Africa and the New Cold War

By Gregory Simpkins

When the Non-Aligned Movement (NAM) was founded in 1961, the intent was to advance the interests of developing countries and avoid Cold War entanglements with either the Soviet Union socialist-communist bloc or the United States-led Western capitalist bloc. Hopes were high that developing countries, then in the midst of decolonization and the formation of independent states, could control their own destinies.

The five founding principles were:

In the real-world context, it didn’t take long for all of these principles to be violated.

Allegiances

Foreign Policy magazine, in a 12 September 2022 special report, listed three examples of how developing nations felt it necessary to breach their non-aligned policy:

“One of the founders of the non-aligned idea, Indian Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru, had to abandon it with the outbreak of the Sino-Indian War in 1962. Whereas Nehru turned to the United States for military assistance, his successor and daughter, Indira Gandhi, entered into an alliance with the Soviet Union in 1971. It was the actual threat that mattered, not the abstract principle,” the article stated.

Other developing nations also switched allegiances. Then-President Anwar Sadat of Egypt dumped the Soviet Union for the United States in the early 1970s.

After the Marxist Dergue movement joined in the uprising that eventually overthrew the monarchy in Ethiopia in 1974, it became the government and aligned with the Soviet Union. Following its own overthrow in 1987, Ethiopia again aligned with the West.

“A second element of non-alignment was strictly ideological: the morphing of anti-colonialism into anti-Westernism. Many in the developing world elite absorbed socialist theories of development and saw the capitalist West as neocolonial,” the Foreign Policy report stated. “The Soviet Union and China were good at exploiting this anti-Western resentment and offering economic and political support to newly independent regimes.”

At a summit hosted by Cuban leader Fidel Castro in Havana in 1979, NAM representatives declared that the Soviet Union was the developing world’s “natural ally.” But for every leader who turned to Moscow for support, Foreign Policy stated, there was another who turned to the West for regime survival and regional balance of power.

The West, especially the United States, provides humanitarian assistance and support for health and education systems in developing countries. This is largely due to the American public’s contributions to people in developing countries and their insistence that their government meets the needs of people there as well. Leaders in Russia and China are not similarly influenced by the interests of their populations, although they may provide limited social service support as well on occasion.

“A third dimension of non-alignment was the idea of a movement that would overturn the post-1945 order and build a new one that would be more equitable and fair. Rapid decolonization in the 1960s and the emergence of a voting majority of developing countries in the UN General Assembly seemed to provide a tailwind for those seeking to transform the world order all through the 1970s,” Foreign Policy reported.

America’s defeat in Vietnam in 1973 and increasing internal dissent seemed to signal the weakening of the United States. That era coincided with a widespread sense of overall Western decline and growing Soviet influence around the world. Foreign Policy noted that like China and Russia today, the Soviet Union and its satellites – as well as a multitude of radical movements around the world – had convinced themselves that the post-Western moment had arrived.

The US defeat in the Vietnam War, and the growth of protest movements in the West, along with OPEC’s triumph in dramatically raising oil prices and throwing the West into economic malaise and what seemed to be the general crisis of capitalism, provided a sense among developing nations that a new international order was in the offing.

New order

That new order is still in development, but the Cold War has returned in earnest – not only in competition between post-Soviet Russia and the West led by the United States but increasingly China as well. However, African nations, much like other developing nations in Asia and Latin America, have refused to line up behind the West despite what the Western alliance thought was a justified response to Russia’s invasion of Ukraine a year ago.

Last March, U.N. members voted 141 to 5 to condemn the Russian “special military operation” in Ukraine and affirmed that no territorial gains stemming from the use of force – or threatened use of force – would be recognized as legal there. Thirty-five governments abstained from the resolution, including 17 African countries, such as Algeria, Angola, and South Africa – nearly one-third of the membership of the African Union (AU). Only one African country, Eritrea, voted against the resolution, joining Belarus, North Korea, Syria, and Russia itself.

