Last Chance in Africa: An American View

IN THE whole of Africa, there are only about 6 million white Europeans, yet they control most of the continent’s wealth and power. About 98 per cent of all Africans are Hamites, Semites, Bantus, and other dark-skinned peoples, more than a third of them still animist or pagan. About one third are Muslim. And Islam is increasing steadily, at the expense of paganism. Christianity is barely holding its own.

Most of Africa’s 220 million dark people are dirt poor. Their average per capita income is less than a hundred dollars a year, but the continent’s gross product has been increasing by a spectacular 5 per cent a year. With a population increase of about 2 per cent a year, per capita production has been increasing by more than 3 per cent a year. Distribution of the income from this production has been most uneven. For example, the Union of South Africa, with 6 per cent of the continent’s population, produces 22 per cent of its gross product — and the Union’s 3 million Europeans get most of that.

Africa is plagued by most of the diseases known to mankind, as well as by some of the most virulent social afflictions. The vast majority of the people are chronically undernourished, poorly clothed and housed. They own virtually no property. An overwhelming number cannot read or write. Only three of the approximately seven hundred principal languages that are spoken (aside from Arabic) had achieved their own written script before the coming of the white man: Amharic, Tamachek, and Vai.

In the twentieth century, the disintegration of Africa’s traditional tribal society and the progressive disappearance of colonialism have made most of the continent a political vacuum. The paradox of new, modern, and beautiful cities — Casablanca, Dakar, Abidjan, Léopoldville, Cape Town, Johannesburg, Salisbury, Nairobi, Douala, Algiers, not to mention ancient but perennially magnificent Cairo — must be comprehended against a background of the rest of Africa: unstable, restless, primitive millions, barely existing on a continent whose economic potential is immense.

Africa produces a large part of the world’s uranium, one sixth of its lead, one third of its chrome, almost three quarters of its cobalt, nearly half its antimony, 14 per cent of its tin, more than one third of its manganese and phosphates, almost one quarter of its copper, nearly two thirds of its gold — and practically all its diamonds. Africa’s agricultural and hydroelectrical resources have hardly been touched. Petroleum potential is enormous, though production is still small.

Africa’s hydroclectrical projects include Rhodesia’s Kariba (1.2 million kilowatts scheduled to start in 1960); the Edéa project in the French Cameroons (installed capacity: 125,000 kilowatts at the end of 1958; expected annual production of aluminum: 50,000 tons); Uganda’s Owen Falls (150.000 kilowatts capacity by 1960); the Upper Congo’s De la Commune and Le Marinel projects (partially finished, will develop 398,000 kilowatts); the Volta River scheme in Ghana (a $700-million project just begun); the planned Inga Rapids development on the Lower Congo (an immense thirty-year project that will cost between $3 billion and $4 billion and will develop 20 to 25 million kilowatts — about three times France’s present installed capacity).

Best figures indicate that total capital investments in Africa are now running between $4 billion and $5 billion a year, or between 15 per cent and 20 per cent of the continent’s gross product — an average well above that for the Western world. (In the Union of South Africa, the capital formation rate is running at nearly 25 per cent and in Rhodesia around 30 per cent, percentages that are among the world’s highest.) The results of this immense investment have been substantial: in the last decade, mineral production has increased by 60 per cent in tonnage and by 300 per cent in value.

THE HARVEST OF COLONIALISM

Though colonial peoples are naturally often loath to recognize it, colonialism did a great deal of good. However rapacious the motives which brought the colonial powers to Africa, and however rich the stockholders in Europe may have become, economic development did result. Furthermore, in every case, doctors, missionaries, engineers, teachers, geologists came, and generally with the highest motives. Many of these men and women spent decades of selfless service working for the good of the native populations.

To summarize the achievements of colonialism:

1. Local tribal warfare was diminished and some kind of order and security established and maintained.

2. Cannibalism, slavery, ritualized murder, and other atavistic practices were suppressed.

3. Elementary communications were created: roads, bridges, railroads, telephones, airlines. Though these facilities were usually established for the convenience of the European settlers themselves, they were inevitably used by the natives and served to open up the country.

