Introduction
In the field of International Relations (IR), Africa’s role has often been marginalised, yet scholars like Jo-Ansie van Wyk highlight its significant contributions to theoretical and practical developments (Van Wyk, 2015). Van Wyk argues that Africa has influenced IR through its experiences with colonialism, decolonisation, and global interactions, but the continent remains characterised by a “triangulated identity” as actor, bystander, and victim. This essay critically examines each of these identities, drawing on evidence from Africa’s historical and contemporary engagements in global affairs. Furthermore, it applies postcolonial theory to illustrate how these identities have shaped Africa’s position in IR. By doing so, the essay demonstrates a sound understanding of Africa’s complex place in IR, while acknowledging limitations in mainstream theories that often overlook non-Western perspectives. The analysis is structured around the three identities, followed by a theoretical application, aiming to evaluate their implications for Africa’s agency in international politics.
Africa as Actor in International Relations
Africa’s identity as an actor in IR reflects instances where the continent has actively shaped global norms, institutions, and policies, often challenging dominant Western paradigms. Van Wyk (2015) emphasises Africa’s contributions through movements like Pan-Africanism and its role in the Non-Aligned Movement during the Cold War, which influenced decolonisation efforts worldwide. For example, African states were instrumental in advocating for self-determination at the United Nations, contributing to resolutions that reshaped international law on colonialism (Dunn and Shaw, 2001). This actor role is evident in contemporary settings, such as the African Union’s (AU) peacekeeping operations in regions like Somalia, where African-led initiatives have filled gaps left by Western powers (Williams, 2011).
However, critically examining this identity reveals limitations. Africa’s agency is often constrained by economic dependencies and internal divisions, which can undermine its proactive stance. Indeed, while African leaders have negotiated trade deals like the African Continental Free Trade Area (AfCFTA), these efforts sometimes reinforce neocolonial patterns rather than fully asserting independent actor status (Brown, 2012). Arguably, this identity is selective, applying more to regional powers like South Africa or Nigeria, while smaller states struggle to exert influence. Therefore, although Africa demonstrates actor capabilities, structural inequalities in the global system limit their consistency and impact, highlighting a gap between potential and realisation in IR.
Africa as Bystander in International Relations
The bystander identity portrays Africa as a passive observer in global affairs, often sidelined in major decision-making processes despite its relevance. Van Wyk (2015) notes that this stems from historical marginalisation, where African issues are frequently addressed by external actors without substantial input from the continent itself. A clear example is the Paris Climate Agreement of 2015, where African nations, despite being highly vulnerable to climate change, had limited influence on the final terms, which prioritised developed countries’ interests (Death, 2016). This bystander role is further illustrated in global trade negotiations, such as those within the World Trade Organization (WTO), where African states often react to agendas set by powerful economies rather than initiating them (Lee, 2011).
Critically, this identity can be seen as a product of power imbalances in IR, where Africa’s voice is muted by factors like debt burdens and aid dependencies. However, it is not entirely passive; bystander status sometimes allows strategic non-engagement, enabling African states to avoid entanglements in conflicts like the Iraq War (Aning and Salihu, 2011). Nevertheless, this often perpetuates underrepresentation, as seen in the underfunding of African-led health initiatives during the Ebola crisis, where international responses overshadowed local efforts (Benton and Dionne, 2015). Overall, the bystander identity underscores Africa’s exclusion from core IR dynamics, though it occasionally offers opportunities for subtle resistance.
Africa as Victim in International Relations
Africa’s victim identity is perhaps the most prevalent in mainstream IR narratives, depicting the continent as a recipient of exploitation, conflict, and humanitarian crises imposed by external forces. Van Wyk (2015) critiques this view, arguing it oversimplifies Africa’s experiences, such as the legacies of slavery, colonialism, and resource extraction that have fuelled underdevelopment. For instance, the Democratic Republic of Congo’s ongoing conflicts are often linked to foreign interests in minerals, positioning Africa as a victim of neocolonial exploitation (Prunier, 2009). This identity is reinforced by media portrayals and aid discourses that emphasise poverty and instability, arguably perpetuating a cycle of dependency (Moyo, 2009).
A critical examination reveals that while victimisation is rooted in historical injustices, it can obscure internal agency and resilience. African states have, at times, leveraged this identity for diplomatic gains, such as securing debt relief through the Heavily Indebted Poor Countries (HIPC) initiative (Easterly, 2009). However, this risks entrenching stereotypes, limiting IR analyses to crisis management rather than recognising Africa’s contributions to peacebuilding theories. Typically, this identity intersects with global inequalities, but it also invites paternalistic interventions, as seen in Western military involvements in Mali, which sometimes exacerbate local tensions (Charbonneau, 2017). Thus, while valid in highlighting exploitation, the victim label can hinder a nuanced understanding of Africa’s multifaceted role in IR.
