When Franklin Roosevelt stopped off in The Gambia, it struck him as a rather dismal old British colony. It was January 1943, and FDR was en route to the Casablanca Conference, where the Allies would issue their demand for “unconditional surrender” from the Axis powers. Travelling through the streets of Bathurst — now known as Banjul — he was appalled at the poverty. “Those people are treated worse than the livestock,” he said in dismay to his son Elliott. “Their cattle live longer!”
The experience hardened his belief that European colonialism was out of date. In August 1941, in discussions on the Atlantic Charter — which laid out the Allied goals for a post-WWII order — FDR stressed the inclusion of an article on self-determination, much to Winston Churchill’s anxiety. Roosevelt insisted that a precondition for a peaceful world was the development of “backward countries”, but that one-sided colonial trade agreements — like those of the British Empire — were why those countries “are still as backward as they are”.
American leaders have long liked to position themselves as opponents of European colonialism. John F. Kennedy, during the 1960 Presidential election, declared that the US should side with third world nationalist movements. After all, America itself is the product of thirteen colonies emancipating themselves from the British Empire and building a democratic republic. That revolution, which took place 245 years ago, has since been a model for movements worldwide. Vietnam’s nationalist leader Ho Chi Minh, for instance, explicitly invoked the American Declaration of Independence as inspiration.
America, then, claims to stand for a liberal international order composed of independent nations, dedicated to promoting peace, prosperity and freedom. In theory, anyway. In practice, America did not become a benign superpower after the Second World War; it became an empire in its own right. It did not liberate European colonies; it inherited them and made them American.
In Indochina, the US supported the French colonial regime, before replacing it as the occupying force — leading to the original forever war. In the Middle East, the US replaced Britain as well as France as the imperial power ne plus ultra — a project that, as recent front pages graphically demonstrate, hasn’t ended well. But American interventionism in Africa is less widely understood. A revelatory, meticulous new book by Susan Williams — based on declassified documents and new testimony — has done a lot to correct this.
Africa, Williams suggests in White Malice, has long been of “central importance” in the vision of American foreign policy planners. During the second world war, in response to Hitler’s armies conquering most of North Africa, the US built a number of air bases on the continent — in Liberia, for instance — to prevent its enemies using West Africa as a platform to attack the Americas. The OSS (the forerunner to the CIA) established an Africa service with three field bases in Ghana, South Africa and Ethiopia. And the Manhattan Project — the secret program to develop the first nuclear weapons — made the Congo, with all its natural resources, central to American foreign policy.
Join the discussion
Join like minded readers that support our journalism by becoming a paid subscriber
To join the discussion in the comments, become a paid subscriber.
Join like minded readers that support our journalism, read unlimited articles and enjoy other subscriber-only benefits.
Subscribe“Africa will never recover from US imperialism”
Seriously? Never?
The relatively minor and localised influence of post war USA in Africa can hardly account for the ignorance, poverty, corruption and tyranny that characterises that continent. Obviously everything’s all whiteys fault but I think Africa has more pressing issues than what happened, or didn’t happen, half a century ago. The ruthless and violent religious terrorists (Boko Haram, ISIS, al Shabaab etc.) and the neo imperialist ambitions of China for instance.
Most people do not know of how FDR forced the European Allies to mostly de-Colonize immediately post WWII. He imposed this on the Europeans – in my opinion, partly to break their economy, same as in my conspiracy laden mind how he refused to invade through Greece, going into Marseille instead, and doing absolutely no good, despite Churchill’s pleadings – and so allowed Russia to take the Balkans and East Europe, to also break Europe – my guess is he was sick of war in Europe (Or then thought it was time for USA)
“When Franklin Roosevelt stopped off in The Gambia, ** Travelling through the streets of Bathurst — now known as Banjul — he was appalled at the poverty. “Those people are treated worse than the livestock,” he said in dismay to his son Elliott. “Their cattle live longer!”
The experience hardened his belief that European colonialism was out of date. In August 1941, in discussions on the Atlantic Charter — which laid out the Allied goals for a post-WWII order — FDR stressed the inclusion of an article on self-determination, much to Winston Churchill’s anxiety.”
I have always believed this result was to turn the colonies out onto their own resources without having fully trained up an administrative and technocrat class of locals, to take over the work of growth and stability. India and the 1946 India vote, Attlee, the Partition, all the greatest example of too fast an exit… And same with much of Africa.
I think Colonialism could have had a much more beneficial ending, if only it was not so politically rushed, and hugely underfunded by the bankrupted Europeans. It is a great pity Trueman did not set up a sort of Decolonizing Marshall Plan sort of thing. If West just pulled out of Africa and left total vacuum would not have been better than how it was managed. The writer thinks America and Europeans stayed around too long, I think they pulled out too fast and without sufficient investment. But the past was a different land, and who knows.
