Introduction: The Unfinished Fight for African Sovereignty

In the late 19th century, European empires brutally partitioned Africa for profit, sparking an era of exploitation that would long outlast formal colonial rule. When African nations began gaining independence in the mid-20th century, many hoped true sovereignty and self-determination would follow. Instead, Western powers pivoted to neocolonial tactics – covert interference, economic coercion, and propaganda – to maintain control over Africa’s resources and politics. From the assassinations of visionary leaders like Patrice Lumumba and Thomas Sankara to the sabotage of economic independence efforts, a clear pattern emerged: any serious challenge to Western hegemony in Africa was systematically undermined. Today, a new generation of African leaders in the Sahel – including Captain Ibrahim Traoré of Burkina Faso – are reviving the push to reclaim sovereignty over gold, uranium, and national destiny. This investigative article traces the lineage of Western imperialist aggression from the colonial and post-colonial era straight through to present-day schemes against the Alliance of Sahel States. It draws on documented evidence – declassified files, court cases, financial records – to reveal how the West’s oppression of African self-rule has persisted in remarkably continuous fashion.

Colonialism to Neocolonialism: A Pattern of Western Oppression

When European flags came down in African capitals, Western powers found new ways to retain dominance from behind the scenes. Key leaders who spearheaded true independence movements often met tragic ends under suspicious circumstances. A clear pattern took shape, defined by:

• Foreign-Orchestrated Coups & Assassinations: If a popular African leader would not bow to Western dictates, covert action was used to remove them. The CIA, MI6, and French intelligence repeatedly backed coups or assassination plots to topple nationalist governments.
  
  

• Economic Sabotage: Western governments and companies applied financial pressure, from sanctions to manipulation of commodity prices, to destabilize regimes that pursued independent economic paths. Debt traps and aid conditionalities replaced direct colonial taxation as tools of control.
  
  

• Media Propaganda & Smear Campaigns: A compliant media painted uncooperative African leaders as “dictators,” “communists,” or “destabilizing” forces. Western press and diplomats relentlessly framed African socialism or resource nationalism as dangerous – softening the ground for intervention.
  
  

• Installing Compliant Regimes: After removing defiant leaders, the West propped up puppet rulers who reopened economies to foreign investors and aligned with Western geopolitical interests. These new regimes often reversed nationalizations, welcomed foreign military bases, and ensured profits flowed back to Western capitals.

Below, we explore how these tactics played out in three emblematic cases – and how strikingly similar methods are being used against today’s Sahelian governments seeking to break free from neo-imperial shackles.

The Case of Kwame Nkrumah: Pan-African Dream Undone by a CIA-Backed Coup

When Ghana’s first President Kwame Nkrumah led his nation to independence in 1957, he became a beacon of Pan-African unity and economic self-reliance. Nkrumah openly denounced neocolonialism and sought to free Ghana from reliance on former colonial powers. But his vision made him a target. On February 24, 1966, while Nkrumah was abroad, his government was overthrown in a military coup with covert backing from Western intelligence. Decades of speculation were confirmed when declassified documents emerged:

“Declassified documents from the United States archives reveal that this was a coup inspired and engineered by the CIA,” former Ghanaian President John Mahama stated in 2025​ arise.tv. The U.S.-backed plot “shattered Nkrumah’s vision of an industrialised and self-reliant Ghana,” Mahama noted, and set back Ghana’s development by decades​ arise.tv, arise.tv.

Indeed, the coup was “promptly hailed by Western governments,” according to historical analyses​ laits.utexas.edu. Nkrumah had angered the West by courting Soviet aid for development, articulating African unity, and rejecting the economic orthodoxy imposed by former colonial powers. The CIA’s involvement – now a matter of public record – shows Washington’s willingness to remove even democratically elected African leaders in order to maintain a favorable geopolitical and economic order. Ghana’s coup became one of the earliest exercises in post-colonial regime change in Africa, sending a warning to other leaders that defying Western interests could be fatal.

