The Place of Post-colonial African States in the International System

At the time of African independence, some African leaders including Gamal Abdel Nasser, Nkwame Nkrumah, and Sekou Toure proposed to their counterparts the creation of the United States of Africa. The aim was to make the African continent a strong and solid one, so that it can respond to major global challenges and make its voice heard on the international stage.

When Kwame Nkrumah stated “Independence now, and tomorrow, the United States of Africa” (Zizwe Poe 2012, 213), he was heralding the outlook of some visionaries, who figured out that the only alternative to make Africa a great continent was the building of a federation, like the United States of America. Unfortunately, that dream was not shared by everyone, or at least, not in the same way.

Thus, after independence, two ideological blocks confronted each other, namely the Monrovia block, also called the minimalist Pan-Africanism supporters (Messanga Nyamding 2019, 13) – made up of countries unfavorable to an immediate union of the continent, especially Senegal, Nigeria, Liberia, Ethiopia and many former French colonies-, and the Casablanca one, also known as the maximalist Pan-Africanism supporters (Messanga Nyamding 2019, 12), composed of countries calling for an unconditional union of the continent, specifically Ghana, Egypt, Mali Guinea, Libya and Morocco. From that very moment, the idea of the United States of Africa seemed to become wishful thinking.

In order to find a common ground, at the invitation of the Ethiopian Emperor Haile Selassie, the two ideological groups convened to gather in Addis-Ababa. In the Ethiopian capital, the blocks found a settlement; it was the birth of the Organization of African Unity (OAU) on May 25, 1963.

However, the OAU was quick to disillusion those who had thought for a single moment that it was likely to come close to the idea of the United States of Africa, since the OAU charter will insist on the principles of States sovereignty, non-interference in the internal affairs of the latter, and respect for the territorial integrity of each State.

Undoubtedly, it was a rejection of the United States of Africa’s idea. Consequently, it seemed unlikely that the OAU could take on the challenges the continent had to face. Nevertheless, a beacon of hope, for those advocating for the United States of Africa, reappeared on September 9, 1999 when African both head of States and governments gathered in Sirte in order to attend a meeting which led to the “Sirte declaration” establishing the African Union (AU), effectively created in 2000 in Lomé.

Although many perceived the African Union as an organization close to the founding fathers of the United States of Africa’s ideology, this organization was renewed with the basic tenets of the OAU ─ mainly the States sovereignty and the non-interference in the internal states affairs.

An unstable continent with little credibility on the world scene

The truth of the matter is that intentionally or not, African leaders against the United States of Africa project have weakened the continent. In fact, since independence the African continent has no real place in the international system. This is particularly noteworthy with the absence of African countries in the world decision-making organizations, especially among the permanent members of the United Nations Security council (UNSC) or at the head of the World Bank and the International Monetary Funds.

If the post-colonial African State was born in an international system already well-established with the United Nations and the Bretton Woods institutions (e.g.World Bank and International Monetary Funds) having been created soon thereafter the World War II before independence, it is an explanation of the absence of African countries in the share of global decision making organizations.

Overall, African countries have the weakest economies in the world. In fact, among the 25 poorest countries worldwide, 21 are from Sub-Saharan Africa, as illustrated in the chart below.

Source: Statista 2020

Besides, the African continent is plagued by internal conflicts (Central African Republic, Mali, Cameroon in its South West and North West regions, Democratic Republic of the Congo, South Sudan, Nigeria, Libya…), political instability (Mali, Central African Republic, Libya…), political uncertainty (Ivory Coast, Guinea…), military coups (Burkina Faso, Mali…), terrorism (the Lake Chad Basin with Boko Haram and the Islamic State in West Africa Province, the Sahel with the Islamic State of Greater Sahara and Jamaat Nusrat al-islam wal-muslimin, Austral Africa with the presence of the Islamic State in Mozambique, the horn of Africa with al-Shabaab…) and maritime piracy (in the Gulf of Guinea and the Gulf of Aden).

The African Union has often demonstrated a lack of efficacity and reactivity when it came to military interventions or when it had to assert its authority. And even if the Pan-African institution cannot be held responsible for everything, it has accumulated failures (Leymarie 2015, 20-21) and shown its powerlessness and resignation in front of critical situation for the future of the continent. It is possible to recall the North Atlantic Treaty Organization-led intervention in Libya in 2011, despite the African Union opposition, which led to the spreading of weapons and fighters throughout the Sahel region, destabilized notably Mali and resulted in a civil war in Libya (Ibid.).

Similarly, African States also show a lack of coordination and structuring. For instance, during the crisis in North Mali in 2012, the absence of preparation and readiness of African peacekeeping forces and the divergences between countries of the region were, once more, obvious. It was following several military staff meetings that the African-led International Support Mission to Mali (MISMA), which was a few months later replaced by The United Nations Multidimensional Integrated Stabilization Mission in Mali (MINUSMA), finally intervened (Ibid.). The slow reactivity of the African Union led to an intervention of the French army – Operation Serval, that preceded Operation Barkhane-, which was on the ground before the African peacekeeping mission.