Yes this was the case for UK colonies. The Foreign Office and other colonial entities had established plans for a more gradual hand over of authority as they knew most countries were not ready for an immediate transfer of power.
However pressure from the Left in the UK, and the US among others, caused a rapid acceleration of decolonisation – and arguably most of the chaos that ensued for years after
Having colonies is expensive, time consuming and frustrating. I imagine both colonised and colonisers get sick of it.
Have you read Kipling’s Poem, ‘White Man’s Burden’?
However, mining, etc., is lucrative for corporations.
…I’d be very interested to know if the development trajectory of UK Colonies accelerated or decelerated after we left; although I suspect we could all guess the answer pretty accurately…
Clement Attlee was obsessed with de-colonizing – he was very much the wrong man at the wrong time. Like the later Labourite Blair, great harm was caused to the world by this man thinking he was doing the right thing.
Biden is the latest incarnation of the Left wrecking everything. I know Attlee is loved for his NHS – but it was coming anyway, and it could have been better, I think more along French lines of some personal contribution so people fund it more, and also feel they have some stake in it – as what is free is abused.
Britain was bankrupt by 1942. Attlee realised we did not have the funds. The main issues for Britain was the Welfare State, building homes for those whose houses had been bombed or were squalid slums and supoorting NATO and Nuclear Defence. Post 1948 there was threat of communists taking over in France , Italy and Greece. By 1945 Britain had been through two world wars and a depression. By creating a Welfare State he removed any support for the communists and a class war.
I would suggest that Attlee and Bevin did more to stop communism any anybody else. He sent British jungle troops to Vietnam who nearly defeated the Vietminh but had to to be sent back to India in 1946 and Special Forces to Greece to fight the communists. Attlee and Bevin made sure communists never gained politcal power.
I would like to read this book, and I am sure Ralph Leonard has given an accurate account of its arguments – but from his description it sounds as if it suffers from a common failing of modern American scholarship, namely that in a well-meaning desire to give an account of the USA’s crimes it always places American agency front and centre of events, and does not give enough consideration to local actors. Ironically enough by attributing so much importance to American intervention in post-independence African states you end up marginalising African agency and writing Africans out of their own history. Certainly the examples of American interference here are particularly egregious, but I’m not sure they can be held to characterise the history of every African state since independence, nor even in these cases was the American role necessarily decisive.
There is a hint of this in the description of Nkrumah’s fall, where the CIA seems to have taken advantage of domestic discontent created by his own increasingly erratic and tyrannical behaviour. Even in Congo the Belgians, Rhodesians and South Africans also played a role in destabilising Lumumba’s regime. Another problem with this focus on the US is that it tends to overlook Soviet interventions in Africa, which in Ghana and Congo may have been a figment of the CIA’s imagination, but elsewhere were very real, and often propped up equally unsavoury dictators (Mengistu’s Ethiopia, anyone?). This is now very well-documented through the work of Cold War historians such as Odd Arne Westad.
Finally (and here I take a deep breath as I realise I am treading in very sensitive territory), I’d be interested to know how Leonard would contrast European colonialism, in its many and varied forms (there were really significant differences between the British, French, Belgian and Portuguese regimes just in West Africa) and the arms-length subsidies, gatekeeper states, unequal economic relationships and rule by local dictators which in many (not all) cases followed it. The one thing you could potentially say about colonial regimes was that they had a long-term stake in the countries they ruled – their officials might spend their entire careers there (in the British case they almost certainly would). They had power, often exercised very unjustly, but they also had responsibility, and faced a degree of accountability for their actions (again particularly true in the British case, where there was some Parliamentary oversight of what they did). This was not true of the American imperialism which followed, whose actions were long-range, secretive and could always be disavowed.
It is Political, not history.
‘The enemy is 19th century colonialism, which gave rise to the slave trade;’ And this column is supposed to be taken seriously?
Some Livingston books need to be read, how in all his African Traveled he was left alone, even protected by the Arab colonizers/slavers who controled the interior, and parts of the Coast, such was Livingston’s personal aura.
Saudi Arabia outlawed slavery in 1962.
Obviously, the Slave Trade pre-dated the 19th Century.
Yes it is mentioned in Sumerian texts.
Not the trans-Atlantic slave trade. That is under discussion here.
Read it again! He is saying that the Left believes the enemy is 19th century colonialism.
