Becoming independent: an objective for which many African nationalists paid with their blood, refusing to be submissive to colonial empires, whose reign was characterized by dehumanizing acts that severely violated human dignity.

More than sixty-six years later, after the wave of independence declarations in sub-Saharan Africa in particular, one question remains relevant: are African countries truly independent?

For Pan-Africanist movements, the answer is clear: "They are not." "They have also conceptualized what they consider to be pseudo independence, through the scholarly concept of neo-colonialism, which translate the state of a continent which, despite the achievement of a supposed internal autonomy of States, following a plethora of sickening paternalistic support, remains under the control and influence of the former colonial empires, now well known as "rich countries".

If this pan-Africanist point of view, can partly be understand by the influence that the Great powers  have always exerted in Africa where they have greatly benefited from highly lucrative contracts, while corruption and the embezzlement of public funds was multiplied, in geographical area whose inhabitants are partly responsible for the slower economic growth of the continent, compared to the rest of the world, it must nevertheless be specified that, this factual point of view, which reflects the reality of a transitional phase which lead to another geostrategic influence, also favours a reasonable complementarity between all nations, in a world where there is no country or sub-regional organization, which is destined to evolve in isolation, because being independent does not mean cutting oneself off from the international scene, or completely severing or cutting ties with historical allies, in a context of globalization and neo-colonialism, which clearly demonstrates that, acquiring independence or the right to exist as a State on the international scene, is the beginning of several other processes of progressive liberation or emancipation.

And this is what the first Cameroonian head of State, Ahmadou Ahidjo, was already aware of. Indeed, for him, the declaration of his country's independence, did not represent a goal fully achieved, but rather the beginning of a new cycle of struggles, that would lead Cameroon in particular, and African States in general, to a more significative autonomy over time. This is why, on the day of Cameroon's declaration of independence, he said this:

It mean that, Cameroon in particular, and African States in general, still had a long way to go, in a world of multiple influences, accentuated today by globalization, which benefits more highly industrialized, and emerging countries of a world where, most current heads of State in Africa, are aware of the fact that, they govern Territories whose populations consume more what they do not produce, because their economies, their armies, and their constant integration into the ongoing technological revolution, are heavily dependent on major economic, military, and technological powers who like "poor countries," operate in a world where the ease with which, under the orders of a head of State, the army of a neighbouring country can enter to another country to sow chaos, lead us to question ourselves about the sovereignty of States. Can we still speak of autonomy or independence, when certain powerful States can give themselves the perverse pleasure of exceeding international sovereignty norms, to satisfy their disproportionate interests?

The current situation of a world entangled in special operations, intimidation parades, and the impetuous nature of an influence diplomacy exercised particularly on economic, technological and military levels among others, clearly demonstrates that, international relations are a matter of power dynamics, especially between the great powers themselves, but also between some of these great powers and others which also have the means to resist for as long as possible, to show their enemies and the rest of the world, that they do not intend to resign themselves to accepting just anything, because contrary to what some "aggressor States" want to make people believe, they are independent countries, as clearly stipulated in Article 2 of the Charter of the United Nations, from paragraphs 1 to 4:

These are principles of law that many powers choose to disregard, firstly, when they are obsessed by a chaotic thirst for expansion, and secondly, when they realize that, their particular interests, as well as their own sovereignty, are threatened because, according to the information they possess or may possess, the other party have a real intentions to harm them. Hence the resurgence of acts of intimidation that culminate in successive strikes which reflect the hostility of the relations that prevail between States that possess means of pressure and intimidation, that are not limited to words as actions, but also manifest themselves in offensives and counter-offensives.

When after several warnings, the United States of America for example, made the chose to bomb Iranian nuclear sites on the night of June 21-22, 2025, in addition to the targeted assassination of the former Supreme Leader on February 28, 2026, it was because the current American president, like his ally and Israeli prime minister, considered that, an Iranian attack was about to happen.

And to show that they also have the means to not let themselves be intimidated by anyone, Iran chose to launch missiles at American bases in the Middle East, despite warnings from States such as Qatar and Saudi Arabia among others, who did not want missiles flying over their Territories. The same is true for the actions and reactions between the State of Israel and Iran. Every attack triggers causes counter-offensives, because these historical enemies, have given themselves the means to pursue something which requires enormous resources and strategic allies to achieve well-defined objectives.

Far away in Eastern Europe, when Russia chose to attack Ukraine, she was motivated by its military might or capacity. She believed that the word of warning from other influential members of the international community would only remain at the level of simple declarations. She believed that she could exert his influence in a few days, and in complete tranquillity, over a Territory militarily inferior to his own.

But unfortunately, for the great and beautiful Russia of President Putin, from the day of the invasion of Ukraine up to now, we have more than five years, because European States and the United States, do not want to let Russia win that war.

