Russia challenging US, China for strategic clout in Africa
Russia has never had an African colony. It stayed out of the scramble for Africa, only engaging with African states in the 19th Century. In 1869, for instance, the Russians gave Ethiopia military support to threaten the position of the British in their quest to control the Suez Canal. Russia did this because Britain was one of its main European rivals.
It wasn't until the Cold War started in 1947 that Russia began to develop diplomatic relations with several African countries. This was a way to counter the influence of its rivals such as the US.
The Cold War dictated the former USSR's relations with many African countries for decades. This was followed by a period of relative inactivity. More recently, however, relations have become increasingly important for Russia as well asfor some African countries.
The result is that some African countries no longer need to choose between the American and the Chinese way of development.
Ostensibly, China has the most pragmatic engagement with Africa. Its policy is not to interfere with the internal workings of nation states or play geopolitics by pitting countries against each other. But it has become increasingly difficult for the country to resist using its military power to protect its economic interests.
For its part, the US's ultimate aim is to tip the regional balance of power in its favor while also gaining access to Africa's resources.
My research explores Russia's current relationship with the continent. The research examines Russian President Vladimir Putin's strategy to redress the global balance of power by countering America's influence in Africa and trying to match China's large economic footprint on the continent.
I conclude that Russia's primary goal is political influence. This is achieved by gaining control of natural resources and providing military support and intelligence. Yet, despite making massive inroads, the Russian Federation is still less influential than the US and China on the continent.
From the African point of view, Russia offers a strategic alternative to America's global hegemony, China's economic diplomacy and the lingering influence of Africa's former colonial masters.
During the Cold War the Russians provided diplomatic, economic, military, and educational support for numerous African liberation movements. These included Algeria, Angola, Cape Verde, the Democratic Republic of Congo, Ethiopia, Guinea, Madagascar, Sao Tome & Principe and Tanzania. As a result many young Africans were educated in Moscow.
Russia began to trade and interact with these states routinely. It sent in military intelligence officers to establish a strong presence and ensure that Africa was not purely influenced by the West. The Russians developed relations with Africa so intensely that for the 10 years between 1950 and 1960 it surpassed the influence of colonizing powers.
That influence would remain more or less intact until the Boris Yeltsin era. Between 1990 and 1999 Russia's impact on the continent was spectacularly lowered. Nine embassies and three consulates were closed.
The number of personnel subordinated to the Russian Ministry of Foreign Affairs was drastically reduced. Russian cultural institutions were closed, and economic relations were unilaterally terminated. Previously generous aid programs were scrapped.
This all changed when Putin came to power in 1999. Under his leadership Russia has started to regain its economic and political clout in Africa. Putin has jumpstarted Russia's diplomatic, economic, and military ties with its former African allies.
From my research, I can conclude that Russia's primary intent is to build political alliances by supporting nation states economically and militarily while remaining non-judgmental about their internal governance structures.
Its long-term goal is to become a political, economic and military mediator that can stand behind Africa's global interests and count on the continent's support in return. Here are some of the areas where Russia are mainly active:
Economic interests: Russia is now seeking to exploit conventional gas and oil fields in Africa and elsewhere. Part of its long-term energy strategy is to use Russian companies to create new streams of energy supply.
For example, Russian companies have made significant investments in Algeria's oil and gas industries. They have also invested in Libya, Nigeria, Ghana, Ivory Coast and Egypt.
Russia is also expanding its African interests in minerals. Uranium, key to the nuclear power industry, is at the top of its list.
In addition, Russian companies are producing aluminum in Nigeria and have constructed hydropower stations in Angola, Namibia, and Botswana.
Russia is also on track to build nuclear plants in Egypt, Nigeria and Algeria. These investments are a means to becoming an integral part of Africa's energy sector.
Russia has also improved its commercial relations with its African partners. In 2009, it established the Coordinating Committee for Economic Cooperation with sub-Saharan Africa to assist in promoting Russian business interests.
Defense interests: Russia has traditionally been one of Africa's main arms suppliers. During the Cold War, many armed liberation organizations and African countries – among the latter Angola, Mozambique, Zimbabwe, Zambia and Guinea –bought military equipment from Russia.
More recently Russia has made significant arms deals with Angola and Algeria. Also, Egypt, Tanzania, Somalia, Mali, Sudan and Libya have bought arms from Russia. The Russians also provide military training and support.
Aid: Under Putin, Russia has made sizeable aid donations to a variety of African countries, averaging about $400 million per year. Around 60% of Russian aid is delivered through international organizations; global humanitarian organizations, including the World Food Program and the UN refugee agency.
The remaining 40% gets to Africa in a framework of bilateral cooperation. Moscow also makes donations to support education, healthcare, agriculture, the environment, and energy.
A risk for Moscow is that the more progress it makes with African governments, the more likely it is that its interests will collide with those of either China or the US, or both.