Mr. Leonard – being of Nigerian descent – must surely know this Interesting fact:
“Nigeria has a history of slavery and actively participates in the slave trade.[1][2] Slavery is now illegal internationally and in Nigeria.[2] However, legality is often overlooked with different pre-existing cultural traditions, which view certain actions differently.[2] In Nigeria, certain traditions and religious practices have led to “the inevitable overlap between cultural, traditional, and religious practices as well as national legislation in many African states” which has had the power to exert extra-legal control over many lives resulting in modern-day slavery.[3] The most commons forms of modern slavery in Nigeria are human trafficking and child labor.[2] Because modern slavery is difficult to recognize, it has been difficult to combat this practice despite international and national efforts.[2]”
Slavery in Nigeria — Wikipedia Republished // WIKI 2
If you are not embarrassed to use the term “white malice”, neither then am I embarrassed to use the term “black complicity” – since the former was made possible by the latter, which continues to this very day.
While I do not contest Mr. Leonard’s account of the US treatment of Nkrumah and Lumumba, his knowledge of earlier history is thrown into question by misstatements like this: “The enemy is 19th century colonialism, which gave rise to the slave trade.”
The slave trade flourished in the 17th and 18th centuries; the 19th century, which comes after the 17th and 18th, was when the slave trade was outlawed, first by the UK and the US, and then by other states. So, 19th century colonialism in Africa—symbolized by the Berlin Conference on Africa in 1884-5—could hardly “give rise” to something that had already been abolished.
The writer of ‘White Malice’ seemingly has such high regard of subtle machinations of a very few Americans to utterly dominate the Continent that I wonder how her book would read on the results of tens of thousands of combat troops and the greatest amount of the highest sophistication of weaponry, and 2$ Trillion dollars, spent over 20 years, and this fallowing 20 years of war driving Russia out, yet failed to bring the simple country of Afghanistan to their control.
I wonder what she would make of the Vietnam Colonial history along similar lines to Africa, and their burgeoning industrial successes now, after throwing off the Colonizers through a protracted war.
Were Idi Amin and Mugabe also CIA informants? Charles Taylor of Liberia, Joseph Kony in the CAR?
When I hear of the wicked Dulls Brothers I am always utterly appalled – but still, I have a hard time understanding how they got such spectacular results by the meagerest levels of intervention, like the locals were not that passionate about it (we all remember Mosaddegh and Guatemala ((and Bay of Pigs)) A quote from Allen Dulls, and he would know this better than anyone:
“”There is, as far as I know, only one certain rule in international relations. Interference by one country in the internal affairs of another causes resentment. It is sure to produce a result exactly the opposite of that intended..”
But seemingly the writer does not support this line, as she implies the USA was always very successful in interfering in Africa.
The US wielded and still to an extent wields huge influence in parts of Africa for a myriad reasons, including South Africa where I live. The thrust in SA during the 70s and 80s was mainly anti-communism iro the war against the Cubans which was waged in Angola.
Was/is USA a malignant force in Africa?
I remember the Cubans in Angola, what players on the world table they were back then.
The fact the book is called ‘White Malice’ renders it a source not to be taken seriously
As other posters have said, China is rapidly extending its empire in Africa.
Anyone interested in this subject should watch the movie about Patrice Lumumba called simply ‘Lumumba’. A shocking and hugely upsetting account of the actions that led to the murder of Lumumba by the US (CIA) and the Belgians, in order to secure their political and commercial interests. He didn’t stand a chance.
Leslie, I just went looking for a book I read on the Belgian Congo of the 1960s to quote it here in case you read it – but could not find it – But I did find my copy of ‘The Magic Mountian’ which got a review here on Unherd, and I rambled on a lot of my of my similar feelings in posts – and I put it by my bed, can one read such a book anymore? With the internet always calling?
I heard storied of Mobutu which I wish I had not as they still bother me… great pity Lumumba was shot – although I think he really was Communist leaning (May be wrong), but we know history went really bad after.
Time for a CIA reckoning though. Maybe Trump will be the man to do it.
If refugees are to be taken I would put SA Farmers at the top of the list. We have some SA posters here – what about it? (I had listened to some Katie Hopkins on their plight – she got canceled for that (and for much else) The Left cancels when it has no argument – as it has the complete power to do so.
The reason was that anything extra they produced would be taken from them by what Acemoglu calls the “extractive” institutions of the then Kingdom of Kongo. The oppression of the Congolese goes back to the 1400s and no doubt before.
The persistence and resilience of “extractive” (oppressive) institutions is extraordinary. Can they ever be eliminated?
As soon as this article referenced a book called ‘White Malice’ I switched off.
I personally don’t find the problem of imperlalism, in and of itself, a satisfactory explanation for the trajectory of much of the continent in the last few hundred years. This is because:
I have 3 hypotheses in light of the above:
It is good to find more about the international actions of the US (my own nation) in recent decades, for the good and the bad.
I find it easy to believe that the OSS and CIA supported these kinds of behaviors in the 1940s and following, and I am sure there were at least some negative consequences.
After all, haven’t we seen the same with the Arab Spring uprisings?