This situation, which characterizes the world in which we live, clearly reflects the fact that, respect and defence of a State's sovereignty, depends largely on the support, and the strategic point of view of major powers that possess a significant operational strike force, as well as means of economic and criminal sanctions, unlike middle-income countries and other developing countries, which can only take advantage of votes organized by the United Nations General Assembly to express their outrage at what is happening, particularly in Ukraine.

A vote during which, several African countries made the choice of abstention, not because they condone what is happening in Ukraine, but because they believe that, the fact of choosing one side or another, could bring to them, more harm than good. Indeed, despite the fact of not encouraging the calamity currently unfolding in Eastern Europe, they prefer to maintain privileged relationships with all the major powers, through multilateral and bilateral agreements, which allow them to avoid compromising the quality of their relations, with States they consider as strategic allies whose severing or breaking of relations, could have enormous consequences not only on their economies, but also in military and technological fields, among others, because the development of African countries depends largely on foreign aid in all areas. Indeed, if South Africa has had to file a complaint against Russia, for the disaster she created in Ukraine, it is because she knows that, she has the means to develop independently of Russia in all areas.

And even if this act should not be compared with the Rwandan reaction on the issue of American sanctions which, according to Kigali, are deterrent measures not based on any justified facts, it must nevertheless be said that, if Rwanda does not want to fully assume its share of responsibility in the war currently taking place in the Democratic Republic of Congo, she demonstrates by this malicious reaction on the issue of American sanctions that, she is willing to play the game of dishonesty with a great power whose current administration, will not hesitate to change his decision, when a good contract will be offered to him, following satisfactory peace talks, which will produce nothing in the ground, because of the lack of sincerity of those who know that, they have a means of influence in the East of Democratic Republic of Congo.

But the actions of the South African head of State on the one hand, and the choice of playing the Rwandan game of deception on the other hand, are actions that not all sub-Saharan African countries can afford, because they need all possible sources of funding or opportunities, in order to allow a better life for their populations. Indeed, the influence of major powers on smaller ones is such that, when these major powers are at war, smaller States are very often forced to retreat into their shells, so as not to pay the price of a special operation that does not concern them, even though, when the sovereignty of a State is threatened, all States should feel concerned and express an indignation, that a good majority of African countries prefer to demonstrate more, within the framework of the United Nations General Assembly, because if some of them choose to vote in favour of sanctions against Russia, they know that, they have the possibility to continue their relation of friendship in all level, with other major powers. And the choice is even more strategic for those States that choose abstention. In addition to be sure to continue business with others great powers if they vote for sanctions against Russia, they prefer to demonstrate their neutrality, by choosing abstention, because it allows them to maintain "friendly relations" with all the major powers, in order to preserve a set of vital interests.

And that is also why, we should not blame them when they refrain from taking sides in a war. Rather, we should be outraged that, they belong to a devious or deceitful system riddled with hypocrisy and egocentrism, that holds them in its grip, because it conditions a freedom of action that remains silent, when it realizes that, many Africans have died on the front lines fighting against their will for a major power, which has used trickery to lure them on its Territory, in order to dispose of their lives as she sees fit. And even if, here again, the flexible diplomacy adopted by several African States is a consequence of the influence and control that these major powers have over them, it must be specified once again that, these flexible reactions aim to consolidate relations with a partner that can contribute to the well-being of populations at the local level, through profitable projects, and other visa grants and loans of extreme importance to some, if not all, African countries.

This means that, if some other major powers opposed to Russian actions in Ukraine can freely and openly express their indignation at such actions, as can some civil society actors in Africa and other non-governmental organizations, whether banned or not in Russia, African countries, and in particular some of their leaders, reserve to themselves the right to support sanctions against the invasion of Ukraine, because they belong to a very small community that cannot resolve a conflict or a war between superpowers capable to find by themselves, a satisfactory solution to this disaster caused by Russia in Ukraine. Furthermore, when developing countries experience what we prefer to call periods of internal turmoil, the major powers always order them to immediately put an end to the situation. But the opposite is not possible. State or community of lesser importance in the eyes of these superpowers, are not able to stop wars that great powers can resolve by themselves. It is also important to noticed that, in an international context where certain major powers want to lead Africans, and in particular the populations of the poorest countries, to divide themselves further, in order to better exert their influence and control over these countries, it must be said that, it is by remaining united, and by finding ways and means to remain together despite everything, that Africa will be able to more impose she’s sovereignty which is very often threatened by major powers that exert a totally strategic influence and control over them.

English|French

Internationals relation

The new world order and the place of Africa in the concert of nations or the palaver tree of all the countries of the world

Politics

Electoral fraud in Africa and around the world: Between lies and means of intimidations, there is the reality of the facts

Land Use Planning

Public health measures and community involvement in Cameroon

Africa and Greats Powers Politics