4. Public health measures were taken against such scourges as the tsetse fly (carrier of sleepingsickness to humans and nagana to cattle), the malarial mosquito, tuberculosis, trachoma, and such endemic infectious diseases as syphilis. In many cases, these campaigns virtually stamped out diseases which for centuries had been the local populations’ principal killers. At the same time, hospitals and clinics furnished improved therapy for everything from hunting accidents to childbirth. These facilities too were frequentlyset up essentially for the protection of the European minorities, but their effect on the native population was immense. In many cases, life expectancy was doubled in a few years; in some instances, population increases outran food resources — an unexpected and unintended result of colonial public health activity.

5. Substantial progress was made against such chronic disasters as floods, droughts, locust invasions, and the famines which historically followed such catastrophes. This progress also led to rapid population increase and consequent chronic undernourishment.

6. Educational facilities were created, though it is true that these were often shamefully inadequate and discriminatory. It is disgraceful that in Algeria, for example, after almost one hundred and thirty years of French rule, only one Muslim boy in five, one girl in sixteen, were in school in 1954. But it was an eye opener for me to see that in Liberia (independent since its founding in 1847) the school situation is far worse than in Algeria, and that in Ethiopia (independent since the days of Solomon) there was no public school system at all until the Italian invasion in 1934.

7. Frequently colonialism brought with it teams of anthropologists, curators, musicologists, linguists, and others who studied and sought to preserve native culture.

8. In most cases, colonial authority established some rule of law — the white man’s law, to be sure, and discriminatingly administered at that. But it is interesting to note that as African countries achieved independence, they usually retained European legal codes, adapting them to the needs of their societies.

9. Colonialism created conditions under which capital formation began. To produce enough food to supply the growing population, needed machinery was set up: power plants, fertilizer industries, port facilities, soil conservation and reforestation projects, as well as numerous and diverse manufacturing industries. Here too the motive was usually profit for the imperialists or settlers; but the factories stayed in Africa even when the profits were repatriated.

10. Finally, major efforts were made to enlighten native populations by religious conversion. Millions of tribal Africans embraced Christianity and Islam, which at best engendered sobriety, honesty, and respect for one’s fellow man. This was important, because among millions of Africans the breakdown of tribal codes of ethics had left a menacing social and spiritual vacuum.

Different policies and methods of administration were used by the European powers in Africa. Some were more effective than others, for various reasons. The Turks and Germans were squeezed from the continent many years ago as a result of considerations having nothing to do with their colonial administrations. Both left deep marks on their former colonies; both were harsh but fair; both were relatively efficient. Holland, of course, had been pushed from Africa even earlier, leaving Britain, France, Belgium, Portugal, and Spain in control of most of Africa.

Britain has worked toward preparing its colonies for independence and—as Indians, Burmese, Ghanaians, and many others can testify — has in due course withdrawn, in each case leaving the newly independent nation free to determine whether or not it wanted to continue as part of the Commonwealth. In most cases, the advantages of sterling bloc services and Commonwealth preferences have been such that the cast-loose colonies have decided to become voluntary members of that impressive association of free nations.

France’s policies have been the most diverse and contradictory, for, in principle, France has been dedicated to the assimilation of its colonies, to making Frenchmen of its Africans. But outnumbered as they have been until recent years by their colonial citizens, the French have been unwilling to implement their own principle, lest France itself be assimilated by its empire.

After France and Britain, I would rate tHe colonial powers in this order on their chances for orderly evolution to some sort of friendly and mutually advantageous Afro-European association: Belgium, Portugal, and finally, at the bottom of the list, the Union of South Africa, where horrible violence is almost inevitable.

The Belgians are running into trouble, because they have not given their Africans an early start at political training or political responsibilities. I expect the Congo will have self-administration in three to five years, and independence perhaps within a decade. If the Belgians try to retard these developments, there will be more violence, but I hope they will prove sober and realistic enough to avoid this.

INDEPENDENCE ON THE WAY

With all its diversity, colonialism in Africa shares in all countries one common attribute. It has spawned its own destroyer: nationalism. By educating at least some natives, giving them new skills, desires, and appetites, colonialism signed its own death warrant. Millions of Africans who had never before been conscious of their national entity or of the very substance of independence now think and act as Nigerians, Tanganyikans, Algerians.

During recent years, radio communication has told millions about the four freedoms. The stories of man’s fight for freedom in other areas, the Magna Charta, and the American, French, and Russian Revolutions have been brought to Africa by colonials and their schools. Vying with one another for African leadership, such statesmen as Egypt’s Nasser and Ghana’s Nkrumah have sought to whip nationalist sentiment into a frenzy of impatience and insistence. The whole continent is afire with the demand for independence now.

