In its second issue--Africa--the Dunster Political Review appears to be embarking on what I hope is not a tour of the continents. One reason for the success of the first issue was that it dealt with a specific problem--the meaning of the war in Vietnam. The Dunster editors have this time gathered some interesting articles of analysis and opinion, but the issue lacks the directed focus necessary for totally successful results.

Surely it would have been possible to direct the contributions toward a more limited topic. Perhaps the magazine could have concentrated on a discussion of Rhodesia and South Africa, the plans and prospects for African unity, or the pattern of military coups revealed recently in Nigeria and Ghana. Instead the reader is confronted with all of these problems, plus an attempt to describe a comprehensive United States policy toward the entire African continent.

Two undergraduates, W. Frank White '66 and Nwachukwo Azikiwe '68 accepted the task of defining this policy. White admits the inherent difficulties of definition, since "the United States actually had no policy in this area until the late 50's and early 60's." Quoting G. Mennen Williams, Undersecretary of State for African Affairs, White tries to make sense out of America's current policy goals. Most significant of William's points are that the U.S. advocates African self-determination, the solution of African problems primarily through the Organization for African Unity, and a program of aid and trade involving only one-tenth of our world commitments. Williams also adds that "the support of freedom over communism is basic to...U.S. policy in Africa." In fact, White argues that American attempts to aid African development have not been successful in creating indigenous support for Western democracy, but that precedence has been given instead to a sterile and futile policy of containment.

Whereas White concedes the difficulties in trying to extend aid to Africa, Azikiwe unhesitatingly labels American efforts "neo-colonial." His are the familiar complaints against the United States' moral crusade against communism: charges of economic exploitation and manipulation, cries of CIA conspiracies and engineered coups. Azikiwe maintains that the unrest in Ghana leading to Nkrumah's downfall was caused by an international capitalist 'cocoa conspiracy" which depressed the price of cocoa, Ghana's staple crop. Apparently the increased production of cocoa in Nigeria and the Ivory Coast had little to do with the falling price. Azikiwe is justified in condemning the mixture of "progressive and reactionary tactics" which the U.S. has employed in Africa, but his argument is weakened by his plea for the U.S. to channel aid through Britain and France. Would such channeling be a "step forward," or just a reversion to colonialism?

The articles then focus on problem situations within Africa. Hugh Polk '66 and Clive Kileff '66 discuss the attitudes of White Rhodesians toward both their country and majority rule. Fred Akuffo '66 attempts to analyze Ghana's progress under Nkrumah, and to outline the plans of the new government. A "miscellaneous" article by Stephen Cobb calls for a re-definition of the role of the American government in issuing passports, a controversy arising from the travels of Staughton Lynd. The three book reviews are intriguing, but not directly related to the African theme of the Review.

It is the job of the editors to make their magazine a challenging forum for student opinion. An issue devoted to a more specific problem within the area of African affairs would have, I think, been more effective. And most of the writing could have been better edited with an eye to paragraph structure and syntax. But the Dunster Political Review remains an interesting and informative magazine.