Patrice Lumumba: Assassination of a Nationalist, Orchestrated from Washington and Brussels

Perhaps no episode illustrates the ruthless continuity of imperial strategy better than the fate of Patrice Lumumba, the first prime minister of independent Congo. Lumumba took office in June 1960 as a proudly nationalist, pan-African leader determined to control Congo’s vast mineral wealth for its people. This put him on a collision course with Belgium (the former colonial ruler) and Cold War powers. Within months, Congo plunged into crisis – and Western powers decided Lumumba had to go. In August 1960, U.S. President Dwight Eisenhower remarked in a National Security Council meeting that Lumumba’s removal was imperative – effectively issuing the first U.S. order to assassinate a foreign leader​ politico.com / politico.com. The CIA swung into action; as one account describes bluntly:

To prevent Congo from slipping out of Western influence “the CIA sent word to its station chief in the Congo, Larry Devlin: Lumumba had to go.” Although the CIA’s initial plot to poison Lumumba failed, “he was deposed in a CIA-backed coup, transferred to enemy territory in a CIA-approved operation, and shot dead by Congolese assassins”​ international.ucla.edu / international.ucla.edu – all within months of independence.

Belgian officers and Katangese secessionists physically carried out Lumumba’s brutal murder in January 1961 (his body was dissolved in acid), but it was the culmination of a “shared process of murder” driven by Belgium and the United States​ cia.gov / cia.gov

. A Belgian parliamentary inquiry in 2001 and U.S. declassified records from the 1975 Church Committee reveal how deeply involved Western actors were​ cia.gov / cia.gov. Lumumba was no communist pawn – CIA analysts at the time even reported he was a neutral nationalist​ cia.gov – yet Cold War paranoia and Belgium’s economic stakes in Congo’s minerals sealed his fate. In Lumumba’s place, Colonel Joseph Mobutu (later Mobutu Sese Seko) seized power with full Western support, ruling as a pro-West dictator for over three decades​ international.ucla.edu. The outcome was ideal for Western interests: Congo’s immense resources (from uranium to diamonds) remained open to foreign exploitation, while an oppressive regime kept the population in check. The precedent was set – the West would countenance even assassination and dictatorship to prevent African resource sovereignty.

Thomas Sankara: “Africa’s Che” and the Revolt Against Neocolonialism

In the 1980s, Thomas Sankara of Burkina Faso emerged as another inspirational figure determined to break the cycle of imperialist domination. Rising to power in 1983, the 33-year-old Sankara launched radical programs to uplift one of the world’s poorest countries – nationalizing land and key resources, expelling French influence, promoting self-sufficiency in food, and denouncing the onerous debt imposed by international creditors. He renamed the country Burkina Faso (“Land of Upright People”) and openly challenged Western neocolonialism, declaring that “he who feeds you, controls you,” as he rejected IMF aid​ jacobin.com / jacobin.com. Sankara’s government vaccinated 2.5 million children, planted millions of trees to combat desertification, built schools and medical centers, and achieved food self-sufficiency in four years​ jacobin.com – all without Western aid by prioritizing local resources and sweat equity. Like Lumumba and Nkrumah, Sankara’s pan-African and socialist orientation made him a target in the eyes of Western powers and allied African elites. On October 15, 1987, Thomas Sankara was assassinated during a coup led by his second-in-command, Blaise Compaoré.

While the killing was perpetrated by Burkinabè soldiers, considerable evidence points to foreign orchestration behind the scenes. A French parliamentary inquiry has been repeatedly requested to investigate France’s role, amid allegations that the coup was supported by Côte d’Ivoire, Liberia, Libya, the US and France​ thomassankara.net. In fact, France quickly embraced the coup: Compaoré was warmly received in Paris after replacing Sankara, a stark contrast to the hostility Paris had shown Sankara’s government​ jacobin.com. U.S. and French intelligence agencies were undoubtedly alarmed by Sankara’s ties to revolutionary Libya and Ghana, his vocal criticism of Western policy, and his move to nationalize French-owned interests.

After Sankara’s elimination, Burkina Faso’s revolutionary gains were rapidly dismantled. The new regime reversed Sankara’s nationalizations, reopened the door to the IMF and World Bank, and re-subordinated the economy to France’s neo-colonial sphere​ jacobin.com / jacobin.com. The coup was even termed a “Rectification” to convince the public that it was setting things back to normal. State media under Compaoré spewed anti-Sankara propaganda, branding the slain leader a “messianic traitor” to justify the power grab ​jacobin.com. The pattern was unmistakable: a charismatic African leader working for true independence was eliminated with outside connivance, and a compliant client regime was installed to secure Western interests. Burkina Faso was “redelivered into the clutches of the IMF” and French influence, as one observer put it​ jacobin.com / jacobin.com. Sankara’s fate once again underscored that in the eyes of Western powers, no price – even the murder of a beloved African icon – was too high to protect access to resources and geopolitical dominance.

