Great Decisions 1966; 4; Black Africa

... ... National Educational Television is presenting Rape Decisions 1966 in coordination with the Foreign Policy Association's National Discussion Series. The New York Times Twenty years ago, there were only four independent nations on the vast continent of Africa,

Egypt, Ethiopia, Liberia, and the Union of South Africa. Today, there are thirty-eight independent countries carved out of Africa, and they are spread across more than eleven and a half million miles. That's enough territory to hold three Europe's. Only Asia is a larger continent. This report focuses on that part of Africa located below the Saharan Desert. There we find thirty-three new nations and nine colonial territories. Their total population is 213 million. Only four of these Sub-Saharan countries are larger in population than New York City. Nigeria, Ethiopia, the Congo, and South Africa. The majority of the states of Sub-Saharan Africa hold less than four million people each. This multiplicity of African states results from that continent's colonial history.

After the conference of Berlin in 1885, both Britain and France ended up with more than a dozen African colonies each. Germany, Portugal, Spain, and Italy shared more than a dozen territories among them. The boundaries of these colonies were drawn without respect to the natural tribal, linguistic, and cultural divisions within the continent. They cut across more than a thousand ethnic groupings, separating many cultural families and binding together many hereditary enemies. In these colonies, the European powers developed one and two crop economies, or they exploited the mineral wealth of those African states which possessed it. The beginnings of modern Africa date from the end of World War II. The colonial powers, exhausted by the war, had little strength to oppose the liberation movements which sprang up. Movements that were supported by the Soviet Union, which was trying to weaken further the Western European powers. The United States, torn between an historic policy of anti-colonialism,

and its alliance with the Western powers, had first tried to avoid commitment in African affairs. Immediately after World War II, our concern was to ensure the strength of Western Europe against the threat of a communist takeover. Africa, to the United States, was a peripheral concern. Our attitude was that the European powers did have residual rights in their African colonies, whether those territories were free or not. In 1958, the United States established a Bureau of African Affairs. We did so at a time when the Russians seemed to be moving into the vacuum created by the collapse of Western control over the continent. Then, in the early years of this decade, we tried to see Africa distinct from our relations with our Western allies. What we saw was a monumental problem. Between 80 and 90 percent of the people in Sub-Saharan Africa live in rural areas and exist by subsistence farming. Although the arable land is plentiful, one-fourth of the earth's potential, it is poor land and requires careful cultivation.

The African farmer is an unskilled farmer, lacking knowledge and implements to nurse from the soil what the soil is capable of producing. The crop yield is only a fraction of the potential. 85 percent of the people of Sub-Saharan Africa are illiterate. Few Africans are equipped to take up the necessary technical and administrative functions that the colonial white man used to perform. Africa lacks developed industry. It also lacks transportation and communications. The basic necessities take most of the time and effort of life. The African man must still hunt and fish to feed his family. Africa is a place where one out of five children dies before reaching the age of twelve.

Only the rudiments of basic health practices and sanitation are known in Africa. Medical care is woefully inadequate. Life expectancy is much shorter here than in the European countries or of course the United States. Africa is a place where three out of four people live as herdsmen on marginal land never seeing or accumulating money. The staple crops are coffee, cocoa, peanuts and palm oil. The continuous replanting of these crops drains the soil and the crops themselves are low-valued on the world's exchanges. Their prices set more by subsidy and pre-arrangement with the form of colonial powers than by any wide market demand. What Africa does produce is carries to the outside world on the backs and the heads of its people.

Ironically Africa does possess a fabulous wealth of mineral resources. 60% of the world's gold lies buried in Africa. 90% of the world's diamonds are mine there. It also holds vast quantities of iron, cobalt, cuppa and uranium. The poor crust of the land, which the farmer knows, hides riches that only powerful men and machines can claim. Along its great lakes and rivers, Africa potentially holds 40% of the earth's hydroelectric power. But the powerful waters are unharnessed, unproductive. With all this potential wealth, the annual per capita income in sub-Saharan Africa is only $120. Discounting white-controlled South Africa, that income drops to $95 a year. One of the reasons for this contradiction between natural wealth and actual poverty is the distribution of resources.

