Many say that anachronism is that present Africa and colonialism behave at the same time verbally. There is nothing else to do with the words of French President Emmanuel Macron during a visit to Burkina Faso in 2017: “They talk to me about France as a colonial power, but I don’t want to worry about the electricity problems of Burkina Faso’s universities. That is the job of the president.” But, beyond the truffles of Macron, the former colonial empires continue to rule in Africa, and even the systems that they have left themselves remain. “Colonialism is not over, it has only changed shape,” summarizes the situation in the Dagauh Convenience (Côte d’Ivoire, 1989), historian and human rights expert. The current conflict has given us some interesting keys to seeing it from the perspective.

In the 1960s and 1970s, Europe left, crossed the sea back and forgotten its duties with the arrival of independence processes. But, although he left, he left an eye and a hand on the spot and continued to control those who suffered colony, especially because the situation he left there could not be turned. Africa is a huge continent, and it is not the same situation in South Africa as in Morocco, but when we talk about colonialism and the processes of independence, we look at sub-Saharan countries that were, above all, part of the French colonial empire. And that is that, given the current geopolitical map, there is nothing more to see what the revolutions and the countries in conflict are: the vast majority are part of Françafrique, which is no coincidence.

Retrospectively throughout history, going to 15 November 1834, the table of this decisive Berlin Conference, convened by Otto Von Bismarck, was not only the French and Belgian, far from it. Most of the European powers and the United States itself were only a hundred years away from independence. Next year, in 2024, it will mark the 140 years that the German authority called for this meeting to regulate in some way the business of that continent that was in its south: in the minutes of the conference it highlighted the objective of bringing “civilization to Africa”. The Berlin Conference was important in history, but not so much because it defined the continent’s internal borders, but because it avoided possible conflicts between powers. “The Berlin Conference laid the foundations for legitimizing the ownership of a colonial power in a territory,” explains Edimán, so that each of them would have its own land and there would be no conflict.

The greatest metaphor of European presence was the rapid transformation of toponymy into the gigantic map they opened at that Berlin table. Libreville and Freetown (free people, in Basque) proliferated, each in the language of their power. But it wasn't the same Libreville or Freetown, because it wasn't the same French or British empire. Both exploded, to the extreme, the continent, but the future it has left has not been the same. Speaking of the processes of independence in Africa, many historians take the case of Ghana as the first country, in 1957, as the first sub-Saharan. It is no accident that the first independent sub-Saharan country is part of the British colonial empire. “In the British colonial system there was a great social divide. The colonized could not expect to reach the level of colonizers: they could rise to the social scale, but if they did so within their framework. When independence came, the Anglo-Saxon worlds had their organization and they did it in their own way. That’s why it was easier for Ghana to break with the British crown,” he says.

'Françafrique' or as saying neocolonialism

In the French case, however, there was no such break. And this is one of the keys to the problems in Africa, according to the experts consulted: “It is absolutely impossible for anyone from the Global South, the Global Majority or the ‘Global Globes’ to understand Africa’s current problems without understanding the functioning of French neocolonialism,” says Brazilian journalist and geopolitical analyst Pepe Escobar, France has no respite from the emergence of a “new Africa” (France does not rest in the article of “New Africa”).

Although the signs of system continuity are observed in many elements, the most evident and the most recurring in the protests, the CFA currency. This currency is located in fourteen African countries, established by France, before colonial power: Benin, Burkina Faso, Côte d'Ivoire, Guinea Bisau, Mali, Niger, Senegal, Togo, Cameroon, Central African Republic, Chad, Republic of the Congo, Guinea, Christmas and Equatorial Guinea. The evolution of the acronym CFA makes clear the change in the appearance of colonialism, but not the change of practice. In fact, when the currency was created in 1945 the CFA meant Colonies Françaises d'Afrique (French Colonies of Africa); since 1958, Communauté Française d'Afrique (French Community of Africa), today Coopération Financière in Afrique (Financial Cooperation of Africa).