Russia is not seen as a threat to African countries, nor is China seen as a threat to Africa for that matter.

The United States and its North American Treaty Organization (NATO) allies see Russia’s expansionist designs, which Russian leader Vladimir Putin has not been reluctant to state openly, as an existential threat and believe other nations should sign onto whatever punishments and ostracism they levy against Russia. But African nations, whose histories are littered with damaging entanglements with big powers, don’t seem inclined to join the headlong effort to oppose Russia’s Ukrainian invasion or its stated aim to reclaim territories lost over the years, such as the Ukrainian territories of Crimea, and more recently Donetsk and Luhansk. To use an American colloquialism, many in Africa don’t think they “have a dog in that fight.”

A week before the UN vote, in the midst of growing concern over Russia’s actions, Kenya’s Permanent Representative to the United Nations, Martin Kimani, used the occasion to engage in what many considered an impressive criticism of colonialism and its aftermath in Africa but said very little to indicate an African interest in the war. Then-Chairperson of the Assembly of Heads of State and Government of the AU, Senegalese President, Macky Sall, issued a joint statement with Moussa Faki Mahamat, Chairperson of the African Union Commission (AUC), in which they focused on being “particularly disturbed by reports that African citizens on the Ukrainian side of the border are being refused the right to cross the border to safety.” The day after the UN vote, the Brookings Institution issued a report that lamented: “Black people who, even during a life-and-death situation, have found themselves running into racist barriers to their safety and freedom.“

What Western nations seemingly fail to understand is that Africans don’t universally see them as the “good guys.” Memories of the history of colonialism and neocolonialism, as well as continued racism in Western countries linger. Yes, there is blatant racism in Russia, China, and other non-Western nations too, but when the West calls for allies in its growing Cold War, its nations and institutions ignore resentments in Africa concerning past and even current mistreatment of their governments and people. Somehow, Western nations don’t seem to understand or accept that while Russia may indeed pose an existential threat to Europe and the global order they support, Russia is not seen as a threat to African countries, nor is China seen as a threat to Africa for that matter.

The sanctions and embargoes levied against Russia in the wake of the invasion, not to mention the destruction of farmland and conflict preventing planning or export of commodities such as wheat and fertilizers, have had a negative impact on African countries and their populations facing drastically higher food prices or shortages. These are all aimed at crippling a perceived threat to Europe and the West in general, but they are blunt weapons that also hurt those not involved in this conflict elsewhere in the world. Such impacts can’t help but stoke resentment against the West for such tactics, which Russia and China are quick to exploit.

There have been ominous signs in recent years and continue to date. For example, the waving of Russian flags and burning of the French tricolor flag during demonstrations in support of the ruling military junta in Bamako in Mali and Ouagadougou in Burkina Faso throughout 2022 and the beginning of 2023 demonstrate disapproval of Western help in Africa. South Africa has gone forward with joint military exercises with Russia and China despite how it may be seen by governments determined to punish Russia or who are wary of Chinese intentions. Despite any gratitude for Western support, African leaders want to assert their independence or express their disapproval of Western actions even if it is seen as an anti-Western gesture.

If the West wants to enlist African support for actions against Russia or China, its leaders must realize that we don’t all see things from the same perspective. To be successful in recruiting African allies, these leaders must try harder to see situations from the point of view of African and other developing countries. Doing that will allow them to see that support for the anti-Russia campaign will not be automatic.

Gregory Simpkins, a longtime specialist in African policy development, is the Principal of 21st Century Solutions. He consults with organizations on African policy issues generally, especially in relating to the U.S. Government. He also serves as Managing Director for the Morganthau Stirling consulting firm, where he oversees program development and implementation. He further acts as a consultant to the African Merchants Association, where he advises the Association in its efforts to stimulate an increase in trade between several hundred African Diaspora small and medium enterprises and their African partners.