On March 20, Russian president Vladimir Putin met with Chinese president Xi Jinping in Moscow. The meeting, at which the two leaders “reaffirm[ed] the special nature of the Russia-China partnership,” may be a crucial moment in the emergence of the new multipolar world that is challenging U.S. hegemony.

But while the United States and its European partners watched and worried about the meeting with Xi, Putin was busy shuttling between that meeting and a conference where representatives from more than forty African countries attended. The conference was called Russia-Africa in a Multipolar World.

The African response to the war in Ukraine surprised the United States. The well-attended conference demonstrated that African countries were not abandoning Russia despite the war. Not one country in Africa has joined the U.S.-led sanctions on Russia and the dominant stance of the continent has been neutrality. The United States expected strong support from Africa and strong condemnation of Russia. Instead, it saw neutrality from most, a lack of condemnation of Russia from many, and the blame being placed on the United States and NATO by several.

At the conference in Moscow, Putin was warmly greeted by the delegates. Putin called the conference “important in the context of the continued development of Russia’s multifaceted cooperation with the countries of the African continent” and said, “[t]he partnership between Russia and African countries has gained additional momentum and is reaching a whole new level.” He promised that Russia “has always and will always consider cooperation with African states a priority.” The tone was very different from what Africa hears from the United States and Europe. The effect has been very different too.

The representatives of many of the African countries attending the conference on Russia and Africa in a multipolar world joined Putin in the call for that new world. The representatives from South Africa and the Congo said their countries support a multipolar world, as did the representatives from Benin, Burkina Faso, Guinea, Guinea-Bissau, Zimbabwe, Mali, and more.

“To the surprise of the United States,” Alden Young, professor of African-American Studies at UCLA, told me, “Putin finds a receptive audience when he talks of multipolarity in Africa.” He says that the idea “resonates independently of Russia.” African countries realize that U.S. hegemony can be just as easily weaponized against them. 

There is a deep dissatisfaction with unipolarity in Africa. Young says that African states feel “marginalized” and that they are “frustrated with their inability to have a larger voice in international organizations.” As South Africa has seen with the Russian and Chinese-led BRICS, perhaps the only important international organization in which an African country has an equal voice, multipolarity offers an alternative. 

The Russia-Africa in a Multipolar World conference was a preparation for the second Russia-Africa Summit to be held in Russia in July. Olayinka Ajala, senior lecturer in politics and international relations at Leeds Beckett University, told me that “the main focus of Russia and China at the moment is to get African countries to support the proposed BRICS currency and this will be a major topic in the upcoming conference.” He added, “With a population of over 1.2 billion, if Russia and China are able to convince African countries on the need to ditch the dollar, it will be a huge blow to the United States.” Liberation from the hegemony of the U.S. dollar is a mechanism for the liberation from U.S. hegemony in a unipolar world.

Russia’s new foreign policy concept, released in March, promises that Russia “stands in solidarity with Africa in its desire to occupy a more prominent place in the world and eliminate inequality caused by the ‘neo-colonial policies of some developed states.’ Moscow is ready to support the sovereignty and independence of African nations, including through security assistance as well as trade and investments.”

“Russia,” Young says, “has its finger on the pulse and is responding to demands that are popular in the vast majority of the world. The Biden administration was out of touch: they thought these weren’t grievances.”

Africa’s answer of neutrality is not the continent declining to take a position. It is the powerful new stance that you do not have to choose a side in a world where you can partner with many poles, in a world where you don’t have to fall in behind the United States in a unipolar world or choose between blocs in a new Cold War.

The United States exerted intense pressure on Africa to support U.S.-led sanctions. The U.S. ambassador to the UN, Linda Thomas-Greenfield, told African countries that “if a country decides to engage with Russia, where there are sanctions, then they are breaking those sanctions.” She warned them that if they do break those sanctions, “They stand the chance of having actions taken against them.” Nonetheless, not one African country has sanctioned Russia. Her threat had the opposite effect, Ajala told me: It “has done nothing but strengthen the resolve of African countries to remain defiant in their position.”

Ajala reports that South African president Cyril Ramaphosa has said that “his country has been pressured to take a ‘very adversarial stance against Russia.’” Ramaphosa not only repelled that pressure and insisted, instead, on negotiations, but blamed the United States and NATO. He told the South African parliament that, “The war could have been avoided if NATO had heeded the warnings from amongst its own leaders and officials over the years that its eastward expansion would lead to greater, not less, instability in the region.”

In July 2022, U.S. secretary of state Antony Blinken traveled to South Africa to warn Pretoria away from cooperating with Russia and to win U.S. support. It did not go well. In September 2022, President Joe Biden met with Ramaphosa in an attempt to persuade the country seen as leading African neutrality and the refusal to condemn Russia. That did not go any better. South Africa has rejected joining U.S.-led sanctions on Russia and has abstained from voting against Russia at the United Nations. On January 23, Russian foreign minister Sergey Lavrov arrived in South Africa for talks aimed at strengthening their relationship. In February, South Africa, ignoring criticism from the United States and the EU, held joint military training exercises with Russia and China of its coast. Ajala says that navy exercise “has been of concern to Western countries, especially the United States.” The South African National Defense Force said that the drills are a “means to strengthen the already flourishing relations between South Africa, Russia and China.”