Among the African nations, rich in resources, we find the following. Zambia, Nigeria, the Ivory Coast, the Congo, Rhodesia, South Africa and the Central African Republic. But most of the other nations of Africa are poor. Those African nations that are economically viable, potentially self-sufficient, have a chance for survival and for continuing independence. But those lacking resources may be doomed to fall under the control of their more powerful neighbors, or to become neocolonial pawns in the shifting Cold War between the major powers. But the fierce nationalism of today's Africa is willing to take its chances on tomorrow, so long as freedom can be achieved today. In the early post-liberation years, the first order of business throughout independent Africa was to abolish every trace of the colonial past.

The black man of Africa wanted to forget his colonial subservience. They wanted to forget the grand reviews, the patronizing masters, the power that no matter how gently exercised was always the power of master over slain. And if it takes violence to wipe out that kind of past, the Africans were ready to turn to violence. Today, Africans have countries of their own, and they have celebrations of their own. They have what they regard as African attitudes, and they have African heroes and African flags. The continent is being returned to the people who inhabit.

But that doesn't mean that they can live in peace with each other any more easily than in the troubled, violent, colonial era. In the past, there's been continuing violence in the Congo, Algeria, Nigeria, long after these countries have won their independence. Tribal fighting and killing has replaced the violence of revolutionary conflicts with the former colonial powers. African politicians have learned that they cannot maintain themselves in power only by being nationalists and breaking away from former colonial masters. They have had to seek aid from the great powers. For the aid they needed, they turned to the rival powers in the Cold War. This was a logical tactic since the Cold War is a global struggle, and Africa is one of the arenas of the competition. Early in this decade, the Russians began to see Africa in terms of its potential as a weight in the balance of world power. And at about the same time, the United States came to this same realization.

Flying visits between the capitals of Africa, Washington, Moscow became commonplace. Suddenly, African affairs became vitally important in the councils of the great powers. It was becoming clear to everyone that in the future, African support and friendship was a thing to be valued. Inevitably, the Chinese began to court the emerging African nations in a campaign that had strong anti-white racial overtones. The Russians and Chinese came to Africa offering aid, but in fact selling revolution. And the leaders of Africa were not buying. They weren't interested in new revolutions, for they'd come to power with revolutions of their own. And so, although the aid was welcome, the political advice was not.

The new African nations have not been made anyone's easy points. President Julius Nair Rehre of Tanzania puts the African view this way. In our politics, we don't want to be automatically committed. We can take high specific issues. We don't want to merely be regarded as supporters of the West right or wrong or supporters of the East right or wrong. This is wrong. We will look at issues as they come. That is a principle. It is nothing to be experienced. So that if faith we are annoyed with the West and country, we say, OK, now we are going to back up to the East or the other way around. As a result of this attitude, the Russians have been thrown out of Guinea. And the Chinese have been evicted from Dahomei, the Central African Republic and from Burundi. As proof of its sensitive impartiality, Burundi also expelled the US ambassador earlier this year. About the same time, President Jomokinyata of Kenya pledged to eliminate Chinese influence in his country.

And in the Sudan, in the Somali Republic, in other African nations, Moscow and Peking are fighting each other for leadership in the growing squabble over who is to run the communist world. Nonetheless, in the past six years, Russia and China have established valuable trade and cultural ties with some African nations. The United States has done the same, but its policy towards Africa has been inhibited by its relations with the former colonial powers. We have, as a consequence of this and other factors, been indecisive, attempting to be a bit on everyone's side in Africa. But in that divided and turbulent continent, such a policy can only seem to work from one crisis to the next. The Congo crisis forced America's hand against attacks from both the left and right wing forces in the Congo, the US and the UN backed the authority of the central government.

Civil war broke out. Many lives were lost, but the freedom of the Congo was at least momentarily preserved. US intentions towards Africa was spelled out by the late UN ambassador, Adley Stevenson. We declare that so far as we are concerned, Africa shall never be the theme of any war cold or hot. But we also declare that Africa for the Africans means Africa for the Africans, and not Africa as a hunting ground for alien ambitions. And we pledge our full and unstinted support against any attempt by anyone to interfere with the full and free development by Africans of their own independent African future. But grave crises are not the only proof of national intentions. There is a day-to-day concern that perhaps manifests intentions more clearly. USA to Africa today amounts to less than $1 per person per year, and that's the lowest allotment made to any region in the world.

