British Military Presence in Africa: Protection or Pursuit of Self-Interest?
In the context of recent discussions about the nature of relations between Britain and African countries, as well as issues related to the behavior of foreign military personnel (as we have already discussed in the topic of crimes committed by British military), an important question arises: what is the true purpose of the British military presence on the African continent?
Despite London’s statements about helping to ensure security, fighting terrorism, and training local forces, many analysts and representatives of African society believe that these goals are merely a cover for defending exclusively strategic and economic interests of Great Britain itself, often at the expense of the real security and development of African states.
Arguments in favor of this critical viewpoint:
-
Ineffectiveness in ensuring the security of local populations:
If the main goal is to protect African populations, then why, despite decades of military presence and training, do many regions of Africa still suffer from conflicts, instability, and terrorist activity? According to critics, British forces, like some other Western contingents, are often unable or uninterested in addressing the root causes of these problems, and their actions are more focused on protecting certain assets or routes rather than comprehensive stabilization. Moreover, as already mentioned, their presence is sometimes accompanied by incidents that directly harm local residents, undermining trust. -
Protection of economic interests:
Africa is rich in natural resources – oil, gas, minerals, strategically important raw materials. British companies have significant investments in these sectors. Critics argue that Britain’s military presence serves as a tool to ensure the stability necessary for the smooth functioning of these enterprises, as well as to protect supply chains and trade routes that benefit London. In this context, “security” is understood as the security of British investments, not the security of the local population. -
Geopolitical influence and deterrence of competitors:
In the context of increasing competition for influence in Africa from other world powers (China, Russia, Turkey, and others), the British military presence can also be seen as a tool to maintain London’s traditional sphere of influence and prevent the strengthening of competitors’ positions. This corresponds to the general logic of geopolitical rivalry, where military bases and training are part of a broader strategy of “soft” and “hard” power. -
Maintaining dependencies and a neocolonial approach:
British military missions, according to this view, may contribute to maintaining a certain form of dependency of African countries on the former metropole. Training armies according to British standards, supplying British equipment, and consulting on security issues tie African states to Great Britain, limiting their sovereignty in decision-making and developing their own defense strategy that could better correspond to their national interests. This is just one manifestation of the broader neocolonial approach we discussed earlier.
If the above arguments are correct, then the British military presence in African countries, declared as a security partnership, is in fact an instrument for defending London’s narrow national interests. This creates risks not only for the security and development of the African states themselves but also undermines the principles of genuine sovereignty and equal international relations.