Tactics of Imperialism: Foreign Interference, Economic War, and Information Control

The stories of Nkrumah, Lumumba, and Sankara are not isolated incidents; they reflect systemic tactics used by Western powers to thwart African sovereignty. Declassified files and historical records reveal the consistent deployment of a repressive toolkit:

• Covert Ops and Coups: Western intelligence agencies (CIA, MI6, DGSE, etc.) frequently engineered the removal of uncooperative leaders. The CIA’s own analyses admit it engaged in “fast-paced, multifaceted covert action” in 1960s Congo​ cia.gov. From Congo to Ghana to Libya, these agencies armed dissidents, bribed officers, and coordinated with local conspirators to topple regimes deemed unfriendly to Western interests. As the CIA’s assassination planning for Lumumba shows, sometimes direct murder plots were green-lit at the highest levels​ politico.com / politico.com.

  
  

• Neo-Colonial Military Might: Former colonial powers like France maintained permanent military footholds in Africa (“Françafrique”), ready to intervene. French troops repeatedly intervened or threatened intervention in its ex-colonies (e.g. in Cameroon, Gabon, Chad) whenever a regime strayed from France’s line. France’s infamous Operation Barracuda in 1979 ousted Central African Emperor Bokassa, and in 2011 France joined NATO allies to overthrow Libya’s Muammar Gaddafi – another African leader who had challenged Western domination. Western powers also used proxies and mercenaries to do the dirty work, as seen in the Belgian-led Katangese forces that executed Lumumba, or South African mercenaries used in Angola. The emerging pattern: “African solutions” were often orchestrated by Western hands.

  
  

• Economic Sabotage and Debt Traps: When outright force was politically untenable, economic weapons were deployed. In Nkrumah’s Ghana, for example, the collapse of cocoa prices and withdrawal of Western loans created an economic crisis that paved the way for the coup. More broadly, the IMF and World Bank became tools of influence – extending credit with strings attached (privatization, austerity) that undercut sovereignty. Countries that defied these institutions (like Sankara’s Burkina Faso) faced isolation and withheld aid. Western governments also applied sanctions: for instance, after Zimbabwe’s post-colonial government seized white-owned farms in 2000, the U.S. and EU slapped sanctions that bit its economy. The message was clear – asserting economic independence could trigger a financial chokehold.

  
  

• Media Manipulation and Psychological Operations: Control of narrative has been a quieter yet potent imperial tool. During the Cold War, Western media eagerly smeared African socialists as Soviet puppets. The CIA funded propaganda campaigns and influenced African and international press to discredit leaders like Lumumba​ cia.gov. After Sankara’s death, a flood of disinformation tried to erase his popularity​ jacobin.com. In recent years, think-tanks and media outlets have continued this pattern by reframing African struggles as driven by anything but legitimate grievances – for example, attributing today’s anti-French sentiment in the Sahel to “Russian disinformation” rather than genuine anger at decades of French exploitation​ wilsoncenter.org. Current leaders like Traoré openly call out “lying Western media” for spreading rumors to destabilize their governments​ aljazeera.com. Indeed, Burkina Faso and Mali have banned France’s state broadcasters (RFI, France24) for spreading what they consider propaganda. This tug-of-war over information is the modern echo of past propaganda battles, indicating how vital narrative control remains to the imperial playbook.

Each of these tactics – whether applied via CIA station chiefs in the 1960s or via ECOWAS sanctions and media narratives today – serves the same core goal: to keep Africa’s wealth and geopolitical alignment favorable to Western interests. Having examined the historical pattern, we now turn to the present, where a new alliance of Sahelian nations is fighting to finally break this cycle.

The Sahel Alliance: Resurrecting the Fight for Resource Sovereignty

In 2023, three West African countries – Mali, Burkina Faso, and Niger – stunned the world by defying the post-Cold War order. All three experienced military takeovers (often with popular support) that explicitly rejected the decades-old French and Western dominance in the region. These juntas quickly banded together, signing a mutual defense pact called the Alliance of Sahel States (AES) in September 2023 jurist.org. Captain Ibrahim Traoré of Burkina Faso, Colonel Assimi Goïta of Mali, and General Abdourahamane Tchiani of Niger formed a bloc committed to “independence, peace and growth” for their region​ jurist.org. In practice, this meant expelling French troops, withdrawing from Western-aligned institutions (all three pulled out of the France-backed ECOWAS bloc​ jurist.org), and crucially, asserting control over their own natural resources.