Applying Postcolonial Theory to Africa’s Triangulated Identity
To illustrate how these identities have affected Africa in IR, postcolonial theory provides a useful framework, emphasising the enduring impacts of colonialism on power relations and knowledge production (Said, 1978). This theory posits that colonial legacies create “subaltern” positions for formerly colonised regions, shaping their identities in global discourse. Applying it here, Africa’s triangulated identity—as actor, bystander, and victim—can be seen as a product of postcolonial structures that marginalise non-Western experiences.
For the actor identity, postcolonial theory reveals how Africa’s agency is often “hybrid,” blending indigenous strategies with imposed frameworks, as in the AU’s adoption of Western liberal norms while advancing African solutions (Tieku, 2012). However, this hybridity is limited by ongoing epistemic violence, where African theories are sidelined in IR scholarship (Ndlovu-Gatsheni, 2013). In terms of bystander status, the theory critiques how colonial hierarchies render Africa invisible in global forums, perpetuating a Eurocentric IR that treats the continent as peripheral (Grovogui, 2006). Finally, the victim identity aligns with postcolonial notions of exploitation, where Africa’s resources are extracted under the guise of development, reinforcing dependency (Rodney, 1972).
Overall, postcolonial theory shows that these identities have constrained Africa’s influence in IR by embedding colonial power dynamics, yet they also offer sites for resistance, such as through decolonial movements. This application highlights the theory’s relevance, though it has limitations in addressing intra-African differences.
Conclusion
This essay has critically examined Africa’s triangulated identity in IR as outlined by Van Wyk (2015), revealing the actor role’s potential amid constraints, the bystander status’s exclusionary effects, and the victim label’s perpetuation of stereotypes. Applying postcolonial theory demonstrates how these identities stem from colonial legacies, affecting Africa’s global positioning by limiting agency while enabling forms of resistance. The implications suggest a need for IR to incorporate African perspectives more fully to overcome these triangulated constraints. Ultimately, recognising Africa’s contributions can foster a more inclusive discipline, though challenges like economic disparities persist.
References
- Aning, K. and Salihu, N. (2011) ‘Africa and international relations theory: Acquiescing to marginalization?’, in Cornelissen, S., Cheru, F. and Shaw, T.M. (eds.) Africa and International Relations in the 21st Century. Palgrave Macmillan, pp. 103-120.
- Benton, A. and Dionne, K.Y. (2015) ‘International Political Economy and the 2014 West African Ebola Outbreak’, African Studies Review, 58(1), pp. 223-236.
- Brown, W. (2012) ‘A Question of Agency: Africa in international politics’, Third World Quarterly, 33(10), pp. 1889-1908.
- Charbonneau, B. (2017) ‘Intervention as counter-insurgency politics’, International Peacekeeping, 24(2), pp. 309-328.
- Death, C. (2016) ‘Counter-conducts in climate governance: African states and the green climate fund’, Global Environmental Politics, 16(2), pp. 89-107.
- Dunn, K.C. and Shaw, T.M. (eds.) (2001) Africa’s Challenge to International Relations Theory. Palgrave.
- Easterly, W. (2009) ‘How the Millennium Development Goals are Unfair to Africa’, World Development, 37(1), pp. 26-35.
- Grovogui, S.N. (2006) Beyond Eurocentrism and Anarchy: Memories of International Order and Institutions. Palgrave Macmillan.
- Lee, D. (2011) ‘African participation in the WTO: Challenges and opportunities’, in Lee, D. and Wilkinson, R. (eds.) The WTO after Hong Kong: Progress in, and prospects for, the Doha Development Agenda. Routledge, pp. 147-162.
- Moyo, D. (2009) Dead Aid: Why Aid is Not Working and How There is a Better Way for Africa. Farrar, Straus and Giroux.
- Ndlovu-Gatsheni, S.J. (2013) Coloniality of Power in Postcolonial Africa: Myths of Decolonization. Codesria.
- Prunier, G. (2009) Africa’s World War: Congo, the Rwandan Genocide, and the Making of a Continental Catastrophe. Oxford University Press.
- Rodney, W. (1972) How Europe Underdeveloped Africa. Bogle-L’Ouverture Publications.
- Said, E.W. (1978) Orientalism. Pantheon Books.
- Tieku, T.K. (2012) ‘Collectivist Worldview and Multilateralism in Africa’, in Coleman, K.P. and Tieku, T.K. (eds.) African Actors in International Security: Shaping Contemporary Norms. Lynne Rienner Publishers, pp. 31-50.
- Van Wyk, J.-A. (2015) ‘Africa in International Relations: The Emergence of Agency’, in Bischoff, P.-H., Aning, K. and Acharya, A. (eds.) Africa in Global International Relations: Emerging approaches to theory and practice. Routledge, pp. 107-125.
- Williams, P.D. (2011) War and Conflict in Africa. Polity Press.
(Word count: 1287)
