What the Ukraine war informs us about today’s conflicts and how to tackle them. An African view of the world.
 |
| [Africa Map/Usplash] |
In the wake of Russia’s February 24 invasion of Ukraine, the world’s attention has been drawn to the ramifications of this attack for international peace and security. It is no different in Sub-Saharan Africa, which has long been seen as an outlier in global politics.
World wide attention was focused on a speech by the Kenyan Ambassador to the United Nations Security Council, in which he harshly criticised Russia’s actions in Ukraine. It has since been forcefully opposed by Senegalese President Macky Sall and AU Commission Lead Chad Moussa Faki, both of whom presently chair the African Union (AU). Ukraine’s “territorial integrity and national independence” should be respected by Russia, they said.
However, with the exception of Kenyan and AU statements, the continent’s response is far from united. While some spoke out, it’s possible that they didn’t want to offend Russia. 28 African nations voted in favour of the resolution, with 17 voting against it, passed by the United Nations General Assembly on March 2 denouncing Russia’s aggression on Ukraine. There was just one African nation that voted against the resolution.
Kenya’s neighbour Uganda abstained at the same time Kenya was speaking out against the Russian invasion, illustrating the extreme disagreement in Africa. Because of his alleged “non-alignment” in world affairs, according to rumours. Muhoozi Kainerugaba, the son of Ugandan President Yoweri Museveni, tweeted his support for Russia’s invasion of Ukraine at the same moment.
In the last several years, the positions have reversed. In the face of Europe’s “superior” culture, a continent that has long been associated with mindless military strife finds itself in the position of “peacemaker” in relation to that civilisation.
Ethnicity and other primal identity traits linked with “culturally backward” places like Sub-Saharan Africa or the Arab world have long been analytical narratives pursued by Western journalists and researchers. Since then, they have been unable to explain the escalating violence in Ukraine.
When it comes to conflicts, the present scenario should serve as an alarming reminder of the reality that conflict is not driven by identity or culture but rather by greed and other financial aspirations. Political leaders in sub-Saharan Africa have been known to turn to military measures in order to gain power. Few, however, have acted with such arrogance in defying world opinion as Vladimir Putin.
Racism persists decades after slavery was abolished, as seen by reports that African students fleeing Ukraine were denied entry into neighbouring countries because of the colour of their skin. It is telling that the AU’s February 28 statement solely denounced racism against Africans, despite the fact that the conflict also harmed Arabs and refugees of other nationalities. In an age of allegedly rising globalisation, ethnic identity is being used as a basis for a continuing Balkanization.
There are 54 nations in Africa, making it a vast continent. There will be errors in analysis if these nations’ experiences are compared in any way. Russia has left less geopolitical marks than the other four permanent members of the UN Security Council in numerous nations throughout Europe. In spite of their fading influence, former colonial powers like the United Kingdom and France continue to use historical, linguistic, and cultural connections to gain an advantage in Africa. Russia, on the other hand, will have to make do with the scraps.
Many of the African governments sponsored by the Soviet Union in the past have been replaced, and Russia’s Cold War nostalgia-based claim to grandeur has faded. Security, economic and investment cooperation, as well as political unification, were all priorities for Moscow as it sought to reestablish itself in the United Nations Security Council. Agriculture items like wheat from Russia have a significant impact on the economies of several African nations. However, African exports to Russia account for the vast majority of commercial contacts, making Africa significantly less reliant on Russia than Europe is.
Africa’s future connections with the rest of the world will be affected by three primary factors. This latest dispute serves as more proof that today’s interstate and intrastate conflict are mostly driven by material considerations, with identity politics only infrequently serving as a distraction.
As a second point of reference, NATO and the EU’s strong support for Ukraine, which is not connected with either organisation, reaffirms the long-held belief in Africa that regional conflicts are best settled by regional players in the area of the conflict. This phrase was often used by politicians in Sub-Saharan Africa in the lead-up to the NATO-led military effort to topple Libya’s former leader Muammar al-Gaddafi. There should be less opposition for regional organisations like the Economic Community of West Africa (ECOWAS) and North East Africa’s Intergovernmental Agency for Development (IGAD) if they insist on leading conflict resolution efforts in their region, as it was in Ukraine when finding European solutions to European problems. NATO’s rapid response to defend its “own friends” should serve as a useful example for them.
When it comes to international responses to political and economic issues, the Russian invasion of Ukraine serves as a stark reminder that geostrategic considerations are more important than humanitarian ideals when it comes to international response. There has been significantly more attention paid to Ukraine’s invasion than any other crisis in sub-Saharan Africa or anywhere in the globe. That each continent and its subregions can stand on their own in the globe is shown here.