As the United States approaches its two-hundredth year of independence, Angola is entering upon its first. Fifteen years after most of Black Africa shed colonial rule, and fourteen after Angolan insurgents shattered the myth of multiracial harmony in Iusophone Africa, a total collapse of Portuguese authority has catapulted Angola to an uncertain nationhood born in chaos and civil war.

In December 1974, Ian Smith, the leader of the white minority regime in Rhodesia, announced for the first time since declaring his country’s independence from Britain in 1965 that his government was willing to begin direct negotiations with the African liberation movements seeking to achieve majority rule in Rhodesia. The prospect of such talks leading to an end to guerrilla fighting in Rhodesia and a termination of the United Nations authorized sanctions against the illegal Smith regime is dimmed by the fact that the Africans demand African rule for Rhodesia in the near future if not immediately, while Smith and his supporters have refused to consider such a development “in his lifetime.” Still the announcement constituted a step forward which few informed observers would have deemed likely even a few weeks before.

Virtually all of the literature concerning the politics of South Africa analyzes the dynamics of that system within the frameworks of racism, authoritarianism, and repression. Yet, strangely, the political institution which is necessarily the bulwark of such a system—the military—has attracted scant attention except in terms of strategy and armaments.

Our understanding of the international political economy of Africa is underdeveloped; we have inadequate data and theories about the development of underdevelopment on the continent. Even the orthodox study of international politics and foreign policy in Africa is largely a recent phenomenon, stimulated by the rise of new states in the last twenty years. This essay, then, can be no more than a review of the field and a lament over its deficiencies. In particular, we are concerned about: i) the relative inattention afforded the impact of international politics on the rate and direction of social change in African states; ii) the need for a new conceptual framework to advance our understanding of the linkage politics between African elites and external interests; and iii) the related growth and international inequalities on the continent. This essay proceeds therefore from a critical review of analyses of the international political economy of Africa to a tentative presentation of a new typology of states and regimes, regions and behavior, in Africa which reflects the importance of those variables on which students of political economy focus.

The concept of Pan-Africanism has been around for a long time in spite of great historical events. Beginning as the nationalist thought of more or less detribalized Africans in the New World during the era of slavery, Pan-Africanism has survived the impact of such developments as the U.S. Civil War and Reconstruction, the post-Reconstruction era, the rise and fall of the Garvey movement, European colonialism in Africa, the Russian and other socialist revolutions of the twentieth century, and the black freedom movements in Africa, the United States, and the Caribbean since 1945.

Twenty-eight African states, over sixty percent of the African group at the United Nations, have voted to condemn Zionism as “a form of racism.” Five African countries opposed the resolution and twelve abstained. People of good will do disagree about the merits of particular Israeli policies. The meaning of Zionism is also a matter of serious debate in Jewish and intercultural circles. But to identify Zionism with racism is nothing less than an act of hostility toward the Jewish people. Sadly, the African states contributed as much as any other regional bloc to the perpetration of this act.