Africa the Cold War Playground

The cold war, dominated by the dysfunctional relationship between the United States and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics was defined and measured in military terms. The two super powers developed and deployed enormous nuclear arsenals that they used for nothing more than to threaten each other and the rest of the world into compliance with the rules they wrote.

The Extraordinarily deadly effectiveness of nuclear weapons, made clear by their use in Japan at the end of the Second World War, ensured that they would never be used by either of the powers against each other. While they were unwilling to directly attack each other they used other means to define the extent of their power. Geopolitical spheres of influence became a defined term on the chessboard of diplomatic negotiations and though an essentially academic preoccupation, debate around the topic had very real meaning in Africa and the rest of the developing world.

In order to show they indeed had influence, that their brand of economic and political management was superior, the superpowers each formed alliances with as many countries as possible. The super powers were less concerned with the livelihoods of the citizens of those countries than they were with the fact that they could place them in the “win” column, that they could be counted as "one of ours."

Being of the military mindset, the superpowers determined that the most effective way to win over the leaders of less powerful nations was to provide them with armaments so the arms race spread to the poorest parts of the world only here it was measured in conventional rather than nuclear weapons.

Across Africa democratically elected governments that had no interest in building up their armed forces were overthrown and replaced by military dictatorships that danced to the tuned played in Moscow and Washington; depending on which side they placed their allegiance. As one country after another fell to the power of the bullet, the remaining elected leaders quickly learned that they could save their skins by aligning themselves with one side or the other. For this they were rewarded with more guns, mines, tanks and planes.

The caliber of the leaders did not matter, only the likelihood that they could be relied upon to toe the line. Washington and Moscow had many things to manage and they did not always pay full attention to the leaders of these small countries. Those African leaders who felt they were not receiving the level of attention and respect they deserved for having thrown their hat in the ring with one power or another would be tempted to switch sides.

This turned them into a huge returns on the radar screens in both capitals because the movement of one piece on the diplomatic chessboard would mean a change in the geopolitical balance of power and a redefinition of the spheres of influence – an added agenda item in diplomatic discussions. For the side in the position of losing an ally it was also the potential of a loss of face and the creation of a perception that their power and influence was on the wane. If one left the team, then others could follow and a critical mass of nations would jump to the other side. This had consequences in international bodies such as the United Nations where the General Assembly typically voted along lines of alliance so the fewer countries you had on your side, the more likely you would be out-voted in that and other forums. To lose one country would begin a long slide towards a loss of influence.

To the country in the position of gaining a new ally the rewards were great so they would lavish the potential convert with arms and money. The money was usually directed to those in power and they knew well enough to use it to buy influence within their power structures so that when the change was made, the entire leadership would come across. This was the same thing done by the other side in the hope of retaining an ally.

Leaders in Africa were basically turned into patrons of power. They were a conduit of financial influence and it was in the interests of those who served below them to get on the gravy train to show they were loyal to the president. Like their presidents, these leaders used money handed down to buy the loyalty of those below; a system of patronage where people in the power structure within African countries waited around for hand outs. Rather than bringing the real power and influence of a constituency all they brought to the table was an appetite, no more than an open hand held palm up waiting for the benefactor to bestow his generosity. This was like a cancer to the continent since people gained influence not because of their ability but because of their sycophancy. A cadre of yes-men was trained to follow the money, not generate it but to follow it.

In the event that a country was lost to the other side, the losing superpower did not let them go that easily. Over the years they had influence in the lost nation they had cultivated relationships across the political and military spectrum. Since many of these countries were now political or military dictatorships there was a ready supply of deposed politicians or military men who were ready to align themselves with anyone who could credibly promise to get them back in power.

The losing side would determine who among this crop of discards was most needy, who among them was in desperate need of another shot at power. The people identified were provided financial support that they used to buy armaments on the black market. Using their contacts they built armies which turned into insurgencies. The power that just won the country sent more arms and money in an effort to defeat the insurgencies and keep the country as their own.

The African leaders on both sides of the fence came to depend one hundred percent on the hand outs from the super powers as the economies of their countries collapsed around them. The governments lost their tax base and therefore faced a declining ability to meet the needs of the people without additional foreign funds. The leaders of the insurgency, variously described as freedom fighters, rebels, terrorists or bandits, did not have the legitimate authority to raise taxes so they could not deliver services to the people in their territories either. Without the money from the powers, the African leaders were powerless. Africa had become the political playground of the cold war.

Decisions on the amount of money and the level of armaments were made in quiet air conditioned conference rooms thousands of miles away by people who had never and probably would never visit the battlegrounds. Top on their minds was winning the territory, not the livelihoods of the citizens affected so when they saw that they were losing territory they sent more, when they thought that their lapdogs were not demonstrating a high enough level of loyalty they sent less and this went on for years and in some cases decades until one side won. This story was repeated in countries ranging from Mozambique, Angola, Uganda, Somalia, Ethiopia, Chad, Zaire, Sudan and many others.

Africa was robbed of her opportunity to lay the foundation upon which she could build a bright future for her citizens. A leadership that had come to power with the promise of independence and power to the people had instead delivered powerlessness and driven further down the road of dependence. With populations growing at unsustainable rates and economies floundering under the weight of war unrest found fertile ground and dissatisfaction with both sides mounted. Africa now moved backwards and towards the designation of poorest continent on the planet.