Online Reporter
Dr Alexander Rusero and Ranga Mataire
THE world recently woke up to a shocking unprovoked attack of Iran by Israel on the latter’s pretext that the former had long planned to attack it.
Whatever the logic of the war, students of international relations and global politics, as well as history and current affairs enthusiasts, also learnt that the ongoing global reconfigurations, punctuated by chaos and disorder, have resulted in the end of a unipolar world.
In “International Politics: Enduring Concepts and Contemporary Issues”, Robert J. Art and Robert Jervis (1992) advance the view that, unlike domestic politics, international politics takes place in an arena that has no central governing body.
Although the United Nations acts as “an international body of appeal” for individual nations, the truth is no agency exists above the individual states with authority and power to make laws and settle disputes.
States can make commitments and treaties, but no sovereign power ensures compliance and punishes deviations.
The absence of a supreme power has created an anarchic environment of international politics, something that countries like the United States have exploited over the years.
The unipolar world, which emerged at the end of the Cold War in the 1990s, resulted in the eventual domination of the US and its allies over the social, political, economic, technological and cultural infrastructure of the world.
This unipolar world, underwritten by global capitalism and driven by a neo-liberalist thinking to global geo-political and geo-economic designs, was dubbed the rules-based order.
It is for this reason that the US was at liberty calling its allies states and its perceived foes regimes.
A regime-change agenda was, therefore, legitimate in the US’ cosmology of shaping the world to toe the line of its rules-based order.
A state was either democratic and, therefore, a progressive ally or an authoritarian one and thus a threat to the strategic interest of the US and her Global North allies.
This is the logic that wreaked havoc in the Middle East with the coming of the new millennium, resulting in the chaos and storms of the Middle East, notably the fall and barbaric ouster of Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi, Iraq leader Saddam Hussein and several other governments in Africa, the Middle East and Asia that were perceived as outposts of tyranny.
As such, whereas Israel, a long-time ally of the US and in some instances America’s proxy in the Middle East, entered the war with a well-calculated plan to obliterate Iran, it might as well have succeeded in making an unintended revelation — war, unlike a Hollywood movie, has no predictable outcome.
Apologists of the US predicted the defeat of Iran within hours, but, as it turned out, it endured into one of several nights, days and weeks, triggering the US’ intervention and the call for an immediate ceasefire.
Those who understand the US’ military prowess and its several military exploits in the Middle East know very well that it does not budge, neither does it call for a ceasefire in a military escapade in which it is in total control.
What was touted as a ceasefire was in fact Donald Trump’s bid to avoid Israel’s humiliation and possible defeat.
Israel proved to all those who care to follow contemporary global discourses that without the backing and support of the US, it cannot last a day with regard to its several hostilities in the Middle East.
It also further exposed a deeply divided US over issues of foreign policy and strategic national interests, because for the first time America had an ambivalent approach on how to deal with the crisis, which was not of its making in the first place.
Whatever the outcome, the US is definitely revising how it deals and also gets involved in Israel’s conflicts going forward.
So, what would be the lessons for Africa?
Africa ought to rediscover its ideology.
Ideological resolve is desperately required on a continent that is currently veering off from the ethos of its founding fathers — the total emancipation of Africa from the shackles of imperialism and colonialism.
Iran’s resolve to stand its ground against the mighty US, fronted by Israel, drew its currency from its ideological standpoint as the Islamic Republic.
Islamic Republic was a rallying point of all Iranians and its sympathisers that its retaliation was a just or rather a holy war.
Pan-Africanism is currently facing an existential threat.
Most of the time, Africans are complicit in shunning, dissing and dismissing their continent more than any other inhabitant of this earth.
Africa cannot win any ideological war, technological battle and financial war without a rallying point of its focal ideological standpoint — Pan-Africanism.
It is an incontestable fact that Africa won its freedom and independence from the conception of Pan-African unity, which was concretised through the founding of the Organisation of African Unity (OAU), now the African Union (AU).
