Jackson Hufman
In 1892, Cecil Rhodes stretched his arms over Africa. From his hands hung phone lines connecting the continent’s two most prominent cities. To the imperialist, this advancement heralded the fruits of civilization, but to the citizens of the various nations, this addition was naught more than a series of puppet strings. Affluent nations pilfered the resources of isolated communities, and wealthy patrons ventured south in the pursuit of fame. Rhodes was not an idiosyncrasy, but rather a prominent Father to a tradition of sycophants utilizing vast amounts of influence to enact change. The French found themselves in Africa long before Rhodes, and their Empire extended from the mountains of Algeria to the jungles of Gabon. For decades, they ruled with an iron fist, eliminating every sense of autonomy by replacing pre-colonial institutions with Parisian puppets. But Empires do not last forever – they are bound to the constraints of their time, and the lingering sense of liberality that ebbs and flows with global affairs. Empires die, but states stand, and they often adopt the same measures of control, and march under a new banner adorned with the regalia of progress.
Several decades of war humiliated the French state, and after World War II, they found themselves relegated to a secondary power. Anti-colonial sentiments festered, eventually inviting armed revolutions throughout the colonial world. Other major world powers, mainly the United States, found themselves initially supportive of said movements, classifying them as manifestations of the self-determination doctrine. But the Old World was hesitant to accept such progressive notions and elected to maintain their control through the iron fist of military coercion. However, after several revolutions in which the French failed to quell the aspiring states, the government of France pivoted – a pivot that has altered the trajectory of post-colonial history, one that has cemented the power of the European nations and undermined the traditional tenets of what is considered a free nation.
Reacting to the Battle of Điện Biên Phủ, wherein the French were forced to capitulate to the demands of Communist Vietnam, and the Algerian War, where, once more, the colony found itself victorious, President Charles De Gaulle implemented a new system of foreign affairs. Said system was purportedly predicated upon equal exchange of goods and services, where nations were no longer colonies but foreign territories. This new system of classification was referred to as the Communauté française, or French Community, and sought to establish an egalitarian basis of exchange without recognizing the sovereignty of the participants. Despite the advancements, a majority of the nations declined the offer and instead declared themselves independent nations. Whilst the affiliations of independence were officiated, in actuality, the nations remained tethered to their former power for a variety of reasons.
Firstly, they often found themselves divided. Many of these nations were multiethnic, and when the French found themselves cognizant of these ethnic divides, they would often position the ethnicities against one another to further absolute control. This emboldened the crisis, by creating rifts of animosity that permeated throughout the diverse territories. The conception of new and free nations, still under the auspices of their original borders, led to conflict between the various clades within the meek states. Another prominent aspect was the ruling class, or intelligentsia, who were educated in Paris and often received roles as députés in their respective nations. These individuals saw great opportunities to connect with their forefathers. They could benefit from both their connections and the economic might of an affluent European nation, which leads to the most salient fact, the lack of industry and capital. The nations held a plethora of minerals but had no conceivable way to harvest these resources alone, for previous miners or manufacturers were French corporations or colonial enterprises.
In accordance with the concept of grandeur pioneered by de Gaulle, the French also sought to exploit these inherent weaknesses. They were aware of the precarious economy of the new nations and desired to regain global prestige, and thus altered their contracts in a way that perpetuated the wealth disparity. For this to work, a specified office and department were necessary to orchestrate a beneficial system and conserve the inequity in place. It is pertinent to evaluate the position of other global powers during the same time and see where the nation derived its framework from. Two approaches to global affairs were present, the British model and the American model, and the decision to embrace interventionism can be fundamentally reduced to the Suez Crisis. The French statesmen were inspired by American intervention during the crisis and strove to possess the same capacity for international action. In contrast, Great Britain submitted to American hegemony and predicated future decisions on that fact. With further attempts at imitation, France also developed their own robust nuclear arsenal, along with various power plants of the same technologically advanced vein.
In 1960, Jacques Foccart was assigned to the position of Secretary-General for African and Malagasy Affairs, which fell under foreign policy in Africa, pejoratively referred to as Françafrique. Whilst it is seemingly a frivolous nickname, it was coined by the economist François-Xavier Verschave, to denote the obsequious position of the purportedly autonomous nations, and to further highlight their relegated status as puppets of France. Foccart, christened Monsieur Africa by de Gaulle, controlled the various despots across the continent. He was able to muster means of placation or coercion through a variety of instruments, including military, economic, political, or diplomatic means. Under the government of de Gaulle, Foccart reigned supreme with impunity, dictating affairs in accordance to a vague paradigm implemented by Parisian elites. But beyond such superficial values, the iron-fisted statesman governed by his will, slithering between the phone lines of the region's most important leaders. Despite never being elected, Foccart remained in power for nearly 30 years under various Presidents, as an asset for African affairs. His expertise was invaluable, his connections vast, and his pockets deep.
