TRUE STORY: Three African nations in the Sahel are independent

Black people have been out of power for nearly a millennium. So long that Dr. John Henrik Clarke said we don’t know what to do when we are in control. For this reason, it is difficult for many people of African descent to accept news of Black people governing themselves. In fact, the idea of Black people controlling their own destinies without the help or interference of non-Blacks is a prospect too large for their imaginations. But what is more troubling than this is there are some Blacks who believe that something must be inherently wrong if Blacks are in sole control of their destinies.

Analysts of political behavior conclude that these prevailing insecurities were internalized by centuries of uninterrupted foreign domination. Similar attitudes have become more pronounced since the formation of the Alliance of Sahel States (AES) in September 2023. For instance, instead of collectively celebrating the long-awaited independence of Mali, Burkina Faso, and Niger from a thousand years of foreign domination, many Blacks express alarm or skepticism when this great event is brought to their attention. It is like the fictional movie, Black Panther: Wakanda Forever is more believable.

In their minds, only an installed dictator or a ruthless warlord can be in power in Africa.

These types of uninformed opinions are saddening yet understandable when placed in proper context. For example, most people--including some in the ‘Woke’ community--are not too fond of operational African unity, another name for Pan Africanism. Hence, they favor sources which amplify African cultural expressions; yet in equal measure downplay the importance of political empowerment.   This preference happens because many Blacks receive their information about Africa from biased mainstream media sources or from apolitical pro-Black social media outlets. The former saturate the airways with negative news stories. That is, they bombard audiences with stories of African countries being rescued from starvation by IMF loans, or some new disease that purportedly originated in Africa. The latter pro-Black sources of information, too, are virtually silent on positive political developments in Africa. 

The U.S. Department of State knows the difference between the strains of pro-Black thought and treat them accordingly.

In September Secretary of State Antony Blinken publicly said that Pan African news sources should be scrutinized. Just a week later, the leading Pan African social media outlet, African , was banned from YouTube. African Stream regularly reported on the positive things happening in the AES. 

The obvious question: Why is the West silencing Pan African news outlets?

This question is not complex at all when the above facts are understood.

A short answer is that it would hamper the agenda of the U.S. State Department, the West, and companies that benefit from the exploitation of Africa if more people knew that Capt. Ibrahim Traore, Gen. Assimi Goita, Gen. Abdurahamane T’chiani are the kind of leaders Marcus Garvey, Malcolm X, and Fannie Lou Hamer would approve of.  The West cannot risk allowing positive impression of AES leaders to find space in the minds of Black people. If this was to occur it would jeopardize the West’s unimpeded robbery of Africa’s wealth because truly decent human beings would pressure lawmakers to devise fairer foreign policies towards Africa.  A detailed explanation is given in the last chapter of my forthcoming book, The Rise of Pan Africanism in the Sahel.

However, misconceptions abound. Not enough of our Black scholars are trained in political history or statecraft to be deemed authorities on the Alliance of Sahel States.  Thus, our people fall prey to unchallenged pro-West narratives. One misleading story promoted by Western influenced media is that AES governments are allied with Islamic extremists, such as Al-Shabab, Al-Qaida, ISIS, etc. These allegations are baseless.

Not many know that defeating these terrorist groups were the motivating reason why the three AES heads of state decided to launch good coup d’etats in Mali, Burkina Faso, and Niger. Prior to those forceful transfers of power, AES officials realized that rebel groups were lightly opposed by French and UN forces because they served the purpose of Western interest. In fact, a Detroit-New York-Chesapeake  delegation were told by AES diplomats that most civilians were killed in areas supposedly protected by UN forces. To better understand this the different rebel groups are distinguished below. 

There are three different types of terrorist groups, all of which have differing, and often competing, agendas operating in the Sahel. These Western-backed mercenary groups turned their attention to the Sahel after they assassinated former Libyan President Muammar Gaddafi during the First Libyan Civil War in 2011. One set of insurgents do dirty work for international mining companies. Their job is to terrorize citizens so that they flee areas rich in mineral deposits, such as uranium and lithium. When citizens evacuate these areas African collaborators freely mine for precious metals. It is reported that foreign mining companies steal $35 billion in gold, alone, from Africa every year. 

