As the war in Ukraine enters its sixth
month, with no signs of the conflict ending any time this year, the diplomatic
war for hearts and minds has shifted to the African continent.
اضافة اعلان
At the end of last
month, Russia’s foreign minister toured four African countries, followed
swiftly by French President Emmanuel Macron last week, who visited three. Two
US officials are due in the coming weeks, culminating in America’s secretary of
state visiting three African countries later in August. It is quite the charm
offensive, only slightly offset by no-one spelling out what all the charm is
for.
On the surface, the
reasons are obvious. Lavrov wanted to meet the Arab League, to lay the
foundation for a nuclear power plant in Egypt and to prepare for an upcoming
Russia-Africa summit in Ethiopia. The French president was in West Africa to
chart a new relationship with former French colonies. Antony Blinken wants
“partners” to tackle climate change and food insecurity.
Yet all of this
comes against the background of the war in Ukraine, and when it comes to
diplomacy, Ukraine is the war that dare not speak its name.
Both Russia and the West have focused on Africa ever
since the March vote at the UN that condemned Russia’s invasion. Although the
vote passed easily, half of all African states abstained, the largest such
bloc. Since then, Russia has looked to African countries to reinforce its
narrative about the war, while the West has sought to persuade them to change
their minds. Countries that abstained on the day of the vote feature heavily on
the itineraries of Western leaders. The hot war in Europe has given way to a
charm offensive in Africa.
This latest phase
of the conflict started at the end of July, when Lavrov began his tour of
African countries. Barely had he started, when Macron landed in Cameroon.
What has followed
has been a war of narratives. From the start of the Ukraine war, Russia has
sought to portray it as a local military operation, even going so far as to ban
the use of “war” to describe the conflict on Russian television.
The Ukrainian and
Western response was to “internationalize” the conflict, describing the Russia
invasion as a threat to the entire European continent and thereby galvanizing
support across Europe. (Nor was this a mere description; it sufficiently
tallied with the facts that Sweden and Finland dropped their longstanding
ambivalence toward NATO and applied to join.)
Countries that abstained on the day of the vote feature heavily on the itineraries of Western leaders. The hot war in Europe has given way to a charm offensive in Africa.
Yet, as Russia and
Western countries have gone to African leaders to seek support, this
internationalizing of the conflict has worked against the West. In that regard,
at least, Russia has been smart, talking up Western interference and
colonialism on the continent, in a way that resonates with many leaders (if not
always their populations).
The arguments that
Russia is no threat to African countries (unlike, wink, the West); that it has
never sought to colonize African nations (unlike…); and that, just as Africans
do not wish Western countries to interfere in their domestic affairs, so Russia
does not wish for outside interference in its “special military operation”,
resonate powerfully.
Macron, arriving in
Benin last week, waded directly into the argument, saying: “Here in Africa, a
continent that has suffered from colonial imperialism, Russia is one of the
last colonial, imperial powers — it decides to invade a neighboring country to
defend its interests.”
Given that Macron
arrived in the country just as celebrations were beginning for the anniversary
of Benin’s independence — from France, it is safe to say that argument did not
have much impact.
These political
arguments, and the desire of African leaders to show just enough solidarity to
be left alone, collide with a visceral reality: The war in Ukraine is causing
real hunger across the continent. Together, Ukraine and Russia provided 40
percent of Africa’s wheat supply pre-war. The conflict has been devastating.
In Egypt, which
relied on the two countries for three-quarters of its wheat, prices for the staple
have soared almost 50 percent. In the Horn of Africa, the war has made a
drought worse. Combine that with soaring oil prices and some of the most
fragile countries are being hit the hardest.
The ugliest aspect
of these competing tours is how little say Africa has in this war, even though
it is paying some of the steepest prices. Promises of trade or partnerships do
not add up to genuine independence. As unedifying as it was to watch Lavrov
talk about respecting the sovereignty of African nations even while Russia is
slicing apart Ukraine’s territory, it was equally unpleasant to listen to
Macron’s tone in Cameroon, where he chided African countries for “not calling
it a war when it is one” — as if the label attached to a far-away European war
mattered more to him than food and fuel crises across the continent.
Africa is forced to
be part of this war, bearing consequences but not taking decisions, even as
politicians from abroad appear to flatter, lecture or cajole. The African
proverb that when elephants fight it is the grass that suffers comes to mind: a
continent still paying for the sins of Europe.
Faisal Al Yafai is currently writing a book on the Middle East
and is a frequent commentator on international TV news networks. He worked for
news outlets such as The Guardian and the BBC, and reported on the Middle East,
Eastern Europe, Asia, and Africa. Twitter: @FaisalAlYafai. Syndication Bureau.
Read more Opinion and Analysis
Jordan News
.jpg)
.jpg)
