NATO's History and Actions in Africa: A Marxist Take

[Debater Slayer]

An article on the Monthly Review, a socialist/Marxist magazine, detailing an African perspective on some of the long-standing abusive practices carried out or enabled by NATO, up to and including in the present:

NATO’s Strategy of Neo-colonialism

Imperialism has always used its strategy of divide and rule. To enable the acceptance of the idea of a ‘benevolent’ NATO, the colonial powers knew that they had to convince and recruit a neo-colonial class of indigenous Africans who would do their bidding. This divide played itself out in the national liberation movements between those who were friendly to imperialist forces and those who wanted a real break from colonialism. Nkrumah explains in Neo-colonialism, The Last Stage of Imperialism, the wide array of methods employed by neocolonialism, ranging from economic, political, religious, ideological and cultural spheres. To do this, NATO works hand in hand with other mechanisms of imperialism like the CIA 7 which was instrumental in the coup against the Nkrumah government and the murder of Patrice Lumumba.

The settler colony of Azania/South Africa would be another example of a NATO outpost. From the beginning it was obviously on the side of the Western/ NATO powers since it was essentially a colony of Britain and therefore was a NATOsurrogate. In 1955 South Africa and Britain formulated the Simonstown agreements which contained provision for the naval surveillance and defense of the African continent from Cape to Cairo. In spite of a purported arms embargo, NATO countries and Israel also provided South Africa with the necessary technology to develop nuclear weapons.

Further excerpts:

Consistent with what Nkrumah, Rodney and others warned of in the 1960’s and 1970’s NATO continues today in the form of AFRICOM facilitating wars, instability, and the corporate pillage of Africa. The Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC) for example is continuously plundered for its strategic raw materials such as cobalt, tantalum, chromium, coltan, and uranium etc. These minerals are strategically important not only for electronic devices but also for the technologies that drive the military industrial complex.

AFRICOM continues to rely on its neocolonial African proxies to fight wars on its behalf in the DRC and throughout Africa to achieve its objectives. With the rise of China, the U.S./NATO now seek to ensure full spectrum dominance that seeks to shut China or any other country out of the competition to control global capital.

NATO and Africa: A relationship of colonial violence and structural White supremacy | MR Online

I'm not posting this expecting anything in particular, be it agreement or disagreement; I'm mainly sharing it to give a perspective that is popular among many in Africa and the Arab world, including many who are not Marxists. I understand that there are various viewpoints on the subject, which makes sense to me considering the complexity thereof.

I should also note that when it comes to Russia's current conflict with NATO, I'm fully on the side of the latter because I believe their position is far more justified than Russia's aggressive and imperialist war. This article is about NATO's actions from a much broader historical and political lens than just the conflict with Russia.

 

[Revoltingest]

I wonder how it's all "white" racism when
China is heavily involved in the exploitation,
especially in Congo.
Are the Chinese white too, or are white
people forcing the Chinese to do what
they do?

 

[Debater Slayer]

I wonder how it's all "white" racism when
China is heavily involved in the exploitation,
especially in Congo.
Are the Chinese white too, or are white
people forcing the Chinese to do what
they do?

Exploitation doesn't necessarily have only one driving factor. I also disagree that all of NATO's actions were driven (whether partially or fully) by white supremacism.

Of course, dehumanizing the objects of exploitation is sometimes a core part of enabling such policies and selling them to the public.

 

[Audie]

I wonder how it's all "white" racism when
China is heavily involved in the exploitation,
especially in Congo.
Are the Chinese white too, or are white
people forcing the Chinese to do what
they do?

In America we exploit our white
priviledge, no coercion needed.

 

[Revoltingest]

In America we exploit our white
priviledge, no coercion needed.

I've exploited my workers.
I've been exploited by clients & employers.
Everyone wins.
But we didn't endure the conditions in Congo.

 

[sayak83]

An article on the Monthly Review, a socialist/Marxist magazine, detailing an African perspective on some of the long-standing abusive practices carried out or enabled by NATO, up to and including in the present:



Further excerpts:





NATO and Africa: A relationship of colonial violence and structural White supremacy | MR Online

I'm not posting this expecting anything in particular, be it agreement or disagreement; I'm mainly sharing it to give a perspective that is popular among many in Africa and the Arab world, including many who are not Marxists. I understand that there are various viewpoints on the subject, which makes sense to me considering the complexity thereof.