The need to increase our aid allotment and technical assistance to Africa is great. More than words are needed to convince the Africans that we are truly offering friendship, not seeking political advantage. Another critical aspect of our relations with Africa centers on the racial problem. In South Africa, the United States must deal with a ruling white minority determined to maintain its control over a vast native majority. The same problem exists in Rhodesia and in the Portuguese colonies of Angola and Mozambique. Given our own grievous racial problem, the nations of Africa are looking closely at US policy as the true test of our sincerity. Our own race relations are one of the major obstacles we must overcome in creating stable African friendships. Thus far, we have joined Great Britain in economic sanctions against the rebel government of Ian Smith in Rhodesia.

We have also enforced an arms embargo against South Africa. Still, our overall trade with South Africa continues to grow each year, meanwhile the tension mounts. Native controlled African states are demanding stronger measures from the European powers and the United States to put an end to the remaining white controlled colonies and states on the African continent. And there is resentment and resistance growing in young African minds and hearts. And there is hatred growing there too. Hatred that could one day lead to a terrible violence. In the United Nations, where Africa controls one-third of the votes, the racial issue could easily affect the course of world history. To admit Ghana to membership in the organization, will the acting chief of protocol be kind enough to escort the representative of Ghana to his seat on the assembly floor? Ghana was accepted as a UN member in 1957.

Since that time, the multiplying African states have wisely understood that the UN was the best instrument to defend their interests. Lacking economic or military power, it is at the UN that these emerging countries can wield influence because their numbers add up to real political power in the world forum. Here in the Washington Studios with us today is Mr. G. Menon Williams, the Assistant Secretary of State for African Affairs. How can you describe to us the importance of Africa and the problems of the emerging nations as they affect our own American interests? Well, as you say, Mr. Shone, this is a new opportunity. Here is a field where we haven't been frozen in one way or another.

Our first interest is to see that these countries remain or become independent and self-reliant, that they be desirous of keeping out any kind of foreign intervention whatsoever. Second, we want to see economies and social systems that are developing strength in these countries so that they can maintain their political independence. Thirdly, I think we'd like to see relations between us friendly and with mutual understanding so that we can move ahead. Secondly, we would like to see these countries politically, economically and socially strong enough so that they'll provide stability in the world so that peace will have a solid basis there. Governor, in the last few years, many people feared communist penetration of two types of communist penetration. Russian penetration, which became apparent principally in the Middle and Near East, I suppose, in Syria and Egypt. And then in the past two years, the trips of Joe and I were the first signs of an attempt at Chinese penetration.

I've traveled a bit through Africa, as you know, and see many of the Africans also in New York or the United Nations. I have the feeling that those fears, while legitimate for the other side is pushing, were perhaps exaggerated or let's put it another way. The communists have not been terribly successful with their program of penetration of Africa, have they? Glad to hear you say that because that's my conclusion. I think basically the Africans have a fierce feeling of independence, and eventually the Russians and the Chinese run against that. When the Africans feel that the Russians or Chinese are trying to dominate them, then they react. And of course, the Chinese seem to be having a meteoric rise in influence, but when Joe and I arrived, as you said, and when he came out with the statement, Africa is ripe for revolution, so many of the Africans said, no thank you, we've just had our revolution. And during the last six months, I think that the Chinese peaked their beginning to ebb because the Africans are understanding what they're up to and that what they're up to is of no help to them.

Even if this should give us a very great opportunity, and I think probably it does, but would give us an even greater one if we were not played in this new area with a very old and tragic problem. The problem of racial tensions, not only in our own country, which for a long time, if I may say so, gave us a black eye in Africa, but their own racial tensions between white and black Africa, notably in Rhodesia and in South Africa. And many Africans feel that we Americans have a rather ambivalent view on Rhodesia and South Africa that we're for freedom and yet they're a great economic interest. Could you tell us your own feeling about the racial issue and how it affects the projection of America towards the African nations? Sean Brown, as you indicated at the beginning of your question, we do have problems, and so while the Africans want to be independent and that the communists are not going to have it all their own way, we do have a continuing problem, and this is accentuated by race.