Another group of rebels are bent upon overthrowing any head of state that they deem not following-- to the letter--teachings of the Holy Quran or practices of Prophet Muhammad. Some of these religious groups’ interpretations of their duty to the Creator is so narrow and sectarian that practicing their beliefs essentially places most Muslims outside the realm of Islam. This fanatical interpretation justifies waging jihad against the AES. 

The third category of insurgents are the mercenaries recruited to overthrow the Alliance of Sahel States. They are paid to help the French and other Western imperialists regain control of Mali, Niger and Burkina Faso. Our delegation was told that this category of mercenaries was promised 30 percent of land in Mali, for example, if they toppled Gen. Assimi Goita. And it is this last group of terrorists that still pose a grave threat to the security of the AES.  It must be noted that the insurgents are in control of thirty-one percent of the land in Burkina Faso. These terrorists are mortal enemies of Capt. Ibrahim Traore.  They attempted to kill him seventeen times in less than two years.

Hence, the instability on the ground forces Burkina Faso and the other AES nations to wisely postpone elections until peace and security is established.  Safe elections cannot be held and monitored when rebels still control large portions of the country and the head of state has to duck assassin’s bullets every other week.

Since elections have not been held some people astonishingly suggest that Traore, Goita, and T’chiani are no different than the numerous dictators ruining Africa since the 1960s. However, let’s examine what sets the new younger leaders apart from the corrupt African leaders older generations are accustomed to.

For one, each leader of an AES state enjoys an approval rating of 84 percent or higher, an astonishing number that any Western leader can only dream of. Typically, approval ratings after a coup d’etat are a dismal 3-4%.

Now we are led to ask: Why do Burkinabes, Nigeriens and Malians strongly support their leaders? To understand my response, one must know what type of leaders Africans were accustomed to since the 1884 Berlin Conference. Typically, when dictators came to power after a coup d’etat there was no change in the country’s power structure. That means, Western imperialists were allowed to keep their ill-gotten wealth if they gave the new dictator a small share. This explains why the West tolerates endless coup d’etats in Africa.  For example, when Mahommed Bazoum, the former dictator of Niger was in power, he continued selling minerals to French mining companies for pennies on the dollar.  However, when T’chiani overthrew Bazoum he immediately raised the price of uranium from 80-cents per kilogram to the market price of $200 per kilogram.

Secondly, when a warlord comes into power there is no improvements in the lives of ordinary citizens. However, in Mali, Transitional President Goita, nationalized the country’s gold mines and had the country’s first gold refineries built. The move eliminated the need for Mali to export its gold to France. Since this time Goita used the country’s increased gold revenue to upgrade the transit system of Mali. Today, citizens of Mali are transported in more efficient, environmentally friendly electric vehicles. Examples of redistribution of wealth abound.

Under the leadership of Capt. Ibrahim Traore, Burkina Faso nationalized its mineral resources.  He has since used the increased revenue to expand access to electricity from 23 percent of the population to 45 percent in less than two years. Once the nuclear power plant is completed, econometricians forecast that 85 percent of the population will have access to electricity. In addition, Traore used surplus mineral revenue to construct 50,000 new affordable houses.

It is obvious that the actions of the three new AES nations are in stark contrast to what dictators of Western client states do when they are in power.

In the final analysis, the quick formation of the Alliance of Sahel States caught Black people off guard. African descendants never imagined they would live to see independent African nations. So fast that African scholars have yet to hold conferences on the subject. The establishment of the AES has become a test to see who really wants to see African unity. Previously, our commitment to Black unity was easily credentialed by donning African clothing, wearing spiritual charms, and hanging red-black-and-green flags. But now the formation of the Alliance of Sahel States has raised the bar.  Now we are challenged with using the knowledge we gain during Kwanzaa and Black History Month celebrations to help unite Africa. Otherwise, what did we learn this black stuff for?