By
Ravi Raj
Africa-Press – Mauritius. The current geopolitical positioning of the African continent is not in compliance with the traditional dichotomies of what we knew as the Cold War. The national governments across the continent of Africa are reluctant to affirm their ties either with the West-led alliance or even decisively taking a firm stand with Moscow. Hence, instead of preferring direct alignment with any of the superpowers they are pursuing the notion of strategic hedging which the academicians of the international relations refer as a deliberate effort by the nation-states to diversify the respective external partnerships in order to maintain their autonomy in the existing fragmented world order ultimately reducing the over-reliance on any single power.
This approach of strategic-hedging adopted by the African nations is neither passive or indecisive rather we can term it as a ‘balanced reaction’ to the ongoing structural shifts in the world order including the decline of the hegemony of the western power, the rise of the middle powers such as India and the formation of the multipolar system in which the countries of the African continent are becoming strategically significant rather than being peripheral. Now, the African continent is not only restricted to the space which is just a stage of great power competition instead in the evolving landscape where the player states are really actively influencing the geopolitical outcomes.
Russia’s Return to Africa: Security Partnerships and Sovereignty Narratives
Russia’s renewed re-engagement within the African continent is increasingly being deciphered as opportunistic and sudden but the real situation is quite aloof of this description. Actually, Russia’s conflict with the Western powers was intensified post-2022 then the larger geopolitical recalibration process was sped up. In the international forums, the African countries provide Russia with diplomatic support, access to their respective strategic resources and the influence chances that means relatively limited economic investment. Russia seldom interferes in the matters related to the government reforms and human rights conditions which is in contrast to what Western powers usually do. Instead Moscow’s expansion is dependent on the military training, sales of the arms, security co-operation and sovereignty-centred diplomacy.
The tactic adapted by Russia of narrative-building is also of an equal significance as it positions itself as an alternative to the engagement with western powers which is regularly viewed by the leaders of the African countries as invasive or perspective, invoking the non-interferee and anti-colonial solidarity. This type of framing is highly relevant in the political contexts where the pressures exerted by the external powers over the home governments for the democratic reforms faces a clash of interest as the state-governments prioritise national control and democratic stability.
It is quite evidenced by the recent data which highlights why Russia’s security-first strategy operates in the precarious political environments. The weapon supplies during 2018 and 2022 roughly accounted for approx 40% between Africa and Russia, Moscow was the greatest supplier according to the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute. More than 40 countries of the African continent have signed military agreements with Russia. Still, the influence of Russia has been limited rather than comprehensive. The diplomatic strategy adopted by Russia stresses more emphasis on the elite-level relationships rather than the institutional capacity-building while the economic involvement of the country mostly highlights extractive sectors and energy. This is not a blueprint developed for the continental development; instead it is a specifically tailored influence model to compensate for the immediate security and sovereignty concerns of the governments of the African nations.
African Strategic Hedging: Managing Risk in Great-Power Competition
There has been much talk on the aspirations of Russia but the story in the African continent is altogether a different one. In the African continent, many national governments of the countries are deliberately pursuing strategic hedging. They are strengthening their ties with Moscow as well at the same time sustaining their relationships with the western forces, regional players and the emerging powers instead of becoming Moscow’s satellite states. Three overlapping imperatives are the key factors behind the hedging behaviour. The primary is the regime’s security, when the national governments of the respective countries face political instability and insurgency, they themselves want to seek rapid military assistance without that much external scrutiny.
The collaboration with Moscow is one of the best possible options among the several provided and literally serves as a balance rather than replacing western leverage. Secondly, the economic diversification in which countries of the African continent aim to reduce its over-dependence on any one particular outside power. The investment by the West in the sectors of commerce, development finance are often essential even in the areas where Russian security ties expand. The approach of strategic hedging adapted by the African nations enables them to extract benefits of several partnerships as well as maintain their negotiating position. Finally, diplomatic autonomy as in a multipolar environment the expenses are being increased day to day.
Countries of the African continent can boost their worth to the competing powers and turn the geopolitical rivalry into leverage by preserving the strategic ambiguity. The following patterns can easily be traced in the regions of the Sahel and the Central African region where the Western military retrenchment has coincided with the expanding Russian engagement. However, even in these types of situations the alignment is rarely exclusive. Instead of portraying the ties with Russia as an irreversible geopolitical commitment, the said collaboration is more about diversification. Hence, the strategy of hedging should not be confused with the ideological realignment rather than it is a practical approach adopted to the situation of uncertainty and the means for the risk management in a global environment where the external assurances are becoming comparatively less dependable.
Multipolar Africa: Opportunities, Constraints and the Global Implications
The shift to multipolarity has become quite evident and it is reinforced by the strategy of hedging adapted by the countries of the African continent as due to the ongoing shift in the global power these countries have multiple options. But, the extended options also at the same time introduced new vulnerabilities. This is also advantageous to national governments as it allows them to negotiate more favourable terms of engagement when external powers compete with one another. In comparison to the earlier period of the structural dependency the African nation-states now can resist against the one-sided conditionalities posed, can attract alternative investment and exercise more control over the the priorities of the development.
At the same time, the risks are substantial. Security alliances or partnerships that are being prioritised put forward the regime’s survival ahead of institutional accountability. Instead of promoting inclusive growth, the resource-backed agreements can ultimately strengthen the extractive economic paradigms. Other valuable concerns such as that of long-term stability and the civilian security are also extended by the increasing influence of the external military players. Africa’s strategic hedging highlights the inherited limitations in using frameworks of binary; for example- democracy vs autocracy and west against east to comprehend the current alignment trends. It also serves as a reminder for the international system of the decreasing power of the sanctions and the coercive diplomacy in influencing the behaviour of the Global South.
Conclusion: Beyond Alignment in a Fragmented Global Order
Africa’s position in the current geopolitical scenario is best described with calculated ambiguity instead of alignment. In the contemporary multipolar world order the national governments of the African countries prioritize their sovereignty by choosing without choosing , leveraging competition to secure diplomatic space , security aid and economic opportunity. This is more than just an account of an external impact rather it invokes the strategic adjustments that the respective governments are making under the conditions of the uncertainty and constraint.
As the global power continues to fragment, Africa’s experience draws valuable insights for countries like India which also stresses on the strategic autonomy and south-south cooperation. It further explains how the relatively smaller and middle powers can opt for diversification instead of alignment to navigate the great-power rivalry without giving up the agency and ultimately safeguarding their respective national interests. Countries of the African continent are actively reversing the traditional definition of multipolarity rather than only simply reacting to the great powers. Hence, in order to comprehend this dynamic it is necessary to go beyond the said narratives of the proxy competition.
Author Bio: Akshan Ranjan is a PhD research scholar at the Centre for African Studies, School of International Studies, Jawaharlal Nehru University, New Delhi.
moderndiplomacy
