In an era marked by accelerated geopolitical shifts and increasing multipolarity, it is imperative for African states to develop a clear understanding of their strategic interests and adopt sophisticated, long-term approaches to global engagement. The stakes are high, as decisions made today will determine whether Africa continues to occupy a peripheral role in global affairs or asserts its rightful position as a leader in sustainable development, peace, and innovation.

History, particularly in the post-independence era, reveals a persistent pattern.  One where Africa has frequently struggled to articulate a unified and coherent position on issues of critical importance to its own development. While global diplomacy is often likened to a game in which outcomes are determined not only by strength but also by strategic acumen, Africa's participation in this 'game' has often been undermined by internal fragmentation, regional rivalries – largely a colonial legacy, and competing national interests. The result has been a pattern of disunity that external actors have consistently exploited. Three key examples illustrate the consequences of Africa's inability to act in unison.

Firstly, there is the issue of climate change negotiations at the United Nations Climate Summit. Although African nations are among the most affected by climate change, the continent has often failed to present a coordinated position in international climate negotiations. Disparate national interests, varying degrees of vulnerability, and reliance on donor support have contributed to fragmented advocacy. This has weakened Africa's bargaining power, particularly in critical areas such as climate finance, adaptation mechanisms, and compensation for loss and damage. This diminishes the continent's prospects for social development.

Africa's inability to act in unison

Secondly, there was the 2011 Libyan crisis, which will forever be an albatross around Africa's neck. The African Union initially advocated for a peaceful resolution to the Libyan conflict. However, several African states either supported or conceded to the NATO-led intervention endorsed by the 1973 UN Security Council Resolution. This divergence undermined the AU's position and weakened Africa's capacity to influence the post-conflict reconstruction of Libya, thereby reducing the continental voice in matters of regional peace and security.

Thirdly, it is an issue of the reform of the United Nations Security Council (UNSC). Despite the long-standing Ezulwini Consensus (2005), which calls for expanded African representation in the UNSC, African states have been unable to coalesce around specific candidates or a unified reform agenda. Internal competition among leading states, particularly Nigeria, South Africa, and Egypt, has stalled progress, revealing deeper fractures in continental diplomacy. History is awash with examples of Africa's debilitating disunity among its member states.

Amid contemporary global tensions, ranging from the US-China rivalry to the continuing Russia-Europe standoff, Africa finds itself in a vulnerable position, caught between competing spheres of influence. Recent overtures from major powers resemble a modern-day Berlin Conference, with external actors vying for influence across a divided continent. In the absence of unity, individual African states are likely to be courted in isolation, weakening the continent's collective agency.

Yet Africa possesses immense potential through its rich natural resources, a burgeoning youth population, and vast opportunities in green energy, digital innovation, and agribusiness. A cohesive and assertive Africa, leveraging its comparative advantages, could emerge as a key architect of a new, more equitable world order.

President Ramaphosa's diplomatic restraint

However, the challenge lies not only in external dynamics, but also in the internal strategic posture of African leaders. For instance, yesterday's diplomatic engagement between President Cyril Ramaphosa and the US administration reflects a calculated effort to restore strained relations. In the face of provocations, including misleading statements by President Donald Trump on land reform and crime in South Africa, Ramaphosa's measured approach arguably prioritised long-term diplomatic and economic interests over rhetorical retaliation.

This episode invited comparison with the forthrightness of past African leaders. As I sat there watching the live broadcast of the talks, I could not help but think about how President Nelson Mandela responded when questioned in the early 1990s about the African National Congress's solidarity with figures such as President Fidel Castro, President Muammar Gaddafi, and Yasser Arafat. His response was unequivocal, stating:

"One of the mistakes which some political analysts make is to think that their enemies should be our enemies. We have our own struggle ... we are an independent organisation with its own policy."

I also thought about how President Mugabe would have responded. I was reminded of his statement when he withdrew from the Commonwealth, as he faced backlash for his land expropriation policy. He defiantly stated:

"This is a club of colonialists. We are not British subjects. We are Zimbabweans."

As President Trump sought to lecture President Ramaphosa about the lived experiences of South Africans and question why he was not arresting Julius Malema, I quickly thought of President Kwame Nkrumah in his speech about the need for Africa to unite and the warning about the paternalistic tendencies of the Western powers. In that, he stated:

"It is clear that we must find an African solution to our problems, and that this can only be found in African unity."

Thomas Sankara's trenchant observation remains relevant as well, when he said:

"He who feeds you, controls you."

These statements exemplify a vision of Africa rooted in dignity, self-determination, and strategic autonomy.

In contrast, President Ramaphosa's diplomatic restraint may be seen as a form of pragmatic realism, aimed at preserving trade relationships and avoiding public confrontation, especially given the current economic conditions South Africa finds itself in. With all its limitations, he needs to be commended for managing the talks as he did. Also significant was the inclusion of COSATU President Zingisa Losi in the delegation; her articulate insights into South Africa's socio-economic challenges offered a valuable intervention that broadened the discourse beyond the perspectives of the government and business elites.

Africa must dare to invent the future

Johann Rupert's remarks, particularly regarding crime and internet infrastructure, were of interest as well, as they underscored the private sector's stake in international diplomacy. Noteworthy was his advocacy for technologies such as Starlink, which must, however, be situated within the broader national regulatory framework. South Africa's insistence on equity ownership regulations is of importance, as it reflects a commitment to economic redress and transformation, an imperative that should not be compromised in pursuit of foreign investment.

Nevertheless, the optics of African leaders appearing to seek validation or assistance from Western powers can reinforce perceptions of dependency. The imbalance in power dynamics, where African governments are summoned like school prefects to the principal's office to justify their domestic policies, raises profound questions about sovereignty, agency, and the politics of global engagement.

As Thomas Sankara warned, Africa must "dare to invent the future." The continent's prosperity will not be handed to it, it must be strategically claimed through transformative governance and social justice, economic resilience and sustainable development, and pan-African unity and global repositioning.

The question remains: Will the emerging world order mark a continuation of Africa's marginalisation, or a decisive turning point towards African renaissance and global relevance? The answer lies in the choices African leaders make today and the degree to which they can galvanise collective action in the service of continental transformation. The general African population, in all its diverse formations, must embrace active citizenship and play an engaged role in shaping the continent's future. It cannot afford to delegate this responsibility solely to political elites or institutional actors, as meaningful transformation requires the collective agency, vigilance, and participation of all Africans.