The funding for those activities fell under the coopération budget, which was held to the scrutiny of neither the public nor the parliament. In addition to the explicit budget established for neo-colonial enterprises, France also designed the Franc Zone (FZ) in order to stabilize the recently liberated nations. The FZ originally created a ubiquitous currency for the nations located within the region, and continues to be a salient aspect of African affairs; the system required for half of the foreign exchange reserves of each respective nation to be deposited in the Trésor Public, or National Treasury. Exchange rates have shifted throughout the years, but the discrepancy between the two regions persists, with the exchange rate changing only twice throughout its entire history, once in 1948 and once more in 1994. The FZ demarcates a nation’s ability to dictate macroeconomic policy as the economies are inseparable from the demands of France. Once a nation decides to remain within the FZ, it loses sovereignty over monetary matters, as these issues then transcend domestic policy and are then therefore decided by the French government. The intent of the patronage is to limit inflation rates, guarantee exchange rates, inspire foreign investment and provide the necessary infrastructure for stability; however, the sundry other detrimental effects outweigh the benefits. The Monetary Union implemented strict austerity measures in order to ensure that inflation does not rise above a certain percent, but the trade-off of these austerity measures is the failure at promoting entrepreneurial firms and diversifying economies. Beyond measures corresponding to acts of governing agencies, France also owned the majority of Elf (now Totalenergies), which inevitably depleted precious resources from the destitute nations.
Foccart also utilized a complex network of connections, or réseaux, to dictate affairs in accordance with French interests. This network was developed through personal relationships; it was a clientelist approach to influence – leaders were routinely called by Foccart and met with him regularly, where he would condone certain actions that would benefit both parties. This established a “parallel service” of sorts, wherein promulgated policies often failed to reflect officially permitted actions but prospered within the shadows of political subterfuge. These relationships have been explained in a myriad of ways, where some even go so far as to say, “you are our fetish.” That particular phrase was stated by President Maurice YamŽogo of Upper Volta and was meant to denote the mutually beneficial yet perverted relationship between Foccart and the rapacious dictators. Perverted in the manner of acting contrary to the virtue dictated by the will of the people, and indulging in the endless stream of capital pouring from the fountains of Paris. A certain rejection of the arrant laws of governance, for the betrayal of the destitute and the embrace of fortune. The connections extended beyond current leaders in place, and occasionally referred to potentially supportive politicians or active opposition in adversarial nations. Foccart Parle, a vague biography on the famed statesman comprised of scattered interviews, alludes to this heavily; when asked whether the Marxist leader Félix-Roland Moumié was eliminated by French agents, Foccart admits that there was an “execution,” and when further inquired who orchestrated such an event, he languidly replied “the archives will one day answer your question.”
He, in conjunction with other Gaullist elites, created a militia called the Service d'Action Civique (SAC) to forcibly manage the territories and dispatch of any seditious forces. The official leader of the organization was Pierre Debizet, but Foccart lurked behind the shadows, advising each and every action. Further, in 1969, when it was suspected that Charles Pasqua was attempting to seize control of the organization, Foccart excluded and isolated him. They were eventually disbanded under the subsequent President François Mitterrand after an infamous massacre. Throughout the tenure of Foccart and active Françafrique policy, there were 122 military inventions across France’s pré carré, or backyard. Insurrections, revolutions, and coup d’etats, were all swiftly extinguished in support of certain leaders, whose abdication might prove detrimental to the interests of France. In regards to elections and the favorable outcomes received by the French, Foccart noted that he remained consistently victorious “by slightly forcing the hand of destiny.”
Eventually, in 1997, Foccart died. In France, his death was hardly mourned, but a ripple was felt across Africa, a sigh of relief and consternation. Who would succeed him? Were the days of puppetry past? These questions remain unanswered, but the implicit influence of France has yet to truly wane. The language and culture rest within the very fiber of the region, and despite the attempts of both China and Russia to maintain a hold of Africa, it largely remains within the corpse of imperialism. With the allegedly progressive proposition of the Eco, the European Union’s equivalent of the Franc, the power dynamic is being cemented within European monetary affairs. Both President Mitterand and President Chirac promised a new age of prosperity, one not bound by the patron. Yet some of the policies remain, not merely in Africa but across the world, utilized by a plethora of global powers. Still, in Africa, minerals are extracted by European corporations, the Organisation internationale de la Francophonie remains a prominent soft power society, and France still regularly intervenes in conflicts, most recently in Niger from 2015-2022. With soldiers in Côte d’Ivoire, Senegal, Gabon, Djibouti, and Chad, France still perceives itself as the vestal knight of liberty. Operating under the guise of amicability, in 2021, former Economic Minister Michel Sapin described the situation by saying: “France is there as a friend to support and help countries that are powerful, have a bright future, but which must face a certain number of difficulties.”
The story of Foccart seems antiquated, like the relic of a distant yet cruel past, but his spirit survives, hidden between the lines of intricate political and economic treaties. Throughout the world, subversion remains, thriving in nations dearth of independence, wherein actors find themselves being instruments of others. France is a notable example, but it is not them alone that partake in such activities. The French were unique in the manner of abiding by the machinations of a willful agent, but through complex apparatuses of control, other nations have endeavored to follow a similar trajectory.With the dozens of American military bases dotted throughout the world, and the debt traps of China, a sense of regulation and security soothe the world hegemonies. A sentiment fabricated by tendrils of influence extending beyond borders, through the gears of production, past the embassies and into the very heart of control.
Comments