Many African nations, however, are patently unprepared for independence. When Libya became an independent state in 1951, it had no engineers, virtually no trained administrators, no middle class, almost no intelligentsia. When the Sudan achieved independence in 1956, the country was administered largely by British civil servants, most of whom promptly left, almost causing an administrative disaster. Foresighted Nigerians, preparing for their independence in 1960, have taken measures to persuade several thousand British civil servants of their country to stay on, because no adequate supply of trained Nigerians is available or in sight.

But ready or not, independence is on the way and within a very few years will certainly sweep the whole continent of Africa. It cannot be stopped, nor do most Africans want to try to stop it. As one British spokesman has put it, “Nationalism in the colored world is patriotism expressed in terms of race. When a colony is inhabited by one race, as in West Africa, nationalism expresses itself in the united desire of all the people to govern themselves.”

Some Africans use the analogy of marriage: “If one waits to marry until one is completely prepared — emotionally, educationally, and financially — by that time the girl has usually married someone else.” I have heard other Africans full of newly gained knowledge ask, “Were you Americans really ready for independence in 1776?" The less sophisticated use other analogies: to learn to fly, the bird must be tossed from the nest: one learns to swim in the water, not on the land; before one walks, one must creep.

In many cases the colonial powers are more than ready to withdraw and leave their colonies to independence. (A German diplomat in East Africa spoke for his whole nation when he expressed profound satisfaction that circumstances then beyond Germany’s control had deprived it of its colonial empire and left it free to do business on an equal basis, without prejudice, with newly independent states.) The British left Ghana and the Sudan and are leaving Nigeria with timely grace. French policies in black Africa are enlightened, and French investments are unmatched by those of any other power. On the other hand, the European settlers in South Africa, Rhodesia, Kenya, and Algeria are fighting independence with every weapon at their disposal.

THE ECONOMICS OF INDEPENDENCE

Political independence is all very well, but it often leaves many economic problems not only unsolved but intensified. Albert Schweitzer expressed the idea to me in these words: “Political independence is meaningless without economic independence.”

Having achieved political freedom, most African states face the problem of decolonializing their economies. For example, a large percentage of the Moroccan economy was still in French hands two years after independence. Independent Ghana’s entire cocoa crop (the country’s main source of income) is marketed through London. In an attempt to throw off the residue of colonialism, the Egyptians seized the Suez Canal and, after the Israeli invasion, many other foreign assets; then found themselves driven to Moscow for arms and credits they needed but could not obtain from the West. If and when a United Nations developmental fund for Africa is organized, it may undertake interim measures, freeing the newly independent African states from residual economic colonialism while assuring them the developmental funds they so desperately need.

A universal problem is the shortage of trained people: professors and electricians, engineers and economists, marketing experts, journalists, accountants. Except for Egypt, Tunisia, and the Union of South Africa, no African nation can begin to fill its needs for these cadres. Now and for years to come, thousands of these jobs will have to be filled by British, French, or other foreign nationals, who in many cases will receive and be worth salaries well above those paid Africans in similar jobs.

WHAT ISLAM OFFERS AFRICA

It was a recurring surprise to me in many parts of Africa to find Islam vigorous and expanding. Having always thought of sub-Sahara Africa as essentially pagan, I did not expect to find nearly half of West Africa’s 60-odd millions nominally Muslim. In East Africa, for example, there are large and active Muslim communities as far south as Durban, while such cities as Dar es Salaam are almost solidly Islamic.

Perhaps more significant is the fact that Islam is still actively and successfully proselytizing all over the African continent. Young Muslim Africans, some newly returned from schools in Cairo or Khartoum, are busily demanding that Arabic, the language of the Koran, be taught in public schools. They are also seeking to stiffen the orthodoxy of African Islam. They rail against the dilution of faith by pagan and animist influences clearly visible in the Sufism so widespread in Africa. They urge the enforcement of a modified Sharia law and propagate the principle of a theocratic state.

These Muslim reformist efforts, in their enthusiasm and their search for pure orthodoxy and austerity, call to mind the Wahabi reformist movements in Arabia and also the religious reform movements in Morocco in the early 1920s, which spawned today’s major nationalist party, the Istiqlal.