Pan-Africanism became more than just a rallying call for unity but the fuel and inspirational bedrock that inspired generations across the continent to challenge and ultimately defeat colonialism.
Colonial governments had all the means of power, including superior military hardware, but all this failed to defeat the resolve of Africans fighting for their own liberty and independence.
Africans need to understand that no one owes them a living.
Just as it was during the decolonisation period when Africans were united by a shared history and common goals, the contemporary world is calling for all Africans to rescue Pan-Africanism from Afro-pessimists.
Afro-pessimists would always want to inflate the existing differences within or among blacks as the major hindrances to achieving unity.
This has the effect of demoralising any efforts being undertaken to concretely unite black people. They argue that the international system is rigged in favour of the Western world — the masterminds of slavery and colonialism.
The situation has been worsened by the fact that there seems to be no shared idea of who constitutes an African?
Even the idea of Africa is not something settled.
This lack of a shared understanding has made all well-intentioned attempts to unite and make Africa speak with a recognisable and distinct voice unstable.
The conversion of the OAU to the AU has failed to resolve this dilemma.
Who is uniting? What is the unity for? How should the unity proceed?
In his response to Afro-pessimists, Professor Mammo Muchie, a leading global Pan-African voice, argues in “Has the Pan-African Hour Come?”, an article published way back in 2015: “The fact that Africans appear in a variety of ways, speak different languages and practise different religions should not in principle be an argument for making them suffer under the regime of specificity by rejecting to construct a consciousness of universality.
“The right to the universal or the African does not have to challenge the right to remain different, speak different languages and worship different deities. It can complement it and in fact it can enrich it, provided that the dialectic between specificity and universality is resolved in favour of producing the national nucleus for creating a sustainable unification of Africa.”
Prof Muchie cites India and China as examples of countries that have been able to conquer differentiation.
The fact that Indians or Chinese speak many different languages and practise different religions have not prevented them from overcoming their specific attributes and proclaim Indian or Chinese national identities.
The anarchic nature of international politics compels Africans to realise that there is more to gain from acting as a united entity than acting in isolation of one another.
The Israel-Iran conflict has revealed to the world the fundamental importance of investing in national security, including appropriation of modern technology in warding off potential national security threats.
The manner in which Iran was able to “return fire”, blow by blow, against Israel showed that the country had enough arsenal to defend itself.
Similarly, Africa needs to utilise its fraternal relations with countries like China and Russia to develop and boost its ability to ward off potential threats to its national security.
Beyond investing in military hardware, Africa needs to change its education and innovation systems that are still too colonial and in dire need of a technological and digital leap.
Current global trends in education point to a shift towards creativity and innovation.
It is only through creating innovative products to sell to the whole world that more wealth can be generated.
The whole education system on the continent needs to be developed into an African-centred one.
We need to do away with the “David-Livingstone-discovered-the-Victoria-Falls” type of education.
It is a historical fact steeped in concrete archaeological evidence that Africa is the cradle of civilisation and was behind the creative wonders of antiquity, whose creativity and innovation got interrupted by slavery and colonialism.
The evidence of the continent’s greatness is there for everyone to see.
In dealing with the contemporary issues affecting the continent, African leaders must emphasise on critical thinking and problem-solving.
Apart from giving the current and future generations strong historical foundations, the next step should be on creating, making and selling stuff, as well as solving problems.
Innovation requires the seamless cooperation of governments, schools, universities, the private sector, research laboratories and financial institutions.
As Africa confronts the realities of the decomposition of the post-colonial state, we have the opportunity to reshape our political futures collectively.
We need to move away from the design of an Africa imposed on us by the old colonial powers.
An Africa united is a continent capable of solving current challenges.
A disunited Africa has no chance of advancement.
A half-century of the latest African history is enough for us to know this truth.
A continental approach to Africa’s problems should be able to lay the foundation of a self-reliant and selective external intervention approach.
This will drive Africans to put on the agenda their own issues and not those that come with gifts from donors.
Online Reporter