János Besenyő is an associate Professor at Óbuda University.
This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Asia Times
5 hours ago
- Asia Times
Russia challenging US, China for strategic clout in Africa
Russia has never had an African colony. It stayed out of the scramble for Africa, only engaging with African states in the 19th Century. In 1869, for instance, the Russians gave Ethiopia military support to threaten the position of the British in their quest to control the Suez Canal. Russia did this because Britain was one of its main European rivals. It wasn't until the Cold War started in 1947 that Russia began to develop diplomatic relations with several African countries. This was a way to counter the influence of its rivals such as the US. The Cold War dictated the former USSR's relations with many African countries for decades. This was followed by a period of relative inactivity. More recently, however, relations have become increasingly important for Russia as well asfor some African countries. The result is that some African countries no longer need to choose between the American and the Chinese way of development. Ostensibly, China has the most pragmatic engagement with Africa. Its policy is not to interfere with the internal workings of nation states or play geopolitics by pitting countries against each other. But it has become increasingly difficult for the country to resist using its military power to protect its economic interests. For its part, the US's ultimate aim is to tip the regional balance of power in its favor while also gaining access to Africa's resources. My research explores Russia's current relationship with the continent. The research examines Russian President Vladimir Putin's strategy to redress the global balance of power by countering America's influence in Africa and trying to match China's large economic footprint on the continent. I conclude that Russia's primary goal is political influence. This is achieved by gaining control of natural resources and providing military support and intelligence. Yet, despite making massive inroads, the Russian Federation is still less influential than the US and China on the continent. From the African point of view, Russia offers a strategic alternative to America's global hegemony, China's economic diplomacy and the lingering influence of Africa's former colonial masters. During the Cold War the Russians provided diplomatic, economic, military, and educational support for numerous African liberation movements. These included Algeria, Angola, Cape Verde, the Democratic Republic of Congo, Ethiopia, Guinea, Madagascar, Sao Tome & Principe and Tanzania. As a result many young Africans were educated in Moscow. Russia began to trade and interact with these states routinely. It sent in military intelligence officers to establish a strong presence and ensure that Africa was not purely influenced by the West. The Russians developed relations with Africa so intensely that for the 10 years between 1950 and 1960 it surpassed the influence of colonizing powers. That influence would remain more or less intact until the Boris Yeltsin era. Between 1990 and 1999 Russia's impact on the continent was spectacularly lowered. Nine embassies and three consulates were closed. The number of personnel subordinated to the Russian Ministry of Foreign Affairs was drastically reduced. Russian cultural institutions were closed, and economic relations were unilaterally terminated. Previously generous aid programs were scrapped. This all changed when Putin came to power in 1999. Under his leadership Russia has started to regain its economic and political clout in Africa. Putin has jumpstarted Russia's diplomatic, economic, and military ties with its former African allies. From my research, I can conclude that Russia's primary intent is to build political alliances by supporting nation states economically and militarily while remaining non-judgmental about their internal governance structures. Its long-term goal is to become a political, economic and military mediator that can stand behind Africa's global interests and count on the continent's support in return. Here are some of the areas where Russia are mainly active: Economic interests: Russia is now seeking to exploit conventional gas and oil fields in Africa and elsewhere. Part of its long-term energy strategy is to use Russian companies to create new streams of energy supply. For example, Russian companies have made significant investments in Algeria's oil and gas industries. They have also invested in Libya, Nigeria, Ghana, Ivory Coast and Egypt. Russia is also expanding its African interests in minerals. Uranium, key to the nuclear power industry, is at the top of its list. In addition, Russian companies are producing aluminum in Nigeria and have constructed hydropower stations in Angola, Namibia, and Botswana. Russia is also on track to build nuclear plants in Egypt, Nigeria and Algeria. These investments are a means to becoming an integral part of Africa's energy sector. Russia has also improved its commercial relations with its African partners. In 2009, it established the Coordinating Committee for Economic Cooperation with sub-Saharan Africa to assist in promoting Russian business interests. Defense interests: Russia has traditionally been one of Africa's main arms suppliers. During the Cold War, many armed liberation organizations and African countries – among the latter Angola, Mozambique, Zimbabwe, Zambia and Guinea –bought military equipment from Russia. More recently Russia has made significant arms deals with Angola and Algeria. Also, Egypt, Tanzania, Somalia, Mali, Sudan and Libya have bought arms from Russia. The Russians also provide military training and support. Aid: Under Putin, Russia has made sizeable aid donations to a variety of African countries, averaging about $400 million per year. Around 60% of Russian aid is delivered through international organizations; global humanitarian organizations, including the World Food Program and the UN refugee agency. The remaining 40% gets to Africa in a framework of bilateral cooperation. Moscow also makes donations to support education, healthcare, agriculture, the environment, and energy. A risk for Moscow is that the more progress it makes with African governments, the more likely it is that its interests will collide with those of either China or the US, or both. János Besenyő is an associate Professor at Óbuda University. This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.