Along with Russia, China, India, and Brazil, South Africa is a member of BRICS, an international organization intended to balance U.S. hegemony and advance a multipolar world. Egypt, Nigeria, and Senegal were recently welcomed as guests at the BRICS foreign ministers’ meeting. 

On June 3, 2022, Senegal’s president, Macky Sall, was accompanied by African Union Commission chair Moussa Faki Mahamat on a trip to Moscow. This defiance of Western isolation of Russia was especially worrisome for Washington and the West because Macky Sall is not only the president of Senegal but was, at the time, the chairman of the African Union. According to Ajala, Washington and the West have wondered whether Sall’s stance should be interpreted as representing the stance of Africa as a whole.

There are many reasons for Africa’s predominantly neutral stance and defense of a multipolar world. Not least is that Africa finds it hard to buy into America’s message of Russia as the historical villain who dismisses international law and disrespects other countries’ sovereignty while America is the hero who protects them. 

In April, South African foreign minister Naledi Pandor complained that “This notion of international rules is very comfortable for some people to use when it suits them, but they don’t believe in international rules when it doesn’t suit them ... If you believe in international law truly, then whenever sovereignty is infringed, it must apply … We use the framework of international law unequally depending on who is affected.”

Africa remembers colonialism and neocolonialism; Africa remembers U.S. coups, as Zambia’s opposition leader just reminded the United States.

Putin reminded his audience at the conference that “Ever since the African peoples’ heroic struggle for independence, it has been common knowledge that the Soviet Union provided significant support to the peoples of Africa in their fight against colonialism, racism and apartheid.” He then provided the update that “Today, the Russian Federation continues its policy of providing the continent with support and assistance.”

His receptive audience agreed. A representative from South Africa remembered that “Russia has no colonial heritage in Africa and no African country sees Russia as an enemy. On the contrary, you helped us in our liberation, you are a reliable partner.” A representative from the Republic of Congo remembered that “Relations between Russia and Africa became special during the period of struggle for independence, when the Soviet Union was the main force supporting the national liberation movements. Thus, the USSR became the defender of the oppressed. Then it was the USSR, and now it is Russia taking a special place among the friends of Congo in difficult times.” A representative from Namibia said that his country would always be grateful to Russia and appreciate its support.

Speaking a month before the conference, Ugandan foreign minister Jeje Odongo pointed out that “We were colonized, and we forgave those who colonized us. Now the colonizers are asking us to be enemies of Russia, who never colonized us. Is that fair? Not for us. Their enemies are their enemies. Our friends are our friends.”

There is a long-remembered history of American and European colonialism. In March, during a joint press conference, Democratic Republic of Congo president Felix Tshisekedi found it necessary to scold French president Emmanuel Macron, telling him, “This must change, the way Europe and France treat us, you must begin to respect us and see Africa in a different way. You have to stop treating us and talking to us in a paternalistic tone. As if you were already absolutely right and we were not.”

In a reversal of the official narrative, in Africa, with its history of colonialism, it is not hard to see the United States and Europe as the villain and Russia as the hero.

And, as blatant colonialism has been replaced by subtle neocolonialism, nothing has changed. Neocolonialism is colonialism imposed without formal rule. It is colonialism carried out, not by controlling a country’s territory, but by controlling its economy. In 1965, Ghana’s President Kwame Nkrumah said that “neo-colonialism is the worst form of imperialism.” He explained that “foreign capital is used for the exploitation, rather than for the development of the less developed parts of the world.” A few months later, Nkrumah was taken out in a U.S.-backed military coup.

An International Monetary Fund senior economist who designed structural adjustment programs in Africa would later confess that “everything we did from 1983 onward was based on our new sense of mission to have the south ‘privatize’ or die; towards this end we ignominiously created economic bedlam in Latin America and Africa. . . .”

Nkrumah’s coup was nothing new. Africans also remember the coup in the Congo in which Patrice Lumumba was assassinated. As colonialism gave way to neocolonialism, coups gave way to contemporary coups. According to Nick Turse, since 2008, U.S.-trained officers have attempted at least nine coups in West Africa.

There are a number of other contemporary motivations for African neutrality. The most important is the support for a multipolar world. But many African countries also see the war in Ukraine as yet another cold war proxy war between NATO and Russia in which entanglement brings no benefit. Africa believes that, “while there are global implications, it’s primarily a Western problem,” Mvemba Dizolele, director of the Africa program at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, told The Washington Post. “Africans are used to being told when they have problems, they should find an African solution to their problem,” he said. “That’s part of the mind-set: Why is it that your problem has to be the entire world’s problem?”

Alden Young agrees. He told me that African countries have long felt neglected in U.S.-African relations. He said that Africa feels that the United States “only worries about Africa when it is important to other issues. Not Africa on its own terms.”

