In the aftermath of colonialism , the Cold War dominantly defined Africa’s international relations with the rest of the world. But with the end of the Cold War (circa 1989–91), and particularly since the deadly terrorist attacks of Al Qaida on America’s Twin Towers in New York on 11 September 2001, a myriad of issues, most importantly terrorism , migration, the quest for investors, and integration in the face of the emergence of new world powers and alliances, seem to be exerting influence and defining Africa’s relations with external actors. The notion of “Africa Rising ”1 has gained prominence and given an impression that, in addition to being an investment opportunities destination, Africa is gravitating towards sustainable economic growth and becoming a political force to reckon with in the shifting post-Cold War global order.
The end of the Cold War marked an end of competition for African proxies and allies between the superpowers—the United States (USA) and the Soviet Union. This dynamic change also meant a change in the bargaining power of African countries when dealing with these superpowers, impinging on the continent’s international relations and more so on its political, social, and economic development. Issues of globalisation and liberalisation, which preceded the end of the Cold War, seem to have intensified even after its end.2 This book by the Centre for Conflict Resolution (CCR) in Cape Town, South Africa, presents 22 chapters written by scholars from across the world giving serious analysis to the relationship between Africa and other external players beginning from the end of the Cold War. Given the different geographical positions and perspectives that the authors are writing from, both from the inside out and the outside in, the book gives a balanced picture of Africa’s international relations in the post-Cold War era.
This book provides a contemporary scholarly assessment of Africa’s political, social, cultural, and economic landscape in the post-Cold War period. It analyses African governments’ relationships with Western powers such as the USA, France, and the United Kingdom (UK); with so-called non-traditional powers such as India, Latin America, and the Islamic world ; and finally with international organisations such as the International Criminal Court (ICC) and the International Monetary Fund (IMF) . In so doing, the book probes key issues pertaining to Africa’s relations with global actors, providing a comprehensive trajectory of Africa’s relations with 15 key bilateral actors and 7 multilateral actors in assessing how the Cold War affected African states’ political policies, economies, and security. Africa’s relations with the various global actors are discussed in three broad categories: bilateral relations with traditional powers —the USA, the UK, China, Russia, France, Portugal, and Italy; bilateral relations with non-traditional powers —Brazil, India, Japan, the Nordics, Latin America, Europe, the Islamic world , and the Middle East ; and multilateral relations—with the United Nations (UN), the ICC , the BRICS bloc (Brazil, Russia, India, China, and South Africa), the European Union (EU) , the World Trade Organisation (WTO), the World Bank, and the IMF.
Africa’s International Relations
International relations between Africa and the most powerful states, especially the USA and its allies in the West, and the Soviet Union and its allies in the East, from 1957 to 1989–91, were determined by the Cold War. During this period, the USA and the Soviet Union instrumentalised the newly independent African governments in their conflicts with one another. Both the West and the East pursued a policy of supporting African countries that supported them ideologically—the capitalism of the West and the socialism of the East. The Soviet Union provided political support, weapons, and military training to Marxist parties and governments in Africa, while the USA was against seeing the establishment of such governments on the continent. This had a profound and devastating effect, as it made it necessary for African leaders of the time to value more what the East or the West wanted than what was good for their own people. The effects of the Cold War are still palpable today, more than 25 years after its end.
The civil wars in Angola, Mozambique, and the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC, Zaire) were mostly Cold War-driven. Take, for example, Angola: the independence of Angola in 1975 was marked by the onset of a civil war between the People’s Movement for the Liberation of Angola (MPLA) and the National Union for the Total Independence of Angola (UNITA). The West was not keen to see the African Marxist movement of the MPLA taking over power in Angola. UNITA was America’s key ally in Africa during the Cold War and a recipient of substantial US Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) aid during the 1980s.3 On the other hand, the Soviet Union, Cuba, and Yugoslavia offered what African liberation movements and governments wanted to ensure that the MPLA assume office in Angola. Without Soviet and Cuban support, the MPLA would not have defeated UNITA, which was backed by the CIA and apartheid South Africa at the battle of Cuito Cuanavale in 1988.4 It was the presence of Cuban troops supporting the MPLA government that prevented the apartheid regime and its UNITA proxies from taking power.
Although Africa has had diverse global relations with different players over the years, much of independent Africa’s external relations seem to have more to do with its legacy of colonialism . Its former colonisers have continued to directly or indirectly dictate what needs to take place on the continent. Besides, bad governance, aid dependence, and under-development seem to be the lure for some of the awkward international relations in which the continent finds itself. It seems not much critical thinking and collective planning in terms of sustainable regional development has been done by African leaders, apart from working together to dismantle colonialism and apartheid. After the Cold War, there came another phase in which the West pushed the good governance and democracy agenda in Africa through programmes rolled out with the aid of institutions such as the World Bank, the IMF , and the WTO.5 During this phase, most African countries struggled to catch up with the policies of structural adjustments, deregulation, and liberalisation, for which they were arguably ill-prepared. Massive poverty, unemployment, and migration to the North dominated the period.