—
My skepticism is piqued, however, when any society/nation/people is set out to be a complete bad actor with the other side being blameless.
I am also increasingly resistant to claims which make racism the primary cause of a bad actor’s behavior. (Case in point: as other commenters have pointed out, the US was not particularly generous to some ‘white’ European nations either.)
Human nature is fallen.
—
I am sure there were evils committed by US governments, organizations, and individuals. We should learn lessons from these events and hopefully work for their repair.
I am reluctant to take lessons from a writer who seems to make America out to be little more than “the great Satan”.
This article has made me wonder if a book exists about all colonialism written by someone without a political axe to grind. I’m not sanguine about the possibility but it would be very good reading.
American hypocrisy and sanctimony are as old as the United States themselves. For an example of egregious treatment of native peoples, we need look no further than the near genocide of native Americans across the continent; and of course, the disgraceful treatment of coloured people, in the southern USA especially, was at least as bad in 1943 and for long afterwards, as anything observed by Roosevelt in The Gambia. US empire building pre-dates even the mid-20th Century, with its territorial grabs in the Philippines, Panama, the Caribbean and in the Pacific. The USA was and still is, just another very powerful state that pushes other states around in order to achieve its objectives, no different to other powerful states before it and no doubt those still to come.
Vietnam became a war between the North and the South. The “Viet Cong” were largely destroyed after the TET offensive and Operation Phoenix. That is what the North wanted. The elimination of rivals.
The Author obviously thinks that some African intellectual awakening would have occurred were it not for European and American involvement. I can safely say we’ll never know…..but his contention is dubious. Why is it that Black Activist who throw around the evil of whiteness never discuss who actually stated and maintained the African Slave Trade. Africans. Black Africans. Talk about not caring about the Black Man….they only have themselves to directly blame. That others exploited their lack of concern for their fellow Africans is to be expected. Humans are only waking up to human rights. We have spent many centuries being cruel to each other.
Africa suffers from one problem.Tribalism. It is no longer European or American colonizers. Africa is largely self ruled these days…..and by in large it hasn’t done much better than the colonizers. Cruelty, corruption, war, and tribalism still exists. I will remind this gentleman the Pres. Bush did much to help with the Aides epidemic. Bill Gates alone is trying to cure the scourge of Malaria. Countless amounts of Aid and Relief and Food has been sent by America to feed Africans for generations. Live Aide Concerts raised money for famine in Ethiopia.
Past sins? How about this Author look at Africans past sins…..instead of blaming African problems all on Europe or American or white people. Hundreds of thousands of white people have been offering help to African for century if not longer.
Many of these contributions made me think of President Johnson’s Great Society. It’s premise was that obviously people living in slums must prefer to live in modern towers. After all, that represented the thought of policy makers who lived in manses. And so, at great expense, America constructed vertical slums while simultaneously destroying vibrant communities. This comment doesn’t celebrate slums; it decrys the impulse to define righteousness from outside.
As in the US, so in Afghanistan, and Africa. No number of indigenous, highly educated administrators and technocrats will succeed with policies neither understood nor shared by much of the populace, particularly when those policies disrupt the known, shared expectations that provide a community’s glue. Unless, of course, you wish to emulate Stalin, Mao, and others of the 20th century.
Interesting to see if Chinese imperialism will improve things. I suspect that it will.
Maybe. They are more popular than the west, for now.
Franz, from my observation of Zimbabwe, Zambia and Mozambique, this is not the case. The Chinese have a terrible reputation for their treatment of workers. My friend, in mining, the other day recounted to me how the Chinese mine he worked on had a manager who beat his workers with whips. In Zambia, dislike of the Chinese is severe enough to command strong votes for anti Chinese candidates during voting years.
Chinese aims in Africa are entirely selfish; buying up current and future supplies of resources, agricultural land and food production with the enrichment of corrupt African leaders and their cronies, while piling up massive debts for Africans over infrastructure projects which will provide the Chinese with a stranglehold on future governments. All the while knowing that a growing African population, faced with increasing poverty, starvation, and joblessness, will export its problems to Europe.
Re debts, won’t the African leaders just refuse to repay the debts?
That the African leaders either won’t or can’t repay their infrastructure debt is China’s purpose–when the African countries default, China will then “own” their infrastructure, including deep water ports. Many articles have been written about this “belt and road initiative” which China is pursuing relentlessly in Africa.
‘Debt Diplomacy’ is the Chinese thing now. Even in Europe
“Balkan country Montenegro may be forced to cede part of its territory to Beijing as the country is struggling to repay the $1 billion it owes to the Chinese government. Montenegro had borrowed money in 2015 from Beijing in a bid to pay a Chinese contractor to build a highway allowing faster access to remote parts of the country. But now, six years later, the work is nowhere near complete and the money has already been spent by the government. “