This currency was introduced in countries after the Second World War to deal with the pro-independence and anti-conionist movements proliferating in the colonies. The mechanism for controlling this currency was that when they entered into force they established interest in exchange with the French franc. In other words, the French Central Bank controlled the monetary value of these 14 countries. And for that they had to pay 50 percent of the reserves that those African countries had in return. In other words, they had to send half of what they had in foreign currencies to France. Escobar warns that France uses African reserves as if they were French capital to pay both the European Union and the European Central Bank.

It should be noted that some authorities have repeatedly called for the establishment of an African common currency. For example, the head of Libya, Muammar Gaddafi, proposed, as Pepe Escobar recalled, the creation of a Pan-African gold-related currency following the 2008 financial crisis. Gaddafi wanted to take advantage of the crisis in Europe and the West: Libya had about 150 tonnes of gold saved, which would allow it (and a little more) to have in Tripoli the financial place of this Pan-African currency. It sought to establish a system based on the sovereign gold reserve, which would allow many African states to be liberated from the financial dependence of the West. The West blocked Gaddafi’s intentions everywhere, and the information being published in recent years reaffirms the French attitude.

On the one hand, in 2015, emails pirated by former US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton showed France’s desire to achieve a higher proportion of oil production in Libya, with the aim of increasing French influence in North Africa and blocking Gaddafi’s plans. On the other hand, earlier this September, Giuliano Amato, a former Italian prime minister, stated in an interview that the “air accident” that caused 81 deaths in Italy in 1980 was not an accident, but was destroyed by a missile launched by the French Government in an attempt to kill Gaddafi, but the head of Libya was aware and did not take that flight. The French authorities still have their eyes, hands and weapons in former colonies, according to the examples mentioned, and have not removed the CFA currency from the plans.

Once independence has been achieved, this currency has also been maintained. Many defend it as a key to stability, as a strong currency. Opponents claim that France is the main method of establishing control over the former colonies, but it also has no exchange limits, and countries’ economic authorities and elites buy as many dollars and euros as they wish. This is another view of Convenience, which says that currency is the main element that gives continuity to Franco-Afrique colonialism.

External infrastructure

The economy of these countries is therefore entirely European. But this is not just because of the currency, but because the whole structure of the countries is geared towards it. The infrastructures of the African countries, which emerged in times of colonialism, are designed to make the economy fully dependent on Europe. Historian Walter Rodney, in his famous book How Europe Underdeveloped Africa, explains that all the infrastructures that emerged during the colony were for settlers, and that all the transport infrastructures that were created were for Europe: “During colonial times, roads were not built for Africans to visit their friends or, worse still, to facilitate African domestic trade. (...) All roads and railways reached the sea. They were created for the exploitation of gold, manganese, jade and cotton.” It shares the Convention and adds that the colony had to be cheap: “Its aim is to raise own resources and turn the local population into a consumer. All the investment made by the colonial authorities is geared towards exploitation: the railway is not for people, but for the exploitation of resources and their transport to the sea”.

The problem with these countries is that these infrastructures have not changed. These railways and roads are still in operation and export, jeopardising the future of these countries. “The current economy of these countries follows the same system, there is very little economic cooperation between African countries, although there are many agreements: most of their economic resources are destined for Europe or the United States, because the entire infrastructure is designed to bring the product to the sea and take it out of the country,” says the Bolivian.

Escobar gave some examples of France under control: “The French conglomerate Bolloré controls ports and maritime transport throughout the western African continent; Bouygues/Vinci dominates construction and public works; France dominates the distribution of water and electricity; Total has major interests in oil and gas. And then there's France Télécom and big banks. Société Générale, Crédit Lyonnais, BNP-Paribas, AXA (insurance), etc.”

Assimilation and violence

However, the system is not perpetuated only by the economy: the system needs to get into the minds of people and be credible, and if it does not, it needs violence. “In the case of the French colonial empire there was a situation of assimilation: an African elite, with titles, had the possibility to enter the circles of the European elite,” explains Convenience. This assimilation meant that when the processes of independence began there was no deep division, as in the British empire, between Europeans and Africans; members of the African elite were already part of the system established by Europeans. This system was thus maintained: “In French-speaking countries there has been an attempt to maintain the colonial system, changing only the actors. It is the current system, but what it sends you is not European, it is African.”