Another phase of external influence after the Cold War followed the period of good governance and structural adjustment—by the 11 September 2001 attacks on the USA and the consequent global war on terrorism . Although Africa itself is unlikely to be classified as an exporter of terrorism , the weakness or lack of internal security controls over its territories from Islamic militancy and threats of terrorism makes it a possible harbour, link, and viable route for terrorists.6 This makes it necessary for the West not to neglect Africa if it is to succeed in its war against terrorism . Besides, the problem of poverty on the continent creates a conducive environment where terrorists and terrorism flourish. After the 11 September attacks, the USA identified East Africa and the Horn, especially Djibouti, Somali, Ethiopia , Kenya, and Tanzania, to be at great risk from terrorist organisations.7 US intelligence also claimed that a number of North Africans, especially from Algeria, Tunisia, and Morocco, were identified as fighting with jihadists in the insurgency in Iraq.8
Just as during the Cold War, today African governments that support the international fight against terrorism (with their votes at the UN and in their policies and operations at home) are strongly supported by the international powers. A similar scenario seems to be unfolding with the EU seeking to end its refugee crisis by halting African migration into Europe. All these issues point to the fact that, in the post-Cold War era, Africa cannot be genuinely independent and sovereign without taking control of its own internal security. The challenge of providing and feeding its own with less dependence on other continents remains a key issue. As long as Africa still relies on others, especially the West, for its fight against terrorism and political and economic development, it remains subdued and weak in the global arena.
Theoretical Perspectives
The experiences of Africa and the scholarship generated in this book contribute to a greater practical understanding of the main theories on international relations, giving a critical analysis of Africa’s relations with various external actors. A number of theoretical perspectives ranging from realism , neorealism, Marxism, and the Westphalian model , among many other theories, help explain why African governments relate to external actors the way they do.
Classical realism has built its concepts of international relations on the literature of the Melian dialogue and Thucydides ’ account of the Peloponnesian War between Athens and Sparta. The Melian dialogue provides an understanding of how powerful states create and join institutions in self-interest, based on their domestic concerns. Thucydides argues: “The strong do what they can and the weak suffer what they must”,9 and Gideon Rose notes that “Foreign policy behaviour and foreign policy choices are made by political leaders and elites, and so it is their perceptions of relative power that matter, not simply relative quantities of physical resources or forces in being.”10 One of the key characteristics of realism is that it cannot accommodate any non-state actors within its analysis. Realism perceives international relations as comprised of competing nation states and postulates that aggressive competition between states can lead to war.11
Given its pessimistic view of human nature, realism also claims that the international system is regulated through international law and distinct institutions. Richard Nossal asserts that each state pursues its own interests and should always be on guard against other self-interested (state) actors in international relations.12 As is demonstrated in this book, the pursuit of national interests, both during and after the Cold War, by external actors—in particular, superpowers such as the P5+1 (the USA, China, France, Britain, Russia, and Germany) on the UN Security Council—has been paramount. The engagements of such superpowers with Africa have been shown to be very much linked to their parochial needs to propagate their capitalist or socialist ideologies and to benefit from Africa’s natural resources through exploitative practices.
Liberalism points us to the optimistic view of human nature which stresses the idea of negotiations and cooperation between states which help avert wars. It puts emphasis on individual rights, which form the basis for a modern civil society, democratic state, and capitalist economy in a post-Cold War era.13 According to Kelvin Dunn and Tim Shaw, African states are weak, especially with regard to global politics.14 Some of the major causes of their weakness are their bad governance, weak economies reeling from the effects of colonialism and basically their dependence on primary commodities, their lack of representation on the UN Security Council, and donor dependence. Marxist approaches to international relations, on the other hand, emphasise the conflict between the strong and the weak, the exploiters and the exploited, the oppressors and the oppressed, within and among societies. In this volume, Africa’s external relations with both bilateral and multilateral actors display a lack of a skilled, coherent, united, and informed approach in negotiating deals, especially trade and investment, at both the African Union and member-state levels.
The Westphalian model of international relations assumes the existence of functioning states across the globe. The state is the unit of analysis, which becomes a challenge in places where a functioning state does not exist.15 The Westphalian model is premised on two major principles—sovereignty and equality of states. It emphasises the supremacy of the nation state in the international system, taking a state-centric approach to international relations.16 However, a m...