A senior official in the Biden administration told The Washington Post that “African leaders have made clear to White House and administration officials that they simply want an end to the war,” and they disagree with the United States and “oppose the idea of punishing Russia or insisting that Kyiv must agree to any resolution.”

Despite Washington’s reluctance to push for or endorse negotiations, in May, Ramaphosa announced that he had held phone calls with Putin and Ukrainian president Volodymyr Zelenskyy who both agreed to separately receive a delegation of African heads of state to discuss a possible peace plan to end the war. Joining South Africa in the delegation will be Senegal, Uganda, Egypt, the Republic of the Congo, and Zambia.

There is also the matter of military ties. Several African countries are reliant on Russia for their weapons.

Though the mainstream media often stresses the military motivation, it is but one of many motivations. In addition to multipolarity, colonialism, and coups, the unattractiveness of involvement in a proxy war and military ties, there are a number of other contributing motivations.

Many African countries enjoy growing economic relations with Russia. “What is particularly striking,” according to Ajala, “is the position held by Russia to give support to African countries without interfering in local politics.” Young also points to the “transactional nature of Western help.” The Russian approach is very different from the West’s policy of dictating ideological alignment or economic or political structural adjustments that “privatized” the South and “created economic bedlam” in Africa. Young says “the veil that the United States does it better has collapsed.”

African countries have also complained of discrimination and neglect by the West. COVID didn’t help. While wealthy Western nations sat on their vaccine stocks or disposed of unused, expired vaccines, neglected African countries, who thought they could count on the West, turned to China and Russia. Putin reminded the Russia-Africa conference that “[d]uring the coronavirus pandemic, Russia was among the first countries to provide African states with large volumes of vaccines, test kits, personal protective equipment, and other medical and humanitarian cargoes.” Ajala says that the “perceived lack of support from the West during the pandemic further pushed African countries away from their traditional Western allies.” Africans tire, Young told me, of the United States wanting Africa to rally behind them when they didn’t help Africa on other issues.

With the onset of the war in Ukraine, Africa was again reminded of the discrimination. The continent was critical of the discriminatory treatment of Africans when it came to evacuation and safety. “Africans trying to escape Ukraine were being racially discriminated against,” Euronews reported. Africans were prevented from boarding buses and trains and experienced physical abuse. The International Journal of Public Health reports that the average time for people of color to cross borders is longer compared to Ukrainians. Once across the border they “find it more difficult to find temporary housing and assistance in European countries.” It also points out that European countries were “welcoming White Ukrainian refugees without hesitation” while “historically blocking entry to refugees of color from varying countries.”

The UN Human Rights Office of the High Commissioner noted “with serious concern” the reports of officials preventing Africans from crossing the Ukrainian border, denying Africans entry to busses and trains “until all white migrants and asylum seekers have been accommodated,” and denying “entry for people of African descent into some neighboring countries.” Several African countries condemned the discriminatory treatment, and the African Union and the African Union Commission issued a statement saying that they “are particularly disturbed” by the discriminatory treatment and that “Reports that Africans are singled out for unacceptable dissimilar treatment would be shockingly racist and in breach international law.”

The war in Ukraine has forced African countries to complain, not only of discrimination, but of neglect. Several African countries are dependent on Russia and Ukraine for wheat and fertilizer. The war has threatened their food security. So, they were greatly relieved by the deal signed in Istanbul by Russia and Ukraine to permit the safe export of grain from Ukrainian ports. But, as Putin reminded the delegates at the Moscow conference, “about 45 percent of the total volume of grain exported from Ukraine went to European countries, and only three percent went to Africa ... despite the fact that this whole deal was presented under the pretext of ensuring the interests of African countries.”

According to the UN, as of the earlier date of July 2022, 36 percent had gone to European countries and 17 percent had reached Africa. Though a little better than Putin’s statistics, the difference is unlikely to impress Africans. At that time, only a very small amount of food specifically shipped under the World Food Program had reached Africa. Reuters reported on March 20 that “the main destinations for grain shipped under the deal have been China, Spain and Turkey.”

Putin contrasted the West’s treatment of Africa with the “almost 12 million tonnes [of grain] ... sent from Russia to Africa.” In November 2022, Russia agreed to send grain to some African countries for free. Ajala says Russia’s willingness to donate grain to Africa “can perhaps be seen as highlighting the desirability of a neutral stance towards the war in Ukraine.” Putin promised African countries at the conference that if the grain deal is not extended, “Russia will be ready to supply the same amount that was delivered under the deal, from Russia to the African countries in great need, at no expense.”

This neglect and discrimination, together with aid and support, economic partnership free of ideological dictates, military ties, and a continuing history of colonialism and coups have encouraged much of Africa to withhold support for U.S.-led sanctions and condemnation of Russia. To the surprise and concern of the United States and Europe, the predominant response of Africa to the war in Ukraine has been neutrality and growing support for a multipolar world.

Ted Snider is a regular columnist on US foreign policy and history at Antiwar.com and The Libertarian Institute. He is also a frequent contributor to Responsible Statecraft and The American Conservative as well as other outlets.

Image: Shutterstock.