I should also note that when it comes to Russia's current conflict with NATO, I'm fully on the side of the latter because I believe their position is far more justified than Russia's aggressive and imperialist war. This article is about NATO's actions from a much broader historical and political lens than just the conflict with Russia.

A country doing something is not the same as NATO doing that thing. All these examples seem to be about countries within the NATO (US, Britain etc) doing something. But they are simply members of NATO. I am not seeing in any of the quotes anything about NATO as an organisation doing anything.

 

[Revoltingest]

A country doing something is not the same as NATO doing that thing. All these examples seem to be about countries within the NATO (US, Britain etc) doing something. But they are simply members of NATO. I am not seeing in any of the quotes anything about NATO as an organisation doing anything.

The article seems to be really a mis-guided attack
on NATO, perhaps because marxists, like Putin,
lament the fall of USSR. Africa is just the pretext
for the attack.

 

[Debater Slayer]

A country doing something is not the same as NATO doing that thing. All these examples seem to be about countries within the NATO (US, Britain etc) doing something. But they are simply members of NATO. I am not seeing in any of the quotes anything about NATO as an organisation doing anything.

The article gives some examples of actions supported or carried out by NATO rather than just an individual member. This excerpt is on the longer side, so I'll divide it into two quotes for paragraphing purposes:

Kwame Nkrumah had already warned in his 1967 Challenge of the Congo that there were at least seventeen air bases, nine foreign naval bases, three rocket sites and an atomic testing range operated by NATO in in North Africa, in addition to military missions in about a dozen other African countries, not to mention the exploitation of raw materials for the production of nuclear weapons occurring in the mines of Congo, Angola, South Africa and Rhodesia.2 Nkrumah called for the urgent need to counter the challenge of NATO in the strategy he outlined in his Handbook of Revolutionary Warfare which included the call for a military high command and an All African People’s Revolutionary Army (AAPRA).3

The example of Portugal, as one of the original members of NATO is worth exploring. The great freedom fighter of Africa, Amilcar Cabral, called Portugal “a rotten appendage of imperialism” he said, “Portugal is the most underdeveloped country in Western Europe. Portugal would never be able to launch three colonial wars in Africa without the help of NATO, the weapons of NATO, the planes of NATO the bombs- it would be impossible for them.”4

Cabral goes on to explain that the only reason Portugal was able to hold on to its colonies in Africa is because it had been a semi-colony of Britain since 1775 and Britain defended Portugal’s interest during the partition of Africa. Furthermore NATO, a creation of the U.S., uses Portugal and its colonies as part of the larger objective of domination of Africa and the world.5 Portugal conducted a vicious war against its colonies in Guinea Bissau, Cape Verde, Angola, and Mozambique much like the U.S. did in Vietnam.

In both cases, colonizing powers used the most modern weapons including napalm and cluster bombing campaigns killing thousands, against guerilla armies that refused to bow down. The Portuguese dictator Marcelo Caetano was forced to give up economic interests in Angola to some of the NATO powers in exchange for the NATO armaments and supplies used.6 Yet, Portugal still lost the war against the heroic anti-colonial forces.

 

[Debater Slayer]

The article seems to be really a mis-guided attack
on NATO, perhaps because marxists, like Putin,
lament the fall of USSR. Africa is just the pretext
for the attack.

This is factually incorrect in two ways:

1) Marxists who support the USSR and its authoritarianism face significant criticism within Marxist circles. They're informally known as "tankies," which is a largely pejorative term. There are also many Marxists who heavily oppose the USSR's brands of communism because they believe they were twisted versions of Marxist ideology that exploited it to maintain despotism.

2) Some of the points raised against NATO in the article are, as I mentioned in the OP, not exclusive to Marxists. You can find similar arguments from different groups ranging from capitalist nationalists and pan-Arabists all the way to Islamists and other political conservatives.

