To restate the obvious: Russia was conspicuously absent when European powers gathered at Berlin to partition Africa into different territories in the last 20 years of the 19th Century. Present at that event were countries like Britain, France, Portugal, Spain, Germany, Belgium and Italy. But that event, undoubtedly, forms the basis for modern African History because since the partition, modern African History has been marked by European rule and the struggle by various African countries to regain independence from colonial rule.
Besides, one of the highlights of the partition was that it brought the African continent into the modern world, even though most African countries remained under colonial rule until the late 1950s.
Let me historicise this point. Almost all the European powers that partitioned Africa had a different pattern of colonial development and for Britain (which colonized Nigeria), the official objective of British policy in Africa was to guide the colonial territories to responsible self-government within the Commonwealth. Of course, underlying this was the economic factor namely: the prospect for the discovery of large mineral deposits in Africa.
As a parenthetical remark, it is this economic factor, more than anything else, that has continued to draw international attention to Africa until this day. Small wonder that it is also a major cause of rivalry between super-powers. And Russia and the US are no exception.
I hasten to add also that Britain deserves some credit because more than any other colonial power, it was preoccupied with the idea of self-rule, and it did so much to give it reality. Evidence is that in Nigeria, independence was delayed not so much by British resistance as by regional and tribal divisions within the colony meaning that even before independence, Nigeria as a colony, had persevered under the burden of religious, social and ethnic strife.
It is no surprise therefore that the nationalist movements that emerged under colonial rule in Nigeria were tribal and regional in nature. In the Western Region, Chief Obafemi Awolowo founded the Action Group in 1953, drawing its chief support from members of his Yoruba tribe. In the Eastern Region, Dr. Nnamdi Azikiwe, an American-trained Ibo man became the dominant leader of the National Council of Nigeria and the Cameroons founded in 1947, and supported mainly by members of the Ibo tribe.
What made these two movements puerile was that they were flamingly antagonistic to each other. Then, there also emerged a third political movement known as the Northern Peoples’ Congress from the more populous Northern Region of Nigeria founded by the Sardauna of Sokoto, a religious and political leader from the dominant Hausa tribe. Apparently, tribal and ethnic rivalries continued to run so high that it took seven more years after the 1953 London conference before Nigeria became independent on 1st October, 1960.
Lamentably, post-independence Africa is nothing but a series of tragedies; tragedies in which African leadership has played a deleterious role. Soon after political independence was won, disillusionment quickly set in on the continent as the citizens of most African countries had to confront a millipede of problems occasioned by bad governance. Some of these problems include galloping inflation, lilliputian growth, structural adjustment, outright theft and embezzlement of public funds, mounting external debts, skill flight, crumbling infrastructure, border conflicts, religious/sectarian clashes, impatient armies and self-seeking coup de tats. Of course, this means that the ruling elite in post -independence Africa is more interested in conserving its own dominance and monopolizing the continent’s natural resources than improving the abject conditions of the poor man. As it is to be expected, what was happening in these newly-independent African states had made a profound impact on the United Nations and on international life generally.
Outside Africa, and on the international scene, the hope of a new era which had dawned so bright with advances in science, transport, communication and technology began to dim with the scourge of war. The First World War (1914-1918) ended with more than 8 million people dead. The Second World War (1939-1945) killed some 45 million more. And a long ‘Cold War’ followed (1945-1990) in which two superpowers, the United States, a democracy, and the Soviet Union, a totalitarian state, have continued to threaten each other (and the survival of the planet) with nuclear weapons of awesome destructiveness.
So, here we are in Africa confronted with superpower rivalry. Many superpowers have shown tremendous interest in Africa in recent times. While Russia’s involvement in Africa lag behind other powers, it is increasingly tapping into anti-western sentiments to bolster its influence on the African continent amid geo-political competition with the west. A long time ago Russia had begun to pursue various goals in Africa. Evidence of this was in seeking trade access to Indian Ocean ports and spreading the influence of Russian Orthodox church.
But Russia’s involvement in Africa became more pronounced during the ‘cold war’.
During this period, the Soviet Union had passionately sought to pull newly independent African countries into its orbit. And Russia did this in several ways. One, Soviet foreign policy became more focused on building relationships with sympathetic socialists or non-aligned countries across Africa. Two, and by far the most important, is sending weapons, advisors and other aids to allies, political parties and military insurgencies. Russia did this successfully in Angola and the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC).
–Dr Doki is of the Department of English, University of Jos
Russia also did this by moving close to Egypt all in an attempt to influence the Libyan conflict. It has also given diplomatic support to countries like Ethiopia and Uganda, two countries facing international criticism over human rights abuses. Furthermore, Russia has inked military cooperation agreement with about 19 African countries since 2014. These agreements include supplying arms and equipment, providing military training, intelligence-sharing and other forms of cooperation. Besides, apart from historical ties with South Africa, both Russia and South Africa belong to the BRICKS, a group of emerging economies established by Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa. It is left to be said that the BRICKS is a negotiating block that seeks to build a diplomatic alternative to western-dominated institutions.
But more than that, since the war between Russia and Ukraine in February 2022, Russia has doubled its efforts in making friends with African countries. Adopting the theory of Memory Diplomacy, Russian foreign minister Sergey Lavrov has made several visits to African countries since 2022 all in an attempt to tilt Africa in its favor. And during such visits, the foreign minister had shown great concern and sympathy with Africa as an isolated continent. The obvious implication is that Russia conceives both itself and the African continent as people caught in the same inescapable network of mutuality; Russia conceives of itself and the African continent as a people tied in one single garment of destiny.
As things stand now, the strategy of Memory Diplomacy has worked effectively for Russia. In Africa and Latin America, Russia has presented itself as an anti-colonial agent that never colonized any African state nor participated in the brutal slave trade. In this regard, Russia has the advantage of shared positive memories among African countries. And Nigeria is no exception.
Closely related to the above is the theory of neglect. I must concede that most African countries like Burkina Faso, Mali and Niger show unwavering support for Russia at the United Nations because of their conviction that they are marginalized or neglected by the international community. It is no longer news that Russia has supported regime change in these African countries. Added to this is the fact that Russia has over the years been a major supplier of grains and fertilizer to many African countries. Small wonder that Russia launched a Russian-African summit in 2019 and convened the same summit in 2023.
It could be perceived that Russia’s present foreign policy especially in Africa is becoming more robust and popular. It is also becoming apparent that Russia has profound sympathy for Africa. It is becoming clear too that Russia wants to tell African countries that colonialism and capitalism are twin brothers whose duty is to exploit the material wealth of the people. Russia intends to demonstrate that it has similar objective aspirations with Africa: to be free from capitalist exploitation. In other words, Russia is willing to spread the communist message like a gospel.
It is against this background that poor African countries flying the Russian flag could be judged. The protesters in Nigeria who flew the Russian flag recently, in Kano and Kaduna states, were demanding for a Russian alternative. They were demanding for freedom from the shackles of European imperialism and its changing manifestations: slavery, colonialism and neo-colonialism. Although flying the Russian flag in Nigeria may seem unpatriotic, it should be understood that the protesters were using the Russian flag as a metaphor for liberation. The Russian flag in Africa becomes a call on African leaders to provide good leadership; leadership that will have the interest and welfare of the people at the center of its policies and actions. A leadership that will listen to the cries of the citizens.
***
