Source witheld (It’s AI)
Introduction The principle of non-alignment adopted by many African nations in the mid-20th century was not developed in a vacuum. It was influenced by a combination of strategic observation, historical experience, and pragmatic necessity. Among the models that shaped this policy was Switzerland’s historical neutrality and, to a lesser extent, the treatment of African soldiers conscripted into colonial wars. Together, these elements formed a bedrock of caution and independence that continues to inform African foreign policy. Simultaneously, these historical experiences pose significant challenges to military alliances like NATO, especially when faced with a hypothetical global conflict such as a Third World War.
Swiss Neutrality as a Model Switzerland’s enduring neutrality, especially during both World Wars, offered a practical model for African leaders emerging from colonial rule. The Swiss model demonstrated that small or geopolitically vulnerable nations could preserve sovereignty by:
- Avoiding entanglement in great power alliances.
- Maintaining a credible national defense.
- Leveraging a diplomatic posture rooted in humanitarianism and peace.
Leaders such as Kwame Nkrumah (Ghana), Julius Nyerere (Tanzania), and others recognized that adopting a stance similar to Switzerland could afford their young nations room to maneuver in a bipolar world dominated by the United States and the Soviet Union. The Non-Aligned Movement (NAM), formalized in 1961, was the institutional expression of this strategy, emphasizing self-determination, peaceful coexistence, and resistance to neocolonial manipulation.
Historical Trauma: African Soldiers in Colonial Wars A deeper and more painful influence came from African participation in the World Wars as conscripts in European armies. African soldiers were instrumental to the war efforts of France, Britain, and others, yet were routinely subjected to racism, under-compensation, poor living conditions, and systemic neglect upon their return. Notable events, such as the Thiaroye massacre in Senegal (1944), where French West African troops demanding fair treatment were killed by their commanders, left deep scars.
These experiences seeded a long-standing mistrust toward military alliances involving Western powers. African nations learned firsthand that participation in imperial wars did not lead to equality, development, or respect. Instead, they saw how soldiers from the periphery could be used and discarded by core powers. This historical memory strongly discouraged military alignment, reinforcing the logic of neutrality and self-reliance.
NATO, Race, and the Modern Military Recruitment Crisis As the United States and its NATO allies contemplate future global conflicts, they face a growing internal crisis regarding military recruitment and legitimacy:
- Demographic Shifts: The core white populations in many NATO countries are aging, while younger generations are increasingly diverse and politically skeptical of establishment narratives.
- Historical Discrimination: Minority communities, particularly African Americans and Latinos in the U.S., have historically served in disproportionate numbers in lower ranks, while being underrepresented in leadership and overexposed to systemic abuse.
- Declining Trust: With the backdrop of controversial wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, a significant portion of the younger population views military service with suspicion, especially if the cause is perceived as imperial or economically motivated.
- Social Fracture: Western societies are experiencing deep ideological polarization. Any attempt to reinstitute conscription or mass mobilization would face resistance from communities that feel disenfranchised, surveilled, or exploited.
Global South Reluctance From the vantage point of the Global South, NATO’s selective moralism and interventionist posture evoke colonial memories rather than solidarity. Any appeal to African nations for troop contributions or alliance in a World War III scenario would likely be met with extreme caution, if not outright refusal. The expectation that African countries would again offer their bodies for a conflict not of their making is fundamentally out of step with contemporary political consciousness.
Conclusion Non-alignment remains a core strategic posture in African international relations not merely because of ideological leanings, but due to historical lessons and deeply ingrained survival strategies. Drawing inspiration from Switzerland’s neutrality and shaped by the exploitation of African conscripts in past wars, the doctrine of non-alignment protects sovereignty and autonomy. As the global order continues to fracture, alliances like NATO must grapple with the legacy of racialized military structures and the limited appeal of their strategic objectives to the world’s majority. In a new era of geopolitical uncertainty, the willingness of nations and communities to participate in another great war cannot be taken for granted.