 Microsoft Encarta Premium 2009. Mwakikagile, Godfrey Tanzania Under Mwalimu Nyerere: Reflections on an African Statesman. Google: Nyerere, “two mexicos”. Nkrumah, Revolutionary Path, London: PANAF Books, 1973 . Othman, Haroub ed. Reflections on Leadership in Africa – Forty Years After Independence, Brussels: VUB University Press , 2000 Prah, Kwesi ed., Racism in the Global African Experience, Cape Town: CASAS, 2006 Prah, Kwesi The African Nation, Cape Town: CASAS, 2006 Tinabantu, Journal of African National Affairs Vol 1 No 1. (May 2002) Cape Town, CASAS.


  1. W. E. B. Du Bois, Dusk of Dawn, [1940] (New Brunswick, N.J.: Transaction Publishers, 1984) pp. 301 - 302, 303.
  2. -- Kofi Batsa, an ideological disciple who worked closely with Nkrumah as editor of The Spark, in his book The Spark: Times Behind Me, (London: Rex Collings, 1985) p.118
  3. --Amilcar Cabral,Return to the Source, (New York: Monthly Review Press, 1973) p. 91
  4. –Nkrumah, Handbook of Revolutionary Warfare, [1968], (Revolutionary Path, London: Panaf Books, 1973) p. 475
  5. --1,001 Logical Laws, John Peers and Gordon Bennett Eds., (London: Hamlyn Paperbacks, 1981) p. 101
  6. Julius Nyerere, Dec. 1997.
  7. --Nkrumah, Revolutionary Path, p.238.
  8. –Nkrumah, Revolutionary Path, p.238.
  9. –Nkrumah, Revolutionary Path p.239.
  10. –Nkrumah, Revolutionary Path, p.240
  11. [See “Lee Kuan Yew—Quotations” in Microsoft Encarta Premium 2009]
  12. [Source: Kim, H. Edward. 'Rare Look at North Korea.' National Geographic, August 1974 See Microsoft ® Encarta ® 2009. © 1993-2008 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.]
  13. [The economic data above are mostly from Microsoft ® Encarta ® 2009. © 1993-2008 Microsoft Corporation; with additional data from wikipedia and Encyclopædia Britannica. Ultimate Reference Suite. Chicago: Encyclopædia Britannica, [2010]
  14. --Col. Mouammar Gadhafi of Libya, according to a Pan African News Agency report of 28March, 2001
  15. For documentation of Arab racism, the Arab project in Africa since 639AD, and what Arabs intend to do to Black Africa through the USofAfrica, please consult the CAACBA Papers at (Look under Pan-Africanism). I shall here simply draw attention to the lessons of Sudan where the Arab minority regime has been implementing this Arabization project since 1955.
  16. --Sun Tzu, ca. 5 th century BC14
  17. --Muhammad Ali Pasha, Ruler of Egypt, 1825, in a letter to one of his generals in Sudan,quoted in [Peter Adwok Nyaba, “Afro-Arab Conflict in the 21 st Century”, Tinabantu, 2002, p. 36] Tinabantu, Journal of African National Affairs Vol 1 No 1. Cape Town, CASAS.
  18. --Gamal Abdel Nasser, President of Egypt, 1955, quoted in [Prah, 2006: 170]
  19. --Sudanese Prime Minister, Mahgoub, 1968, quoted in [Opoku Agyeman, “Pan-Africanism vs Pan-Arabism”, Black Renaissance 1 (1), January 1994, p. 38]15
  20. President Nimeiry of Sudan, 1969, quoted in [Opoku Agyeman, “Pan-Africanism vs Pan-Arabism,” Black Renaissance 1 (1), January 1994, p. 39]
  21. – Dr Hassan El-Turabi, chief ideologue of Jellaba-Arab minority rule in Sudan, 1999, quoted in [Peter Adwok Nyaba, “Afro-Arab Conflict in the 21 st century”, Tinabantu, 2002, p. 27] Tinabantu, Journal of African National Affairs Vol 1 No 1. Cape Town, CASAS.
  22. ”-- Peter Adwok Nyaba, “Arab Racism in the Sudan” p. 146, in Prah, Kwesi ed., Racism in the Global African Experience, Cape Town: CASAS, 2006, pp.145-186.
  23. --“The Arab Congregation and the Ideology of Genocide in Darfur, Sudan” by Abdullahi Osman El-Tom, Ph.D.
  24. [See Amy Jacques Garvey, Garvey and Garveyism, New York: Collier Books, 1970, p. 242]
  25. – Handbook of Revolutionary Warfare, (1968), [Revolutionary Path: 475]
  26. --June Milne, “Never Again! . . . 40 Years after the Coup That Disrupted Africa's Forward March,” New African Magazine, Feb. 2006. p. 9.
  27. [See Revolutionary Path, pp. 265-266]
  28. [Revolutionary Path, p. 414]
  29. [Return to the Source: 91]
  30. [Revolutionary Path, p.474]
  31. [To see the speech, Google: Nyerere, “two mexicos”; then scroll down to pp. 187-197 of Tanzania Under Mwalimu Nyerere: Reflections on an African Statesman, by Godfrey Mwakikagile] or see Reflections on Leadership in Africa – Forty Years After Independence, ed. by Haroub Othman, Brussels: VUB University Press , 2000, pp. 17-24
  32. [Revolutionary Path: 186]
  33. [Revolutionary Path: 190]