Journalists’ Contest : « Great Personalities in the History of Russian-African Relations ».

Published on the RusAfromedia website (https://rusafromedia.ru/) and www.afrocentricity.info

Dr. Yves Ekoué AMAÏZO

Director of Afrocentricity Think Tank

20 May 2024

yeamaizo@afrocentricity.info

1. INTRODUCTION : DEFINING GREAT PERSONALITIES

« Great Personalities” in the history of Russian-African relations has been redefined as known and unknown personalities in the recent or less recent history of Russian-African interdependent relations. It is a mix of a deep understanding of Russian-African historical relations in all key areas. Interactions, cooperation, and partnership^[1] are required in political, economic, scientific, technical, social, cultural, environmental and humanitarian sectors. Depending on the “great personalities” and their teams, those identified areas have a significant potential for trust building and effective achievements.

The dynamic of Russia and Africa’s interdependencies, the highlighting of selected known and unknown personalities in the Russia-Africa history, and the strategic shift towards a closer partnership between Russia and Africa require the deepening of mutual consensus and a proactive approach for inclusive people’s partnerships. As a result, the shifting of western influence in Africa and in the World could be speed up with alternatives personalities with ethic. Reference to values could make the difference and enhance dramatically interdependencies between peoples of Russia and Africa.

2. RUSSIA AND AFRICA DYNAMIC INTERDEPENDENCIES

Not only “Great personalities” should be highlighted in the History of Russian-African Relations. In fact, the wording “relations” is inadequate to reflect the diversity of interactions and interdependence between four main categories of issues between Russian and African people, including decision-makers. Known and unknown personalities should be considered as great personalities in the History of Russian-African Partnerships. It is suggested to classified them in five forms of interrelated issues:

• Interactions between government officials and interdependence between security and secret services officials ;


• Interconnection between private and individual human beings as part of an international migration process^[2] with the objective of escaping the oppression of black people and the destruction of the black civilization ;


• Partnership with non-post-colonial and non-hypocritical military and economic powers to support the fight for individual and collective sovereignty of citizens or States ; and


• Putting an end to the weight and responsibility of selected Western and African leaders in the unpaid exploitation of the African continent;


• Stopping the violation of the self-determination of the Black people, individually or collectively, to decide their own future.

Africans and Metis in Russia have gone through all these stages, during the four major periods of political governance: the Tsarist empire, the communist period under the Soviet Union, the transition period with perestroika and the Russian Federation.

The crystallization of a consensus between Russia and African states conscious of their sovereignty has been built up over eight main historical periods:

• 
  
  
  
  1. Before 1884-1885. During the 1880s, Europe’s colonial and imperial ambitions in Africa intensified to the point of creating tensions and conflicts between the various western powers. It became urgent to sign treaties to secure their stolen properties on the back of the African people. On the initiative of Chancellor Otto von Bismarck, the following countries were invited to the Berlin Conference on the division of Africa: Austria-Hungary, Belgium, Denmark, the Ottoman Empire, France, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands, Portugal, Russia, Spain, Sweden-Norway, the United Kingdom, and the United States. The main purpose of the Berlin Conference, held between 15 November 1884 and 26 February 1885, was for ‘white Europeans’ to establish official rules for colonization and Western imperialism. Did the officials’ representatives of Russian Empire sign the official colonization rules and the asymmetric trade relations with Africa laid down at the time of the division of Africa in Berlin in 1884-1885? The answer is no! From that day and onwards, Russia’s entire strategy for dealing with the African continent stems from this strategic decision.
  
  
  2. Between 1885-1917. The First World War (1914-1918) exacerbated the fragility of Russia. The defeat of the Russian Empire, an autocratic monarchy, precipitated the disintegration of the imperial regime. Before 1917, Tsarism was swept away by organized and spontaneous movements of intellectuals and the Russian people^[3]. The consequences in Africa have mainly been the redrawing of colonial borders without the Africans, the annexation of African territories for the winners of the first world war and, above all, the intensification of the division of populations organized in a homogenous way around spaces, governance values, languages, and the principle of a peaceful living together. But also, an alternative way of positioning Africa in the international arena.
  
  
  3. Between 1917-1944. The end of the Russian Empire in 1917 brought an end to the autocratic monarchy and the tsarism.
  
  
  4. Between 1944-1960. The post-Second World War period (1939-1944) between Western countries, which involved large parts of the world and altered the balance of power, colonial possessions, and control within the United Nations Security Council of the Western countries, considered today to be the Global North.
  
  
  5. Between 1956-1989. The Bandung Conference, held in Bandung, Indonesia from 18 to 24 April 1955 brought together for the first-time Official decision-makers from twenty-nine African and Asian countries, newly decolonized or in the process of decolonization. The official position of the Group was to reject the unilateralism alternative of the cold war forcing new countries to align or join the two opposing blocs, led by the United States of America (USA) and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR), known as the Soviet Union. This group known as the Third World adopted an independent position based on the “non-alignment.” Later, and during the decolonization process, several countries in Africa experienced their first independencies in the 1960s, often obtained under legal arrangements with often a facility secret arrangement with forced preferential arrangements such as military, monetary, financial, economic, and trading). Those under the table arrangements enabled the colonial powers or their allies to maintain themselves with the support of African local traitors.
  
  
  6. Between 1989 and 2009. On 9 November 1989, the fall of the Berlin Wall resulted in the end of the Cold War and reshapes the power relations in a world undergoing accelerated changes. It is the end of unilateralism and the emergence of a multipolar world. It is in this context that the ‘non-aligned’ countries with NATO, created in 1949, have been able to organize themselves collectively and to ensure their self-protection and security for their people. The creation of the Group of <acronym title="Brésil, Russie, Inde, Chine, Afrique du Sud">BRICS</acronym> (Brazil, Russia, India, China, and South Africa) on 16 June 2009 resulted in the strengthening of a multipolar world in terms of the balance of power.
  
  
  7. Between 2009 and 2022. On 24 February 2022, Russia launched a military and special operation in Ukraine NATO-Russia proxy war, which started more than 10 years ago. It is not possible to ascertain from secret defense agreements whether there was any legal arrangement prohibiting NATO from expanding eastwards and at the time of German reunification, that NATO would not expand beyond East Germany. The non-compliance of NATO agreements may have led to the annexing of Crimea. Nonetheless, the questioning of NATO and, beyond that, of the positions of the countries of the global North, which defend only their own interests at the expense of the countries with which they have asymmetrical trade, has raised aw