Asia Times
10 hours ago
- Asia Times
NATO 5% defense pledge won't make the Kremlin shake in its boots
NATO has sort of agreed to raise defense spending to 5% of Gross Domestic Product, although Spain has openly balked and has refused to do so. This sort of NATO target does not require unanimous agreement because it isn't mandatory. That means each NATO member will try to reach the goal, or not at all in the case of Spain, but there is no penalty if they do not. NATO's secretary general said that NATO will check on national defense contributions in 2029, or more than four years in the future. That should not make the Kremlin shake in its boots. NATO also reaffirmed its commitment to collective defense, which is already agreed in the NATO Charter, mostly Article 5 of the NATO Treaty. President Trump, on board Air Force One on his way to the NATO meeting, said there are different ways to interpret Article 5, adding that it is up to the US President (and all the other NATO members) to decide for themselves (a) whether to respond and (b) how to respond to any attack on a NATO member. One of the worries in the US and elsewhere is that a NATO member will provoke the Russians, leading to a declaration under Article 5. Trump's big caveat, already part of the language of Article 5 in any case, was intended to make clear that Article 5 is subject to interpretation and is not an automatic obligation under the NATO Treaty. Here is the key language: The Parties agree that an armed attack against one or more of them in Europe or North America shall be considered an attack against them all and consequently they agree that, if such an armed attack occurs, each of them, in exercise of the right of individual or collective self-defense recognized by Article 51 of the Charter of the United Nations, will assist the Party or Parties so attacked by taking forthwith, individually and in concert with the other Parties, such action as it deems necessary, including the use of armed force, to restore and maintain the security of the North Atlantic area. Any such armed attack and all measures taken as a result thereof shall immediately be reported to the Security Council. Such measures shall be terminated when the Security Council has taken the measures necessary to restore and maintain international peace and security. Article 6 of the NATO Treaty says that an attack on a NATO member can include: an armed attack: on the territory of any of the Parties in Europe or North America, on the Algerian Departments of France, on the territory of Turkey or on the Islands under the jurisdiction of any of the Parties in the North Atlantic area north of the Tropic of Cancer; on the forces, vessels, or aircraft of any of the Parties, when in or over these territories or any other area in Europe in which occupation forces of any of the Parties were stationed on the date when the Treaty entered into force or the Mediterranean Sea or the North Atlantic area north of the Tropic of Cancer. Neither Article 5 nor Article 6 defines an attack as restricted to a nation-state, so a terrorist attack could be (and, in one case, was) interpreted under Article 6. When 9/11 happened in the United States, the US asked NATO to support it under Article 5. NATO dithered for some weeks, and finally sent some AWACS planes to fly around the US for no appreciable purpose. End of story. Other terrorist attacks in Europe have not led to any declarations under either article. Multinational AWCS crew in 9/11 (NATO photo). There is a good reason why Article 5 has not been declared. Imagine that Turkey declares it has been attacked by Iraq, supporting the Kurds. Would NATO join Turkey to fight the Kurds and Iraq? Not exactly. President Truman signs the NATO Treaty. In fact, the language of Article 6, which tries to define the scope of what is meant by an attack, is wonky in the extreme, and out of date to boot. It ought to be rewritten, but that is unlikely given the rumble of dissent and unhappiness within NATO itself. Beyond the actual treaty language and the alleged obligations under it, the bigger question is whether the NATO alliance really will be able to boost defense spending meaningfully. The major issues are: (1) affordability; (2) industrial base; (3) manpower. Right now there isn't a single NATO country that has the budget for or the possibility of actually funding a 5%-of-GDP defense obligation. The big countries, Germany for example, or France, are in recession, and while the euro currency is still holding value, many think that it will soon crash simply because the economies supporting it are failing. It follows that 5% isn't affordable if it is a real obligation – but if it is fake, as it probably is since the targets won't be met, it hardly matters. The second problem is the industrial base. While there are a few industrial stars in Europe, some of the big ones such as BAE in the UK and Airbus Industries in France (and elsewhere), either are making money elsewhere or have viable commercial businesses. BAE does big business in the US where it has significant manufacturing. BAE Systems Inc., the US subsidiary, includes the design, development, manufacturing, and support of a wide range of products, including armored combat vehicles, naval guns, and electronic warfare systems. The company also has a strong presence in shipbuilding and submarine manufacturing. MBDA Consortium. Airbus Industries makes its money in the civil sector selling commercial aircraft. Other European companies, such as Siemens, also have strong commercial businesses. None of these companies can really compete head to head with America's behemoths such as Lockheed, General Dynamics and RTX (formerly Raytheon). There are some successful consortia, most notably MBDA, but MBDA is an exception, not the rule. Beyond that, Europe's defense