Abby Martin of the Empire Files interviews the incredibly well-informed Eugene Puryear on AFRICOM and U.S. interests on the continent of Africa. <media src="https://www.youtube.com/v/_HEs2CnVQUs" href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_HEs2CnVQUs" source="YouTube" width="560px" author="Empire Files" caption="A Guide to US Empire in Africa: Neocolonial Order & AFRICOM"> At <b>15:00</b>: <bq><b>Eugene:</b> They did not want Lumumba [...] the country starts to break apart. [...the Belgians] tracked down Lumumba, they captured him, and then they executed him. And they then instituted a regime that was maybe one of the most brutal, kleptocratic, resource-extraction regimes in the history of the 20th century. [...] The role of the U.S. is ... late 50s, early 60s ... and it's a major role because were trying to shape the impact of the emerging colonial African states to make sure that they were not truly a counterweight to the imperialist agenda and the colonialist agenda. Which meant that, <b>even though the colonies were gone, the basic role that these countries played in the world economy would remain the same and that's as, essentially, resource-extraction hubs.</b></bq> At <b>19:00</b>: <bq><b>Eugene:</b> The general thrust of the Freedom Charter was, at the very least, strongly social-democratic, if not socialist, society that they were projecting out for South Africa, which is, of course, the wealthiest country inside of Africa. [...] the U.S. especially was very afraid of a non-negotiated solution in South Africa, because the most likely scenario would be the ANC would take over. They are, in fact, many of them, socialists and communists, and they would immediately ally with <b>Zambia, Namibia, Angola, and Mozambique which were, themselves, also socialist and communist and they would create basically another Soviet Union in southern Africa.</b></bq> At some other point, he notes that <iq>As Michael Parenti often says, 'these countries aren't <i>underdeveloped</i>, they're <i>over-exploited</i>.'</iq>