A well-conceived peace and security architecture weakened by the lack of funding

Surprisingly, the African Union got – at least on paper- strong peace architecture, the African Peace and Security Architecture (APSA), with a conflict prevention, management and resolution mechanism (Ibid.). The Pan-African organism created a Peace and Security Council as a political steering body, in order to respond to major crisis on the continent. Besides, the African Standby Force is one of the key components of the African Peace and Security Architecture and aims to conduct peace support operations.

There are five standby brigades with roughly 5000 troops each -North Africa Regional Capacity, Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS) Standby Force, Economic Community of Central African States (ECCAS) Standby Force, Eastern Africa Standby Force, Southern African Development Community (SADC) Standby Force-. To date, the African Standby Force has not reached its crushing speed, though the full operational capability of this unit had been promised for the end of 2015.

Although substantial progress has been made and a real willingness from African countries to solve their crisis themselves can be noticed -creation of the Multinational Joint Task Force (MNJTF) or the G5 Sahel Joint Force (G5SJF), the African Union Mission in Somalia (AMISOM)…-, many issues, as the lack of coordination between continental armies -especially in the fight against terrorism-, the lack of funding, operational slowness and many other, can still be emphasized, leading to a weak efficacity.

The truth is that, if despite an African Peace and Security Architecture carefully thought out, the African Union cannot resolve the multi-faceted challenges the continent is facing and African countries are still calling for foreign powers to deal with their crisis, it is mainly because the Pan-African organization does not have the financial means to implement its policy, especially due to little commitment from African States, including in the financing of their own initiatives.

Consequently, the African Union is compelled to call on international funders to finance its policy, leading to a loss of credibility on the international stage for this institution and, de facto, its members States, proving their inability to properly sponsor the Pan-African organization.

Let’s point out that dependence to international partners does not allow the African Union to be a real independent body and assert itself on the international scene. The poor involvement of African States in the fulfillment of their own objectives can be illustrated by the fact that when it came to finance the G5 Sahel Joint Force, G5 Sahel (G5S) members States needed France’s help to raise funds internationally, notably for the significant funding brought by Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates.

Therefore, African States’ capacity to respond effectively to security issues facing the continent has dwindled since they are entirely under their international partners’ will and their strategic and operational capabilities will be more or less effective according to the goodwill of those allies. The problem is that the interests African nations are defending are not necessarily in tune with the ones their foreign allies are fighting for.

The instability of some African countries, exacerbated by the inability of the African Union to pacify the continent, weakened even more Africa on the international stage. For instance, it is hard to imagine that failed States like Libya or Mali can make their voice heard in the world or strengthen the African continent on the international scene.

The Kagame Reform and the Agenda 2063: The way forward

In this context, it is crystal clear that African States cannot have a powerful impact on the international stage. In fact, there are no real reasons for the P5 countries -the 5 permanent members of the United Nations Security Council- to integrate an African country as a permanent member, since Africa got no economic power, no military might and no nuclear weapon. Especially as that even nations owning all the above (India, Pakistan…), are not Security Council’s permanent members.

South Africa is the only African State which acquired the nuclear weapon in 1982, until the dismantlement of its nuclear program in 1991, when it agreed to join the Nuclear Non-Proliferation treaty (Touchard 2013).

The importance of South Africa and the African continent could have been far more significant internationally if the rainbow nation kept its nuclear capabilities and used them as a shield, in order to protect the continent. The African continent would certainly have had a better room of maneuver to defend its interests vis-à-vis its partners and within international organizations.

Furthermore, possessing the nuclear weapon on its soil would have probably given an additional argument to the African Union in its negotiation to obtain a seat as a permanent member of the United Nations Security Council. Besides, the international community behavior toward the African continent would have been different and more respectful. The carefulness and respect that President Donald Trump shows when he talks to the North Korean Chairman Kim Jong-Un, who owns the nuclear dissuasion, in sharp contrast with the disdain to Saddam Hussein, the late Iraqi President and Mouammar Khadhafi, the late Guide of the Libya’s Revolution, which led respectively to Iraqi Freedom operation and military strikes in Libya in violation of the United Nations Security Council mandate (resolution 1973), illustrate perfectly that the nuclear weapon establishes a balance of powers and a mutual respect between countries holding it. The resolution 1973 on Libya also reveals the importance to be a permanent member of the United Nations Security Council, since this resolution could have been vetoed if an African State was part of the decision-making body.

In the African Union reform plan, commonly known as the Kagame Reform, -in order to overcome all the difficulties the Pan-African institution is facing-, Rwanda’s President Paul Kagame proposed that, instead of being funding by international partners, African States must fully finance their institution (Wuilberck 2017). According to President Kagame, it is the only way for the African Union to properly respond to the challenges facing by the continent and gain some credibility on the international stage.

