The West’s control over Africa largely relies on the creation and maintenance of ‘anchor states’ – African countries that champion Western interests on the continent. Any country that resists this anchoring is considered a “rogue state”. For Africa to regain strategic autonomy, it must create its own anchor states to steer regional blocs in line with its own interests. However, Africa has failed miserably in this regard, which explains its inability to identify, nurture and leverage its collective interests on the global stage. This failure is at the root of its geopolitical irrelevance.
Ideally, the anchors of Africa’s strategic intent should be its “giants” – countries such as Nigeria, South Africa, Ethiopia, Egypt and the Democratic Republic of Congo. But these so-called giants have yet to live up to their potential. They are giants in name only, unable to substantiate their status, much like a tiger unable to demonstrate its tigritude.
Consider this: a giant’s stature, when used in reference to countries, is typically determined by several criteria, but a few of them are key: population size, territorial size, a skilled workforce, military strength, and, finally, economic capacity. The overarching factor, however, is leadership – a vision that aligns with and strengthens all of the above and gives purpose to the giant’s existence.
Indeed, a country can only be considered a giant if it has a large population, a large territory and control over every inch of its landmass, and can harness these resources effectively. But it is not just about population numbers – there must be a critical mass of skilled individuals to drive innovation and technological progress. Without this, a large population, which should be an asset, becomes a liability.
Along with technological progress is the size and vibrancy of the economy, which in turn produces a healthy and educated society. In addition, a true giant must have the military capacity to protect its socio-economic gains while providing a sense of calm that assures present and future generations of their security to enable them to pursue their individual and collective aspirations.
The conclusion is obvious: Africa does not have a giant in this substantive sense. And this raises an important question: who is anchoring Africa’s interests? While globally influential countries have been able to exert their influence by creating their own African anchors, Africa itself has failed to identify and produce strong anchors capable of shaping its future. This is strategic impotence.
From giant to burden
In international relations, the concept of a “security complex” describes the factors that shape positive or negative interactions between neighbouring states. A true regional giant that demonstrates strength and leadership will naturally drive the security dynamics of its region.
Conversely, a giant that does not live up to its name can destabilise the region and become a source of misery for the people who, by accident of birth and history, are its citizens or neighbours. Such a giant, instead of fostering peace and cooperation, fuels insecurity and instability, exacerbating tensions both within and beyond its borders.
On the other hand, a giant that lives up to its title can foster a positive security complex. Its citizens benefit from access to education, healthcare and economic opportunities that allow them to thrive and build a strong national identity. These citizens will do whatever it takes to secure their way of life, to live or die in its defence, and to pass it on to their offspring. Such a nation attracts cooperation from its neighbours, which helps foster regional prosperity through trade and diplomacy. This is the essence of successful anchoring.
Sadly, when it comes to Africa’s so-called giants, the common thread is a neglect of both their domestic and regional responsibilities. They often threaten their own people and destabilise neighbouring countries, with the scale of this threat varying across the continent from one “giant” to another. Essentially, Africa’s “giants” exist on a spectrum of dysfunction—from being relatively benign nuisances to posing existential threats.
This failure of leadership has led smaller, less powerful nations to step up, assuming responsibilities that should have fallen to the giants. These smaller countries must now bear the burden of anchoring nations that believe themselves giants against all evidence.
Two final points. First, the West will never allow clear-eyed, competent leaders to rise to power in Africa’s giants. The leaders deemed “acceptable” are often overwhelmed by the moment, viewing the presidency as an accident of history or the pinnacle of personal achievement. For them, simply holding the office is legacy enough.
Second, the emergence of a genuine African giant capable of transforming the entire region poses a direct threat to those who wish to control and exploit the continent indefinitely. The West will remain laser-focused on preventing the African “giants” from emerging from their structural crises.
In the second part, I will illustrate this by showing why the West will never allow the DRC to cooperate with a Rwanda led by Kagame.