This assimilation exposed by Convenience, this extreme proximity to the European elites, is manifested in the behaviour of the authorities, as exposed by him. In her opinion, this is another reason for maintaining the neo-colonialist system: what the African elites do to stay in power. “The African elite forces the entire population to live in ignorance; it cuts off any resource to get out of this system,” the historian explains. The authorities do not want the system to be changed, ideological reflections to be made on a democracy, because the system benefits them.

But if the two points mentioned were not enough, and people and institutions really wanted to fly, they would have in front of the wall of colonial power itself: French army. “The military presence of the French army imposes enormous control on African governments,” the historian says.

Another outstanding issue is the debate on the borders of countries, although it is not decisive for Convenience. Many have said that many of the problems existing on the continent are due to random splits of its limits, a statement that the historian considers “to simplify” the situation. It recognizes that when they made those borders they united communities that had nothing to do with each other, but were and are political entities and that African countries are formed by political entities prior to colonialism.

The problem is not, he says, more than the system established within those limits: they have established a centralized system, the family of the Fifth French Republic, without respecting the characteristics and autonomy of each entity. This has caused problems, for communities to separate and become dependent on a centralizing state, not borders. “The existing system in French-speaking countries makes there a conflict between communities to reach power. This has led to the tribalism that we see today.” The truth is that, as he himself says, the feeling towards the community is stronger than that of the nation: “People understand that if it comes to power it can reach money and that it can benefit their region.”

Colonial glasses

In the summer of 2023, the African West appeared in the news reports, starring Senegal, Niger or Mali, one of them, which highlighted the instability of the countries, supported by the strong image of the protests. But Convenience underlines that, without pretending to downplay the conflicts in Africa, these countries are only six decades old, which for the stabilization of a country is very short. In an article written in Es Africa, he said: “They call on African countries to go through stages and rise to the level of other countries. But these countries have had enough ways to stabilize, make mistakes, learn from them and find solutions on their own. They have been able to adapt to their circumstances and have become peaceful societies and stabilized states.”

He has also published several illustrative cases: “Some countries that today are political or economic referents did not act better at the time. The United States celebrated its 90th anniversary just emerging from a fraticidal war. In France, 80 years after the revolution, the Community took place. When Germany celebrated the 60th anniversary of unification, the Nazis waited for them.”

Thus, asked about these reflections, it is clear that Europe and the West remain colonialist and paternalistic: “I sincerely believe that such requests are paternalism. They cannot ask Africans to react as centenarian countries. It’s a creative process, the nation goes slowly: you can’t change mindset overnight.”

Pan-Africanism to liberate itself from colonialism

From one day to the other no, but year after year, Africans are becoming aware and organizing processes to get rid of the claws of European settlers; Edimán assures us that today there is more “vindictive movement” than before. On this path of continental liberation, Pan-Africanism is acquiring presence not only in Africa, but also in the Africans of the diaspora. We must not forget its historic importance: “Pan-Africanism has been fundamental in the achievement of African independence and in the political-institutional configuration of continental alliances,” recalls historian Antumi Toasijé and experienced pan-Africanist, II International Congress “Africa-West” co-responsibility for development (“West Africa” International II. The Afrocentricity of the book "Congress, co-responsibility for development": Panafricanismoa sustatu berri bat? (Aphrodisicity: A new impetus for Pan-Africanism?) Article 11.

What is Pan-Africanism? The simple explanation of the term is to bring the African and diaspora territories together to form the United States of Africa and to free them from the imperialist burden. However, this movement is much more complex and has been transformed since it was created by a group of intellectuals to make specific contributions; in these hundred years Pan-Africanism has been enriching different thinkers and activists. “Original Pan-Africanism did not speak of decolonization, it spoke of the condition of the African descendants of the diaspora,” said Bolivian Dagauh Gonan.