Indeed, if the African Union members States provide sufficient means to the African institution, as much financial as logistical, it will allow the latter to implement a strong defense policy with an African Standby Force totally operational and able to fulfill its mission in the continent’s pacification, essential prerequisite for the economic development of Africa. Besides, it is only when Africa will be united, stable, strong, secure and prosperous, that it could gain more influence in the international system and claim a permanent seat in the United Nations Security Council, which is the most important organ in world diplomacy, but clearly not before.

Moreover, the African Union should put its Agenda 2063 into effect, aiming especially at putting in place the free movement of people and goods in the continent.

The Agenda 2063 plans to make the free movement of goods effective through the African Continental Free Trade Area (ACFTA), which could allow to increase the intra-African trade up to 60% by 2022 -it represents only 15% today, a very low percentage compared to the intra-European Union trade which represents 70% (Amadou 2020) – and gather 1.2 billion people. If this project becomes a reality, it will be the biggest common market worldwide. A 2019 United Nations Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD) study reveals that the establishment of the African Continental Free Trade Area could raise most of African countries Gross Domestic Product (GDP) up to 3% (2019).

Therefore, this continental free trade mechanism could have a positive impact on the part of the African continent in the world GDP – 87.78 trillion of US dollars-. To date, the African GDP represents only 2.58 trillion of US dollars in the world GDP, roughly 3%, as illustrated in the chart below.

Source: World Bank 2019

The official launching of the African Continental Free Trade Area was scheduled on July 2020, but it has been put off until January 2021, officially because of the Coronavirus pandemic (Amadou 2020).

Regarding the free circulation of people, the African Union Agenda 2063 seeks to establish an African passport, allowing Africans to move freely across the continent. This project should have been in force since 2018, but to date, it is not effective. Unfortunately, that is an additional proof of the inability of the African Union to make its initiatives come to light.

But prior to that, the African Union, as planned in its Agenda 2063, must “Silencing the guns in Africa”, because free movement of people and goods in the continent could only be a reality in a pacify Africa, with stable countries and safe borders. The fact that the deadline of this ambitious goal, set in 2020, has been exceeded without concrete results demonstrates even more the weakness of the continental organization.

The African Union should ensure the rule of law and provide sufficient means to its Standby Force, in order to allow it to uphold peace on the continent, wherever the rule of law or institutional stability would be threatened. Regrettably, the African organization and the Regional Economic Communities (RECs), do not show enough strength in conflict resolution. If both the African Union and the ECOWAS condemned the military coup in Mali and are calling the junta to hand over power to civilian, they should not have accepted the toppling of President Ibrahim Boubacar Keita in the first place. Actually, African institutions and countries should firmly reject all kind of destabilization of democratically elected President, otherwise, the bad tradition of insurrection and military coups will never end in Africa and the continent will always suffer from a lack of credibility on the international scene.

As analyzed above, if the post-colonial African State wish to have a better place in the international system, it should strengthen the African Union and advocate for a solid continental integration. To obtain that goal, an effective implementation of the Agenda 2063 is primordial, especially because this project could make African economies stronger and consolidate the continental integration. But to reach that point, the African continent should be pacified first, since neither economic development nor integration are achievable in a continent preoccupied by conflicts, terrorism, political instability and uncertainty.

If there is a lot of disparity on the continent and some African countries are far richer than other, the choice to talk about the African continent as a whole was made on purpose, merely because an African country alone, as rich it can be, cannot truly weigh upon the international system.

The richest African countries have to be a locomotive for the poorest, and lead the African continent. In fact, the wealthiest have to figure out that only a strong continent can make them have a greater influence on the international stage and that the African continent will be stronger if majority of countries within it are wealthy. It is altogether that African countries can have a louder voice in the international community.

References

Poe, Daryl Zizwe. Perennial Challenges to African Independence and the Nagging Essentials of African Liberation, The Journal of Pan African Studies, January 2012, (vol 4 N° 10) pp. 313-329.

Emeline Wuilberck, Sommet de l’Union africaine : la réforme en cinq points, Le Monde, January 30, 2017 [accessed September 15, 2020]

Laurent Touchard, Quand l’Afrique (du Sud) avait la bombe #3, jeune Afrique, July 19, 2013 [accessed June 3rd, 2020]

La Zlecaf augmenterait le PIB des pays africains de 3%, selon la Cnuced, La Tribune Afrique, June 28, 2019 [accessed September 16, 2020]

Nafissa Amadou, La zone de libre-échange continentale (Zlecaf) repoussée à 2021, Deutsche Welle, July 1st, 2020 [accessed September 16, 2020]

Pascal Charlemagne Messanga Nyamnding, Réflexion sur les fondements du panafricanisme en tant que phénomène de diplomatie communautaire dans un contexte de gouvernance intégrative en Afrique, Revue camerounaise d’études internationales, June 2019, (Vol 13 N°1), p. 12-13

Philippe Leymarie, En Afrique, d’autres foyers du djihadisme, Le Monde diplomatique, February 2015, (N°731) p. 20-21