This conflict left behind the industrial devastation of Europe and led to the collapse of American interests in the so-called old continent in the subtle but powerful form of the Marshall Plan.
In the 1960s most African states also separated from their European metropolises, with few exceptions from the colonies of Portugal, a country then, like Spain, ruled by a fascist remnant.
Despite this delay, or perhaps because of it, the Lusitanian possessions had to wait until the Carnation Revolution of 1975, when Lisbon withdrew its armed forces and gave way to national governments, a bloody process that ultimately had a glorious result: the bankruptcy of apartheid in South Africa, Namibia and Southern Rhodesia, today’s Zimbabwe.
The convergence at the time of the birth of the OAU and the rise of the United States was a coincidence that could have been fortunate, but it did not come about because Washington chose to strengthen control in Latin America, its geographical context in which it conflicting tones were heard with American peace.
More broadly, Europe was still recovering from the conflict on the planet and was a fertile field for the nascent US hegemony on the planet, the most obvious point of which was the creation of a gendarme protected from the Cold War: the organization of the Treaty of North Atlantic (NATO).
Should Washington have reserved a prominent place for Africa in its global diplomatic strategy, but did not want to do so because it would mean overextending with the resulting spread of violence, which is always inadvisable?
Or did he perhaps think that with his increasing economic control in Europe, he could exert his influence indirectly when needed?
Whatever the applicable hypothesis, the reality is that in a sort of neocolonial international division of labor, the United States has prioritized Africa, a decision that would ultimately prove wrong.
It’s worth digressing: this indifference may have been influenced by the racism that exists in American society, which is still plain and simple in force today, as ex-President Donald Trump put it so recently when asked about it of immigrating to his country Blonde immigrants are preferable and blue eyes.
To cap the nonsense, Trump described Haiti and the African states as stye countries (or shit, according to the translator) and fired his then-Secretary of State, Rex Tillerson, from touring the continent to calm the storm of reactions the country unleashed had presidential chaos.
PAN-AFRICANISM, THE MAIN MOTIF
On the eve of the OAU’s birth in Africa, there were centrifugal forces generated by figures who believed the continent deserved and possessed the resources to become a leading player with its own voice on the world stage.
statesmen of the caliber of Egyptian Gamal Abdel Nasser; Ghanaian Kwame Nkrumah and Tanzanian Mwalimu (Swahili master) Julius Nyerere, along with Ethiopian Emperor Haile Selassie, promoted the idea of creating pan-African unity.
Hence, the OAU was born with the stated goal of promoting unity and solidarity among African states and acting as the collective spokesman for the continent.
And last but not least, to eradicate colonialism and racism, to promote regional and international cooperation and above all continental integration, this second mission is still in its infancy today, despite various initiatives.
The continental grouping, which also included centripetal forces, represented by heads of state with links to the former metropolises, counted among their achievements the promotion of the boycott against apartheid in South Africa, a country that was trying to create a state constellation out of it that would be the sun .
To this end, the Pretoria government entered into a cooperation agreement with Israel, its partner in the Levant, which included the transfer of nuclear technology in exchange for permission to test Israel’s nuclear weapon on South African territory.
It is notorious that when the then-President of the United States, James Carter, announced that one of his satellites had spotted the test, he chose to cover it up, a decision that would have long-term negative repercussions for the region , which he could not even declare a nuclear-weapon-free zone.
However, despite the successes recorded during its existence, the OAU suffered from the syndrome of weakness because, unlike its successor, the African Union (AU), which was born in July, it lacked a multilateral military power to call for order when needed 9, 2002.
There is a period between the founding of the OAU and the birth of the AU when events took place that, to a certain extent, shaped the performance of the continental entity.
Among them is the use of mercenaries, which the former metropolises used as early as the 1960s to maintain their supremacy, as evidenced by the involvement of these “war dogs” in the liquidation of nationalist impetus and the anti-colonial campaign of the assassinated Prime Minister Patricio Lumumba in the former Belgian Congo.
This practice, glorified in an entire literature and filmography, reached its zenith, reaching the point that there was a publication called Soldiers of Fortune, which also included a classifieds section listing ex-servicemen recruits and weapons and equipment for candidates were advertised.
The initial successes of the mercenary operation were also to meet their demise in the form of the defeat suffered in Angola in 1975 by a group of those paid soldiers captured in the north of that South West African country whose defeat was documented by Cuban Raúl Valdés Vivo. in his book Angola: End of the Mercenary Myth.
Another weakness, the lack of regional units, was also overcome through the establishment of groups such as the Commonwealth of West African States and the Intergovernmental Authority on Development, as well as the AU’s military missions, which produced positive results in disputes and conflicts.
Likewise, a new and delicate phenomenon emerged that has yet to be resolved: the rise of radical Islamism in various countries of the Sahel and in Nigeria, perhaps the most urgent task of the coming years.
Throughout these years and their tumultuous processes, Africa had the diplomatic and military support first of the defunct Soviet Union and later of the Russian Federation and China, a fact whose memory is ever present despite the inexorable passage of time.
The start of Russia’s special military operation in Ukraine in early 2022 would serve as a catalyst for significant political events, namely Africa’s reluctance to join the global siege attempt against Moscow and Beijing and, even more so, to change flags despite the frequent farewells from the collective West .
In this context, two African countries, Mali and Burkina Faso, have decided to demand the immediate withdrawal from their territories of the troops of their former metropolis, France, who, in the first case, have been accused of supporting Islamist groups in order to promote a change in government.
A preview of this majority behavior was provided by Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov, who, on the eve of a tour of the continent, declared that the relations with Africa established by the USSR and maintained by Russia are an indelible fact in historical and practical terms.
The accuracy of the foreign minister’s analysis would only have to wait a few weeks until the end of March, to then be confirmed in practice by the voice of his South African counterpart, Naledi Pandor, who reiterated that his country would not violate the analysis’ relations with Moscow at the behest other countries.
“There are those who do not want us to maintain relations with an old historical friend, but we have made it clear that Russia is a friend with whom we have maintained cooperative relations for many years,” the headline pointed out.
He then added that while his country maintains friendly relations with many nations around the world, it would not “suddenly make enemies” at the request of certain countries.
The South African minister’s statements coincided with the rampant dispatch of US delegations, including Vice President Kamala Harris, and European delegations to Africa to promise what they failed to do six decades ago; Loans and investments, although this should be specified rather vaguely.
Thus, time reveals, this implacable carafe, the failure of the Western powers, led by the United States, to alienate Africa from Russia and lure it into their camp, even though the struggle continues.
Only now have Washington and the foreign ministries of major European powers fully understood the importance of a part of the planet that is home to nearly 1.4 billion people, mostly young people aged up to 25.
A mistake that costs him dearly to rectify with his proposal to unleash an epidemic of continental amnesia.
work/msl