French officials, hypersensitive to anything new in Islam (perhaps because of Algeria), are disturbed and speak darkly of indirect Communist subversion via Egypt (unmindful that there are many more Communists in France than there are in Egypt). The more objective British try to use the Islamic reformist movement — indeed, even organizing Islamic schools of study (I visited an impressive one in Kano in northern Nigeria) and giving jurisdiction to a modified Sharia law in predominantly Muslim districts under their control. I talked with British civil servants in several parts of East Africa who were pleased by Islamic expansion in their areas. One of them said, “When these chaps adopt Islam, they tend to become sober and honest — an excellent thing.”

Whether the British or the French evaluation is more exact, it is interesting and significant that Islam is vigorous enough to seek to reform itself and is still expanding in Africa, while Christian proselytism in many parts of Africa is virtually at a standstill.

The reasons for Islamic conversion successes are clear. Islam fits into the polygamous way of life and the highly personalized sociology of black Africa much better than does Christianity. It is easy to become a Muslim, and so tolerant is the faith that it is quite possible to be a believer and still observe animistic ritual. More important, Islam offers tribal chiefs continued power in a theocratic administration, whereas Christianity, some chiefs think, would tend to destroy their power.

The possible results of Islamic expansion are obvious. First of all, it is a vehicle for Egyptian expansionist aspirations in black Africa. Second, in countries such as Nigeria it may lead to schisms like that which rent India, possibly with the same kind of violence. Third, along with other factors it is apt to make multiparty parliamentary democracy all but unworkable in newly independent African states, at least at the start. Last, as an involved and indirect result, it could be the vehicle for the spread of Soviet influence, particularly in East Africa.

COMMUNIST INFLUENCE

Actually, there has been surprisingly little Communist influence in Africa so far. In French black Africa there are a number of nationalists, most of them Paris-educated, who are Marxists, often accused by their enemies of being Communists. The leaders of the Cameroon independence party (UPC) with whom I talked in Cairo are certainly Marxist and may be crypto-Communists, but their activities are limited to nationalism. There is no organized Communist Party that I know of in all black Africa.

In the Union of South Africa, however, I was surprised to find a vigorous though illegal Communist Party, with perhaps three thousand activists working through several legal fronts. These groups hold meetings, raise money, and organize legal defense against relocation, segregation, economic inequities, and government attempts at suppression of various kinds. New Age, a wellwritten weekly, appears simultaneously in both Johannesburg and Cape Town and has an immense multiple readership. Several times the government has suppressed it, but it has shortly reappeared under another name. Encouraged by broadcasts from Moscow in English and some native languages, these Communist-led Leftists work with diligence, dedication, idealism, and interracial comradeship against apartheid and economic discrimination. Leadership is mostly white and, as in similar groups in Europe, often Jewish, but influence among the natives is growing.

Leftist leadership is also prominent among those natives who are trying to organize trade unions. So far, the government has outlawed and crushed every budding local, but all objective prerequisites for trade unions exist, particularly among the Union of South Africa’s mineworkers. And when the unions emerge, as they surely will, they may be Communist-led.

I saw virtually no attempt being made by anyone to wrest from the Communists leadership of these legitimate movements against racism and exploitation. Both the Union’s major political parties are conservative, support apartheid principles, and back the heavy-handed enforcement of the suppression-of-Communism law, one of whose principal effects is to force well-meaning liberals into the arms of the Communists.

Communism in most of Africa does not yet represent a serious mass movement, but there is every reason to expect that it soon will. The imminent opening of diplomatic relations between the Soviet Union and Tunisia and Ghana — in addition to Ethiopia, the Sudan, Egypt, and Morocco, where the U.S.S.R. already has diplomatic missions — will be an important factor. Radio Moscow is clearly audible in much of Africa and has won a wide listenership by such flexible tactics as broadcasting English lessons, currently heard in Morocco.

It is clear that should any part of Africa go Communist, it would be not only a bad shock for the West but a far worse shock for the Africans, because Soviet colonialism today is far more tyrannical and exploitative than any Western colonialism has been for half a century. We owe it to both ourselves and the Africans to combat Communist influence. Africa’s trade unions can be most useful in this respect.

THE TRADE UNION MOVEMENT

Unions are new in Africa, but already they have had an immense effect. The International Confederation of Free Trade Unions (ICFTU) alone has twenty-one affiliates in eighteen African territories and countries, which have a total membership of well over a million. Other unaffiliated unions and one or two associated with the World Federation of Trade Unions in Prague bring the total up close to 1.5 million members, which is remarkable considering the fact that in the continent’s principal industrial nation, the Union of South Africa, native unions have been outlawed.