During the Berlin Conference, this thought had no strength, according to the historian, “because people have feelings of belonging to their community, not a common feeling based on the color of the skin.” However, in the early twentieth century, they began to reflect on the ideas and principles of Pan-Africanism at the first Pan-Africanism Congress held in London. The congress was described by the African revolutionary Kwame Nkrumah, who was later the first president of Ghana: “We have known the intentions of the African masses who seek the form of ideology and organization that will lead them to liberation,” as we read in the article L’éternel retour de l’idée panafricaine of Afrikanie magazine.

The Paris Conference was held in 1919 and the movement began to take shape. Pan-Africanism acquired its presence after the World Wars, especially at the end of the Second, with the 1945 Manchester Conference. It began to move from idea to reality in the 1960s, in the context of the independence of African countries, and some of the people who then awoke the spark of Pan-Africanism have become historical symbols. Great leaders of the time like Kwame Nkrumah, Patrice Lumumba, Julius Nyerere or Ben Bella, who fought for the liberation and unity of Africa.

African Union, the aftermath of colonialism

However, Pan-Africanism has had many obstacles as well as internal cracks. Convenience sums up: “At the end of decolonization, two groups emerged: those who opted for Pan-Africanism as a great African state and those who wanted to maintain colonial borders.” Around 1960, the differences widened, distinguishing between the trajectory of the Monrovios, the nationalists, and that of the Cassofcos, the Pan-Africanists. At the head of the Casablanca group was Nkrumah, who believed that the limits imposed in 1885 had to be exceeded and Africa joined in a great federation.

In 1963 he published in his book Africa must unite his ideas, as well as the foundations of Pan-Africanism. According to the first President of Ghana, despite the great differences in Africa, he was convinced that a unit would generate more advantages than obstacles. He raised what he called “African identity.” However, anti-continental and internal forces failed and many of the sides of the liberation movement were killed or exiled.

Convenience sees with sorrow that division of both sides: “Unfortunately, the Monrovia team was imposed. A colonial relationship, a close collaboration they wanted to maintain. France was happy to see that the African elite itself was in favour of maintaining the system of exploitation. That’s why this Françafrique system was maintained.” Historians recall that those who extinguished the spark of Pan-Africanism belong to the line of the current African Union.

The same opinion has Antumi Toasijé: “The Pan-Africanist movement went into crisis and has been asleep. Because the anti-democratic powers of postcolonial states used Pan-Africanist discourse, but in fact promoted neocolonialism.” It says that the creation of the African Union was a "serious slowdown" in the intentions of continental political unity.

Why does it cost to integrate the idea of Pan-Africanism into citizenship? Aldekoa pointed out one element: “It was an ideology built upon the invasion of the continent by an external force. He is not aware of belonging to a community based on skin color. This does not exist. That is why slave trafficking was possible, if that awareness had existed it would not have existed.”

Has Pan-Africanism risen?

The above sources perceive a new fire from Pan-Africanism and the liberation movement in Africa in general. It is also noteworthy that these movements are mainly dominated by young generations and women. Toasijé has focused on the resources offered by the Internet, saying that it has been an essential tool for organizing networks and exchanging ideas and articles. “The generation of black descendants of Africans and Africans today is connected to each other and is giving a new impulse to the new Pan-Africanism, based on two pillars: the recovery of the basic social unity through the cultural and identitarian antine-colonialist identification and the design of economic and political strategies of unity.”

Iran hopes that Pan-Africanism, closer to the Casablanca group, will turn on “little by little”. He believes that the current idea of Pan-Africanism is more similar to the European Union’s organisation, “which recognizes borders but wants unity”. Clarify how this element affects current conflicts: “What is happening in Niger attracts the attention of Africans. People perceive that military groups are fighting Western imperialism with the help of Russia. When the Southern African Development Community (SADC) threatened Niger, Mali and Burkina Faso for the first time, they said they would come into conflict to protect Niger. When SADC did the same with Gambia, no one intended to help Gambia. I don’t know if it’s for better or worse, but it’s an increasingly perceptible evolution.” Of course, change is a continuous continent, and, as Edimán says, the new local states will take time to stabilize; on that road, the roots of European imperialism will remain inside, but also the trees will rot if they are on land that does not belong to them.