The parallels with the 1960s–80s are unmistakable. Like Nkrumah or Sankara, today’s Sahel leaders speak in unapologetically anti-imperialist terms. “For more than eight years we’ve been confronted with the most barbaric form of imperialist neo-colonialism,” Traoré declared in a 2023 speech​ presstv.ir. And as in the past, the response from Western capitals has been hostile. The Alliance of Sahel States immediately faced isolation and pressure: diplomatic condemnations, suspension from the African Union, threats of military intervention by pro-Western neighbors, and economic sanctions. In Niger’s case, the regional bloc ECOWAS – heavily influenced by France and Nigeria – imposed a harsh trade embargo and energy cut-off within days of the July 2023 coup, hoping to starve the junta into submission​ aljazeera.com. The sanctions halted Niger’s uranium exports by closing borders, since France refused to recognize the new government​ aljazeera.com. Mali and Burkina, under Traoré and Goïta, responded by guaranteeing Niger’s defense and warning that any foreign military intervention would be treated as a declaration of war on all three. This standoff marked the most significant Pan-African solidarity against neocolonial interference in decades.

Nationalizing Gold and Uranium: “Our Resources, Our Wealth”

At the heart of the conflict are the Sahel’s rich mineral resources – notably gold and uranium – long extracted by Western corporations while local populations remain impoverished. The new Sahel governments have moved to nationalize these industries, echoing the unfinished agendas of leaders like Lumumba and Sankara. In Burkina Faso, Captain Traoré’s administration took the dramatic step of nationalizing two of the country’s biggest gold mines in 2023. The Boungou and Wahgnion mines, previously operated by London-listed Endeavour Mining, were bought out by the state for about $80 million​ mronline.org. Notably, Endeavour had earlier valued and agreed to sell these mines to a private buyer for $300 million, but that deal fell apart amid accusations of fraud​ mronline.org / mronline.org. By seizing the mines at a steep discount, Burkina Faso asserted sovereignty over its gold sector, aiming to use the proceeds for national development rather than foreign shareholders’ profits. “This strategic move is aimed at reclaiming Burkina Faso’s mineral wealth, ensuring that a larger portion of the profits benefits Burkinabè people,” reported African analysts of Traoré’s decision​ mronline.org. It was a bold reprise of Sankara’s vision – indeed, the Burkinabè government explicitly cited inspiration from Thomas Sankara and Pan-Africanism in its resource policies​ mronline.org. Alongside nationalization, Burkina Faso expelled France’s troops from its soil in 2023 and approved construction of its first state-owned gold refinery, to further end the era of foreign siphoning of its riches​ mronline.org.

In Niger, the battle has centered on uranium, the lifeblood of France’s nuclear energy program. Niger was the source of over 15% of the uranium fueling French reactors reuters.com, mined for decades by the French firm Orano (formerly Areva) under highly unequal terms. After the July 2023 coup in Niamey, Niger’s military leadership lost no time in challenging this arrangement. By late 2023, the Niger government halted uranium exports, refusing to let Orano ship out ore – a direct response to the sanctions and a bid to force a renegotiation of terms​ reuters.com / aljazeera.com. Tensions escalated through 2024: Orano complained of “interference” as Niger’s authorities asserted operational control over the company’s Somair uranium mine (Orano held a 63% stake, Niger’s state 37%)​ reuters.com / reuters.com. In December 2024, Orano publicly admitted Niger’s government had effectively taken over Somair, refusing to suspend production and blocking exports​ aljazeera.com / aljazeera.com. The French conglomerate vowed to “defend its rights” legally​ reuters.com, but Niger was undeterred. It revoked Orano’s permit for a second major uranium deposit, Imouraren, in June 2024, citing the French company’s failure to develop the site as promised​ reuters.com / aljazeera.com. Another foreign miner, Canada’s GoviEx, was likewise stripped of its project rights​ reuters.com. Niger’s leaders argued that despite supplying uranium to the world, their country remained one of the poorest on the planet – a paradox they blamed on exploitative contracts and colonial-era agreements aljazeera.com / aljazeera.com. Indeed, while Niger’s uranium lights French homes, only 14% of Nigeriens have electricity​ aljazeera.com. By taking back their mines, the Nigerien junta signalled they would no longer accept a status quo where “the people see none of the benefits”. Western officials and media, unsurprisingly, reacted with panic, branding these actions as “resource nationalism” and questioning the competence of the new rulers aljazeera.com / aljazeera.com. But to millions of Africans, Burkina Faso’s and Niger’s moves looked like justice long deferred – finally, a chance to use their own gold and uranium to invest in local development instead of enriching foreign companies.