businesses are not consolidated, are highly redundant, are extremely wasteful and expensive and produce products that aren't too good. In addition to these serious structural and operational issues, the rise of new technologies – such as artificial intelligence applied to military products and programs – is beyond European capabilities. Europe lacks a strong semiconductor industry, although there are some bright spots in semiconductor manufacturing equipment such as ASML (Advanced Semiconductor Materials Lithography) in the Netherlands. Only one important European company, Leonardo, while it has a big US subsidiary (DRS Systems), has gone ahead and dumped its civil businesses in energy, railroads and even some defense operations (WASS torpedoes). Reforming and consolidating the European defense industrial base is, for the most part, unlikely in the short term and, for political reasons impossible overall, since each nation's security is often a higher priority than collective defense and any consolidation and reform will cost jobs. As Europe's defense sector is highly unionized, and unions play an even bigger political role than in the United States, chopping off jobs and closing plants is not likely to happen anytime soon. Finally there is the troubling issue of manpower, both for the military services and for industry. Europe's armies are badly understaffed and not many volunteers are lining up to fill the gaps, even if finance becomes available to support them. Germany is seriously considering conscription to fill the black hole of empty army brigades, but that is a politically explosive proposition and unlikely to happen (if the current government hopes to get reelected, or even remain in office for its full term). Britain's army is smaller than it was at the time of the American Revolution, and less deployable. A close look at the troops is worrisome: they do not look very fit or capable, even on parade. Much of the equipment armed forces have in Europe is old and poorly maintained, adding to the manpower problem since skilled people are needed to keep the old stuff going. The worst problem is in land armies, but naval capabilities are also limited. Air forces are slightly better, but air operations eat up a lot of skilled manpower. Unfortunately, NATO did not ask a serious question at the latest summit and continued to kick the can down the road when it comes to costly and fruitless adventures such as Ukraine. Some of NATO's best hardware is being turned into scrap in Ukraine and is unlikely to be replaced quickly. What this means is that much of the initial 5% increase is going to be spent replacing what has been handed over to the Ukrainians, not on strengthening NATO. The NATO summit did not address when or whether the Germans will replace their lost Leopards, their expensive air defense systems and the other equipment consumed on Ukraine's battlefield. Ukraine is a fight that is outside of Article 5 or Article 6 of the NATO Treaty. It is part of NATO's ambitious expansion program, and it is looking more and more like a lost cause. The serious question that NATO has sidestepped in the latest confab at the Hague is whether it can rein in NATO expansion and return NATO to a true collective defense system protecting its members. It is obvious that NATO cannot afford Ukraine and needs time to restructure and rebuild the alliance's self-defense capabilities. Continued expansion will leave a huge gap and invite conflict with Russia, which perhaps some want, but it is a huge risk. Meanwhile the Russians have expanded their offensive in Ukraine, causing great anxiety without any real answers.
RTHK
20 hours ago
- RTHK
Nato agrees 'historic' spending hike
Nato agrees 'historic' spending hike Nato heads of state pose for a picture. Photo: Reuters US President Donald Trump took a victory lap at Nato's Hague summit on Wednesday, joining leaders in reaffirming the "ironclad" commitment to protect each other after allies agreed to his demand to ramp up defence spending. The US leader appeared keen to take the plaudits as he secured a key foreign policy win by getting Nato's 32 countries to agree to meet his headline target of five percent of GDP on defence spending. In a move that will provide reassurance to allies in Europe worried over the threat from Russia, Trump signed off on a final leaders' declaration confirming "our ironclad commitment" to Nato's collective defence pledge that an attack on one is an attack on all. "It's a great victory for everybody, I think, and we will be equalised," Trump said of the new spending commitment, ahead of the summit's main session. Diplomats said that behind closed doors Trump insisted there was no greater ally than Washington and urged others to spend some of the new money on US weaponry. The deal hatched by Nato is a compromise that allows Trump to claim triumph, while in reality providing wiggle room for cash-strapped governments in Europe. It sees countries promise to dedicate 3.5 percent of GDP to core military spending by 2035, and a further 1.5 to broader security-related areas such as infrastructure. Entering the meeting, leaders lined up to declare the summit's spending hike as "historic". Nato Secretary General Mark Rutte, who hosted the summit in his home city of The Hague, said Nato would emerge as a 'stronger, fairer and more lethal' alliance. He had earlier acknowledged that it was not easy for European countries and Canada to find the extra money, but said it was vital to do so. "There is absolute conviction with my colleagues at the table that, given this threat from the Russians, given the international security situation, there is no alternative," the former Dutch prime minister told reporters. The Kremlin on Tuesday accused Nato of being on a path of rampant militarisation. (AFP/Reuters)
