President Putin's authoritarian allies in Africa have given their quiet support to Russia's invasion of Ukraine at the United Nations.
Led by heavy diplomacy from the Western bloc, 141 nations passed a resolution on Wednesday at the United Nations General Assembly deploring Russia's “aggression against Ukraine”.
The resolution called for Russia to “immediately, completely and unconditionally withdraw all of its military forces from the territory of Ukraine within its internationally recognised borders”.
Only four countries came out in support of Russia: North Korea, Belarus, Syria and Eritrea. It is hardly surprising that the world's dictatorial pariah states voted with Mr Putin – a sign of how far he has fallen internationally. What is more interesting is the list of countries that chose not to take a stance.
Thirty-five members abstained from the vote. Predictably China and India, which both have strong ties with Moscow through the collection of BRICS (Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa) nations, did not vote. But half of the abstentions came from Africa.
The continent's 54 nations know more about the horrors and long-lasting crippling effects of colonisation than most. And so, anyone unfamiliar with African geopolitics would be forgiven for wondering why 17 countries refused to condemn Russia's imperial ambitions in Ukraine. Another seven African countries refused to vote at all.
Many have fully rejected the invasion. Both the African Union and ECOWAS, West Africa's regional bloc, condemned the aggression on a regional level, as did all three of Africa's representatives – Kenya, Gabon and Ghana – on the UN Security Council.
But why, for example, did South Africa, a nation that has prided itself on standing up for the world's downtrodden since apartheid fell, refuse to condemn Russia using cluster bombs on civilian areas?
Why would the Central Africa Republic (CAR), a country which has been torn asunder by warbands for decades, refuse to condemn the violence?
There is no single answer, though the abstentions underscore just how much diplomatic weight Moscow still wields across many of Africa's more authoritarian governments.
During the Cold War, Moscow supported many liberation movements across Africa – in countries including Angola, Mozambique and South Africa. Some aging elites even studied in Moscow and still speak fluent Russian, though these links have faded somewhat from the days of the USSR.
A more significant factor is Russia's huge military footprint on the continent. More than half of African nations have military cooperation agreements with Russia, and the country is the largest exporter of arms to sub-Saharan Africa.
Many governments that abstained from Wednesday's vote – such as Algeria, Uganda, Burundi, South Sudan, Mali, Mozambique, Sudan and Angola – rely heavily on Russian military hardware and guns to keep their soldiers kitted out. These countries are all authoritarian or dictatorial, with little regard for human rights abuses by their security forces.
The powerful son of Uganda's President of 35 years, Lt Gen Muhoozi Kainerugaba, expressed his support for Putin's invasion on Twitter – “the majority of mankind (that are non-white) support Russia's stand in Ukraine”, he said.
Mr Kainerugaba is tapping into a noticeable strand of East African public discourse, which argues that Putin's attack on Ukraine is justified because of the West's antics in Africa and, more recently, in Libya, Iraq and Afghanistan.
Several countries like Madagascar, Mozambique, Sudan, CAR and Mali are also known to employ Russian guns for hire, or currently have mercenaries from the Wagner group – which has links to the Kremlin.
The Centre for Strategic and International Studies in Washington DC also found evidence that Russian soldiers of fortune had been active since 2016 in the Republic of Congo, Zimbabwe and Burundi – all of which abstained from the vote.
Sudan's top warlord and deputy leader – Lt Gen Mohamed Hamdan' Hemeti' – was in Russia as the invasion was launched. Hemeti's troops are reportedly being trained by Wagner mercenaries, and he was quick to support the invasion, saying Russia had a right to defend itself.
“Do not expect strident condemnations from those countries where there is a large Russian presence, especially from PMCs [private military contractors],” Steven Gruzd, from the South African Institute of International Affairs think tank, told CNBC recently.
It seems that South Africa, Tanzania, Senegal and Namibia may be trying to carve out a non-aligned position in the conflict. South Africa, which is a member of the BRICS nations, is wary of offending Moscow.
In a statement at the UN General Assembly earlier this week, South Africa's Mathu Joyini again called for “diplomacy and dialogue” and emphasised the importance of the “peaceful resolution of conflict”, refusing to name Russia as the aggressor.
“We urge all parties to approach the situation in a spirit of compromise, with all sides upholding human rights, abiding by their obligations under international law and international humanitarian law,” she added.
South Africa's stance has come under heavy criticism at home. Many senior commentators have taken to social media to quote the late Archbishop Desmond Tutu – “If you are neutral in situations of injustice, you have chosen the side of the oppressor.”
However, Nigeria, Africa's other economic titan, condemned Russian aggression in Ukraine and said it was ready to sanction the country. Nigeria has most likely been frustrated by Russian efforts to gain influence in west Africa which Abuja sees as its rightful sphere of influence.
The Telegraph understands that many Western diplomats are quietly furious at the countries abstaining. But whatever their stance on the invasion, African nations have shown once again that the West should never take them for granted. Like in the north, leaders of the global south can and will act for their own geopolitical advantage.
Protect yourself and your family by learning more about Global Health Security