The ICFTU maintains regional offices in Nairobi and Accra and currently is working toward the formation of African trade unions in the Union of South Africa, Ethiopia, and the Portuguese territories, where such organizations are at present banned.

The African trade union movement has produced some of the most vigorous and talented nationalist leaders, and the chances seem good that it will continue to do so, particularly in view of the absence in most of Africa of a middle-class intellectual elite. I talked with a number of African labor leaders about the necessity of keeping labor productivity increases above wage demands and found general agreement on this issue. The unions are most active in fighting for equal pay for equal work for African labor and also take a strong stand on such political issues as the support of the Algerian nationalists.

This concluding generalization is important: the labor unions of Africa constitute one of the most important barriers to Communist infiltration into the continent. If dealt with fairly and properly, they can also play a major role in raising labor productivity and in education. The prejudiced views of administrators unable to comprehend the trade union movement can only inhibit economic progress and introduce additional divisive elements into the ferment of African politics.

AFRICA AND THE UNITED STATES

Our relations with Africa have always been commercial, cultural, and religious rather than colonial. Missionary activities have been extensive, and so have various kinds of economic aid and private investment in recent years. The World Bank has loaned a total of about half a billion dollars for various African projects over the past decade (out of a total of $3.5 billion the Bank has loaned altogether). Grants from the U.S. government, foundations, and religious organizations total about $1 billion.

American private investments in Africa during the past several years have increased radically (up 42 per cent from 1953 to 1957). Total book value (exclusive of Egypt and the Sudan) is about $573 million. This is invested about 30 per cent in mining, 30 per cent in petroleum (mostly distribution and marketing), 20 per cent in manufacturing, 20 per cent in other activities. U.S. public and private loans and grants to Africa in the past ten years amount to a little over $2 billion.

According to a U.S. State Department study made in January, 1958, during the previous two and a half years the U.S.S.R. and the Soviet bloc promised a total of $1.5 billion to ten underdeveloped countries in loans, grants, and credits. About a third of this was promised to Africa. The department added that those commitments had so far been fulfilled promptly and that interest rates in general had been about half those charged by Western lending organizations. Thus, U.S. loans, grants, and investments in Africa, while substantial, have not been so extensive as those of the European powers combined and not much greater than Soviet efforts in this direction, in terms of the respective figures for gross national products.

The United States has important military installations in Africa: several bases in Morocco, one in Libya, one in Ethiopia, with a total value of about $1 billion. And American prestige is very high in much of the continent, where the Africans look to the United States for economic aid without strings attached when they achieve their independence. Nationalist leaders in the Cameroons, in French West Africa, and in Rhodesia expressed confidence that America would render major aid. (Simple people in the Belgian Congo told me that they were sure the United States would send troops into the Congo to help get rid of the Belgians.) In those African countries where the United States has bases, I found people much less enthusiastic and sometimes hostile. It was surprising to find that comparatively few people in black Africa were aware of the problems of discrimination in the United States.

MOSCOW’S CALL TO FIGHT

In only forty years, the Soviet leaders will say, Russia transformed not only its economy but its culture by purposeful planning under a small group of men who knew where they were going. “Africans, take your choice,” says Moscow, with its voice of strident materialism. “Fight for yourselves, and be like us — else America’s neoimperialism will beat and drug you into economic slavery based on racism and degradation.”

The word “fight” raises the central question of violence in a world where new weapons have made the use of force extremely dangerous and where higher conscience and intelligence may soon make its use unnecessary. But how soon? In Algeria violence continues, though intelligent French leaders know they cannot win what the ignorant want — perpetuation of colonialism — and the ablest of the FLN leaders know that historically they cannot lose. Yet the war drags on, while at the other end of the continent the self-righteous Afrikaners are preparing a blood bath that could make the Algerian war seem a minor affair.

Between apartheid and Algeria, the Africans may be inclined to accept Moscow’s call to fight. And this is at the very core of Communism’s challenge to the West today in Africa and elsewhere. It is an expression of the Marxian rejection of humanity and conscience, its assertion that reforms are not granted but won. Conscience and humanity cannot move men to kindness and generosity in a class society, says the voice of Moscow, because the competitive system makes it mandatory for those with wealth and power to invoke every evil in order to keep and increase both, lest they be outdone by their competitors. Communists concede no good will, no legality to others.

