Guinea and Imperialism

Harvard Afro is conducting this column as an experiment. We are addressing ourselves to all people of African descent who read this newspaper. We will use this column to disseminate information of events, incidents and positions of which Black people should be aware and acting upon. We are using this vehicle of communication as a temporary measure to alleviate certain internal communication problems we have because of our displacement and dispersion due to the "House" system. All suggestions, criticisms, and comments from Black people concerning this column should be submitted to the Executive Committee of Harvard Afro (Harvard-Radcliffe Association of African and Afro-American Students).

NOVEMBER 22, 1970 marked another attempt by external forces to destroy the people of Africa. On this day, Portuguese-led mercenary forces launched an attack upon Guinea. Radio Conakry reports: "This is the critical moment for us. The Portuguese have come to attack us. The enemy must be crushed and punished."

The significance of this statement can only fully be understood when the interaction that Portugal Guinea, and Guinea-Bissau (to the Portuguese, Guinea-Bissau is "Portuguese Guinea") as well as Mozambique and Angola experience is explained. Mozambique, Angola and Guinea-Bissau are categorized by Europeans as "Colonies" of Portugal. Portugal is a very poor country with few natural resources. She is able to export very little. In order to maintain an economic position above bankruptcy, she must depend upon external aid for support. The North Atlantic Treaty Organization supports her to a large extent (especially military) but she receives the bulk of her support from Africa. By stealing the resources of these countries, maintaining political control over them and preventing any semblance of freedom to exist in the lives of the people, Portugal has kept some respect as a European nation. With the onset of the liberation struggles in these countries she felt threatened. Her control over them is beginning to diminish and she is trying desperately to fight history by reinstating her power of complete domination. These struggles by the freedom-loving peoples of Africa to gain control of their own countries have been gaining strength.

Colonialist Portugal has ignored the desire the peoples of Guinea-Bissau, Mozambique and for freedom from external control expressed by Angola as represented by their fights against Portuguese imperialism. Portugal has been launching attacks against the struggling brothers and sisters in Africa and their continuing ever-building fight for liberation. In the Congress of African People's news release, the fact was brought to national attention that Portugal had been reprimanded by the United Nations' Security Council for attacks into Guinea and Senegal prior to the November 22nd military advancement. As recently as October 1970, the Republic of Guinea charged before the United Nations General Assembly that white mercenaries and nationless Africans were being trained in Guinea-Bissau for an attack. The situation was left to continue by the United Nations.

Portugal feels threatened. In Guinea-Bissau the PAIGC (Partido Africano de Indepencia da Guine e Cabol Verde) claims to have control of two-thirds of the land of Guinea-Bissau. What this means is that Portugal's dominant position is severely endangered and that Africans are gaining control of their countries. Portugal attacked Guinea to retain her control of Guinea-Bissau and to maintain a position of colonial domination in Mozambique and Angola. foundation of support outside Guinea-Bissau.

Portugal seeks to destroy the PAIGC and its The PAIGC is based in Conakry, Guinea. Portugal is afraid that when the PAIGC wins in its struggles for liberation that the ever-growing struggles for independence in Mozambique and Angola will have stronger positions from which to fight Portuguese ravaging of their countries' wealth and from which to stop external control of their countries.

In the attack against the independent state of Guinea, Portugal intended to destroy the foundation of the PAIGC, to release political prisoners of the DPG (Democratic Party of Guinea-the national party of Guinea) which supports the struggle in Guinea-Bissau and shares a border with Guinea-Bissau, to shake severely the free government of Guinea and undermine/destroy its position of aiding the independence movement of the PAIGC in Guinea-Bissau. Another reason for this blatant act of oppression is to launch an attack against the leaders of Pan-Africanism which Portugal recognizes as in opposition to her thieving actions in the continent of Africa. Those leaders residing in Guinea are Ahmed Sekou Toure (President of Guinea), Cabral (Secretary-General of PAIGC), Osageyfo Kwame Nkrumah, and Stokeley Carmichael.

Another purpose that Portugal had in attacking Guinea concerns the wealth of Guinea and the importance this wall play in determining her future position. Guniea possesses one-third of the world's known reserves of high grade bauxite, the ore which yields aluminum, as well as possessing diamonds, gold, and iron-ore. This wealth makes Guinea one of the richest lands in Africa and lends to the possibility that Guinea will be one of the most powerful of the African countries. With Pan-Africanism as a political base, Guinea is seen as a dangerous nation to Portuguese interests in Guinea-Bissau. Further implications of the attack upon Guinea are that Portugal eventually seeks to control Guinea as well as Guinea-Bissau because both states are exceptionally wealthy and that as a politically correct and politically advancing state, Guinea will make a dangerous neighbor if Portugal could retain control of Guinea-Bissau in that their positions are diametrically opposed.

On December 4, 1970, the U. N. Fact-Finding Team reported that it had conclusive evidence of Portuguese involvement in the invasion of Guinea. In the next article, we will deal with the subsequent actions of the European powers in the Security Council, the role of NATO in supporting Portugal and the hypocritical position taken by the United States in relation to African liberation movements.

( The author is vice-president of Harvard Afro. )