On the scale of human history, the transition from colonialism to neo-colonialism seems to represent progress for most African countries following independence. Under pressure from popular struggles, the colonisers had to relinquish their direct or indirect control over the colonised peoples and concede “formal independence”. As a result, many colonies gained international sovereignty, even though, before physically leaving, the colonisers put in place mechanisms (the Colonial Pact, FrançAfrique for France and the Commonwealth for the British Crown) that enabled them to pursue their policies of pillage and domination through local agents at their service.
It is worth recalling here the harmful role and function of imperialism on our continent: a quasi-permanent military presence, the perpetuation of the ongoing plundering of Africa linked to the nature of the capitalist system, which is to constantly increase its profits. It is also important to emphasise that we (pan-African progressives) must equip ourselves with grassroots organisations with political programmes that are equal to the challenges and embody the interests and deep aspirations of the people, breaking with the dominant economic and social model. Given the nature of this meeting, an anti-imperialist conference, we wanted to say this loud and clear.
Imperialism has also put in place tools of domination and means of pressure that still dictate the conduct of many formally sovereign states today: the IMF and the World Bank, to name but a few.
This development has given former colonies rights enshrined in international institutions. The origin of these rights dates back to the French Revolution of 1789 with the “Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen”, which was specified by the UN “Universal Declaration of Human Rights” in 1948 and completed by the “African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights” of the OAU, now the African Union, in June 1981. These texts recognise the rights of all countries that have acceded to international sovereignty (large or small, weak or powerful, developed or backward), the defence of which is the responsibility of the citizens of each country.
Human rights
There can be no sovereignty of peoples without respect for human rights, because it is free men who bring to life and defend the sovereignty of peoples. These rights are enshrined in the 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights and essentially concern the rights of the human person, of individuals. These include freedom of thought, expression, opinion, association, religion and assembly; the right to health, education, life and work; the right to participate in the conduct of the public affairs of one’s country—in short, everything that contributes to the development of every human being. The fight to defend human rights is a daily and permanent struggle, as governments in all countries generally tend to restrict or even abolish them.
The Rights of Peoples
It is above all the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights which, while taking up the rights of the human person, specifies the rights of peoples more clearly, in particular in Articles 19 and 20, which state:
“Article 19 All peoples are equal; they enjoy the same dignity and have the same rights. Nothing can justify the domination of one people by another.
Article 20 (1) All peoples have the right to exist. All peoples have an unquestionable and inalienable right to self-determination. They shall freely determine their political status and shall pursue their economic and social development along the lines which they have freely chosen. (2) Colonised or oppressed peoples have the right to liberate themselves from their state of domination by any means recognised by the International Community…”
This is the theoretical legal basis offered to citizens of colonised, neo-colonised or oppressed countries to fight for the recognition and respect of their peoples’ rights to dignity and sovereignty. Without these struggles, these recognised theoretical rights will never have a real existence. Citizens who engage in these struggles will be recognised as consistent democrats and patriots.
The rights of peoples are essentially based on the principle of non-interference in the internal affairs of each country and the inalienable right to self-determination. Fighting for the right to freely choose one’s leaders, to vote and to be eligible to participate in the governance of one’s country, means defending the political and civic sovereignty of one’s People or of the nationalities of one’s country. To fight for a national currency or to steer your country’s economic policy in such a way as to satisfy the fundamental needs of your fellow citizens as a matter of priority, against foreign predators and interests, is to defend the monetary and economic sovereignty of your people. To fight for education in our mother tongues and the preservation of the positive values of our traditions against the imposition of foreign languages and cultures is to defend the linguistic and cultural sovereignty of the peoples or nationalities of one’s country.
Limits and obstacles to the sovereignty of peoples
The enjoyment of individual freedoms and the assertion of sovereignty are never absolute. Just as individuals are led to impose limits on themselves in order to preserve social cohesion, so States, for reasons of economic efficiency, regional security and peaceful coexistence, may agree to delegate sovereignty (common currency, common regional markets, for example).
Through their behaviour, the imperialist powers appear to be the main enemies and an obstacle to the sovereignty of peoples. Behind the proclamation of fine ethical principles universally accepted, these powers practise the law of the strongest to impose the prevalence of their interests over those of the weakest. They blithely flout the principle of non-interference and the right to self-determination, and regularly violate the sovereignty of peoples through aggression, military intervention, the installation of military bases, destabilisation manoeuvres, the organisation of coups d’état, and the imposition of leaders at their service to defend their selfish interests.
The behaviour of French governments is an eloquent illustration of this. They may threaten to withdraw their occupying forces (Barkhane) from Mali and want to prevent the Malian authorities from seeking other alliances to defend their country, in order to make themselves indispensable and continue their blackmail. They are flying to the aid of their ousted agent Bazoum to demand his immediate release and impose the organisation of “inclusive elections” within a very short timeframe. Their aim is to take advantage of the networks still in place to bring their agents back to power and ensure that they enjoy impunity for the crimes they have committed against their own people. These manoeuvres and threats of sanctions by the imperialists vary according to the level of control they have over the putschists, as shown by the differences observed in the cases of Mali, Chad, Guinea and Burkina Faso. The pitiful performances of the regional organisations (ECOWAS, AU and others) show that they are no more than water carriers in the service of outside powers. The same French authorities know how to use noble principles that they do not respect for others, to protest and denounce the behaviour of outside forces when their interests and honour or so-called values are at stake. Thus the intervention of Italian politicians alongside their French allies to denounce the government’s policy was considered intolerable interference in French internal affairs and led to a diplomatic crisis, with the French Ambassador to Italy being recalled. The governments of the other imperialist powers, and particularly those of the United States of America, are also identical, as illustrated by several of their political and military interventions in the world.
As regards the French-speaking African countries south of the Sahara in general and Benin in particular, the post-colonial agreements show how France constitutes a great danger to the integrity of these countries and has been a real obstacle to their development for over 60 years, to the detriment of the principles of the United Nations Charter.
The above shows that there is a big gap between the proclamation of fine principles of sovereignty of peoples supported by modern ethics and their concrete application. But their theoretical existence is already a step forward. Only the struggle of the peoples and the determination of patriots to wage these battles can make them a reality for the emancipation and happiness of the peoples of the world.