 

[Revoltingest]

This is factually incorrect in two ways:

Factually incorrect?
Geeze....not just a difference of opinion.
You have The Truth about what motivates
the article's author, eh. Nah, I think my
explanation comports well with @sayak83's
observation.

 

[Debater Slayer]

Factually incorrect?
Geeze....not just a difference of opinion.
You have The Truth about what motivates
the article's author, eh.

It's factually incorrect that "Marxists lament the fall of the USSR" unless you're talking about a very specific and widely criticized subset thereof. The same goes for the notion that the criticism in the article is limited to Marxists.

Neither of us has any special insight into the motives of the article's author. I prefer to focus on the arguments in the article rather than guess what the author's motives could be.

 

[Revoltingest]

It's factually incorrect that "Marxists lament the fall of the USSR"...

I was clear in my post that I was speculating.
Note my use of the words "seems" & "perhaps".
Do you have specific knowledge that the
author does not lament USSR's fall?

Neither of us has any special insight into the motives of the article's author.

So without your really knowing, you pronounce
my musings as "factually incorrect". Pbbbttttt!
You're swing'n & miss'n all over the place, fella.

 

[Debater Slayer]

I was clear in my post that I was speculating.
Note my use of the words "seems" & "perhaps".
Do you have specific knowledge that the
author does not lament USSR's fall?

I don't know what the author's views are on the USSR, and I don't consider that to be relevant or important when assessing the arguments the article makes concerning NATO.

But if you weren't implying that Marxists in general "lament the fall of the USSR," then we agree.

So without your really knowing, you pronounce
my musings as "factually incorrect". Pbbbttttt!
You're swing'n & miss'n all over the place, fella.

See above.

 

[Audie]

I've exploited my workers.
I've been exploited by clients & employers.
Everyone wins.
But we didn't endure the conditions in Congo.

King Leopold you isnt?

 

[Sirona]

@Debater Slayer As someone who grew up in Marxism, I can tell you that if Marxism came to power in Arabia, they would burn your Korans and desecrate your mosques faster than you can look, fella. They would impose reprisals on people who listen to the music of the class enemy (rock music) or write undesirable stuff on the internet (Raif Badawi). Marxism is like Islamic theocracy, but without Allah.

 

[Revoltingest]

I don't know what the author's views are on the USSR, and I don't consider that to be relevant or important when assessing the arguments the article makes concerning NATO.

Another poster pointed out the error of blaming NATO.
I speculated about why the author might be drawn to
that error. Should such a glaring error be ignored?
What do you want discussion limited to?

 

[Debater Slayer]

@Debater Slayer As someone who grew up in Marxism, I can tell you that if Marxism came to power in Arabia, they would burn your Korans and desecrate your mosques faster than you can look, fella. They would impose reprisals on people who listen to the music of the class enemy (rock music) or write undesirable stuff on the internet (Raif Badawi). Marxism is like Islamic theocracy, but without Allah.

I'm aware that there are Marxists who believe the state should be anti-religious. I strongly disagree with them; China's and North Korea's state-enforced irreligiosity is no better than theocracy.

That said, I'm also aware that there are various forms of Marxism just as there are different forms of religious belief. I grew up in a theocracy (Saudi Arabia) whose laws are based on a fundamentalist interpretation of Sunni Islam. When I look at Turkey, Bosnia, and Albania, I see that they're also Muslim-majority countries but with vastly different methods of government.

The type of Marxism I personally believe in is dialectical materialism. I also believe in separation of religion and state law (i.e., the state should be neither for nor against religious belief), private ownership under proper regulation, and a multi-party government rather than a one-party state as in China.

 

[Debater Slayer]

Another poster pointed out the error of blaming NATO.
I speculated about why the author might be drawn to
that error. Should such a glaring error be ignored?
What do you want discussion limited to?

I responded to the post in question with an excerpt from the article.

Point out all glaring errors you see; just don't assume they're grounds to generalize about Marxists.

 

[Revoltingest]

King Leopold you isnt?

I'm more the court jester....or the hunch backed bell ringer.

 

[Revoltingest]

Point out all glaring errors you see; just don't assume they're grounds to generalize about Marxists.

I questioned, not assumed.
You & I do not communicate well together.