Slavery was abolished, the Communists argue, because of slave revolts and economic pressures. Strikes and strikes alone forced the British to adopt labor reform legislation. Britain was forced to leave India, they say, while today workers can improve their lives only by revolution. The masses of Africans can assure themselves better lives only by rebelling against imperialism. The Florence Nightingales, Leo Tolstoys, and Albert Schweitzers are addled liberals, whose main historic role is to mislead the masses and defend the status quo. So runs the Communist line.

It is not hard to demonstrate the incorrectness of Marxist statements on Africa’s history. It was not violence which moved the British to stop the slave trade. Nor was it avarice which brought thousands of educators, doctors, and missionaries to Africa for long years of selfless work, Ghana received its independence without a shot’s having been fired, and so will Nigeria and Somalia.

Yet there remain apartheid and Algeria, flat failures of Western conscience and intelligence. As long as these failures exist, the African will be tempted to listen to Moscow’s call to more violence, while men of good will from the West will at best be forced to view Africa with “dynamic pessimism,” to use a phrase coined at the 1958 Rhodes Conference for Cultural Freedom.

And so, my first conclusion: the West, which still has almost complete control over Africa, must act to strengthen conscience and to bring a rule of reason to bear in areas still gripped by violence and bigotry. The West must use its collective moral and economic sanctions to enforce the rule of reason and conscience, just as a century and a half ago the British used their fleet to force less principled neighbors to abandon a slave trade which human conscience and dignity could no longer tolerate. The French in Algeria and the Afrikaners must be brought by the collective conscience of the West to make concessions before it is too late.

DEMOCRACY IS NOT ENOUGH

Multiparty parliamentary democracy cannot be expected to work effectively anywhere in Africa for the moment, or until the continent’s new nations achieve much higher levels of literacy, higher incomes, and a more developed sense of citizenship and social conscience than most of them can hope for in this generation. The current rash of new Asian and Middle Eastern military dictatorships pinpoints the problem without offering anything but a fortuitous and haphazard solution. That has been the Latin American way. but the world should be able to do better in the mid-twentieth century.

The restriction of franchise used in Britain and the United States in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries cannot long be used in Africa. The demand for universal suffrage, for “one man, one vote,” is too widespread and too insistent. Yet some machinery is needed to guide illiterate electorates and the unwieldy, amorphous legislatures they elect to undertake intensive education and capital formation, thus creating the basis for what may be prosperity and effective democracy in a generation.

In my opinion, a strong monolithic political party in each newly independent country may be the instrument best fitted for this task. But though led by dedicated young nationalist leaders who are willing to forgo multiparty democracy for the present and who can be counted on to relinquish their dictatorial powers gradually as the evolution of the electorate proceeds, this kind of political organization may well be far more similar to the present-day Communist parties of Eastern Europe than to the loose-knit political parties of the United States, Britain, or France. The West must try to understand, to be patient, and, above all, to encourage these new nations toward their goals.

PARTNERSHIP THROUGH INVESTMENT

Africa’s great need for capital, in the public as well as the private sectors, cannot be overemphasized. In this respect the United States has not done well, and I hope we will do better. I should like to see us spend 10 per cent of our gross national product, as Britain did at the turn of the century, on capital investments overseas — instead of the less than one per cent that we spent last year.

But as important as the amount is the question of what we invest in. So far, the West continues to regard Africa essentially as a source of raw materials and primary crops—copper, gold, phosphates, cocoa, peanuts. This is the way Europe regarded the United States until the middle of the nineteenth century. Africa’s 220 million inhabitants who are living close to subsistence would like to become both producers and consumers. To help them make this leap ahead is to create markets for commodities and for processes and techniques. It is to open up interesting and challenging job opportunities for scores of thousands of Western technicians and lay the basis for the most important prerequisite for a peaceful and prosperous world partnership.

My final conclusion centers around the word “partnership.” for this word embodies the concept of brotherhood so deeply rooted in the Christian ethic; it embodies the concept of economic cooperation and the idea of racial harmony, both so necessary in dealing with Africa today. And only when we have convinced our African friends and associates that we want them as partners may we expect them to resist that new and deadlier colonialism spawned in Moscow which so menaces Africa today.