I think that the Africans are generally conscious of our goodwill, that our ultimate objective is for an interracial society and majority rule, recognizing the rights of all people, and that the problem comes down to the methods of achieving that. Here occasionally we are at odds. I think in Rhodesia, however, we seem to be pretty close together. I think that the Africans feel that the United States position in Rhodesia is quite forthcoming. There, of course, that we have used almost all of the economic weapons that are disposal. Some of them we've done voluntarily with the assistance of the private industries involved, but in any event we've got a pretty effective counter, and there seems to be some degree of cracking in southern Rhodesia. South Africa, of course, the questions are somewhat different because their Africa is very impatient to see this regime practicing apartheid brought down.

The Africans recognize what we want to do, what sometimes they feel that we're a little slow in using the means that are disposal to bring down that government. The economic part of it isn't as easy as one would think. Our concern in South Africa, compared to the rest of Africa is less than a half, but it's only South Africa represents only 1% of our foreign investments, so we have neither the leverage or the interest that they might suspect. Do you feel so that we're applying all of the economic pressure that we can? You said that we've used all the weapons that are disposal. I presume, Governor, that you're referring here to the public weapons of your disposal. America's public interest, but they're a very great private American interest in Rhodesian copper, for example, in oil, petroleum industry, in South Africa, in rare earths and minerals. There have frequently been charges made, exploited by the communists over and over again, of course, that there's American economic imperialism. Could you speak to that question for a moment?

Well, I think in Rhodesia, that we are approaching the maximum effort, that the private interests have cooperated strongly. You mentioned oil. We've got a self-imposed oil embargo, and in most of the other things where we have interest in Rhodesia. I think we're approaching a maximum effort. In South Africa, it's somewhat different. Here, we haven't really declared outright war, so to speak. Our ultimate objective is clear, but we haven't yet used the same kinds of tools in South Africa that we have in southern Rhodesia. It's not clear that the same tools would be effective, but you're quite right in the position you've taken. Thank you very much, Governor, for being here with us in our Washington Studios today.

The diplomatic skill of this country's representatives will be tested by their ability to make the right friends and perhaps the right enemies in Africa, for no country can be a friend to all of these emerging nations. Indeed, they are not friendly with each other. Disputed boundaries divide them. Already we see Somali and Ethiopia coming to the verge of open warfare over borderlines. National policy also divides the African nations. Ghana and Nigeria have been feuding because Ghana has been pressing Nigeria to follow its political lead to second its motions in international and pan-African affairs. Rhodesia and Zambia could come to battle at any moment over the questions of race and of economic interests. And in the area of tribal feuding, the Bahutus have killed 20,000 Wattousis in the country now called Rwanda. Africa has promised, but it also has problems. In many respects, it has far better off than the backward Asian nations.

The population to land ratio is good. The threat of widespread famine is remote. International friendship and internal leadership are vitally important over the next decade. The United States has to prove its willingness to support the new African nations, to meet and solve its own racial problems, and to moderate its commitment to the European colonial nations, showing due regard for the African nations and for their peoples. The internal unrest in Africa is growing. In the past quarter year, military coups have toppled or severely shaken the governments of Upper Volta, Dahomei, the Congo, the Central African Republic and Nigeria. Obviously, there are no easy solutions to this kind of chaos in Africa, and there are no sound predictions as to the directions that it might take. This is Great Decisions 1966, and this is David Shonbrun reporting. Good night.

National Educational Television is presenting Great Decisions 1966, in coordination with the Foreign Policy Association's National Discussion Series. National Educational Television is presenting Great Decisions 1966, in coordination with the Foreign Policy Association's National Discussion Series. This is NET, the National Educational Television Network.

National Educational Television is presenting Great Decisions 1966, in coordination with the Foreign Policy Association's National Discussion Series. National Educational Television is presenting Great Decisions 1966, in coordination with the Foreign Policy Association's National Discussion Series. National Educational Television is presenting Great Decisions 1966, in coordination with the Foreign Policy Association's National Discussion Series. National Educational Television is presenting Great Decisions 1966, in coordination with the Foreign Policy Association's National Discussion Series.