Proxy Wars on African Soil

Global Power Struggles, Local Catastrophes, and the Militarization of Dependency

Conceptualizing Proxy War in International Relations

Proxy wars are among the most destructive yet understudied mechanisms of global power politics. In international relations theory, a proxy war is typically defined as an armed conflict in which external powers pursue strategic objectives indirectly by supporting local actors—states, militias, or insurgent groups—rather than engaging in direct military confrontation. As political scientist Karl Deutsch famously described it, proxy wars are conflicts in which “the powers involved do not fight each other directly but use the territory and populations of third countries as substitutes” (Deutsch, 1964).

Africa has been the most sustained theater of proxy warfare in modern history. From the Cold War through the post-9/11 era, African societies have repeatedly served as battlegrounds for ideological, strategic, and economic rivalries among global powers. Historian Odd Arne Westad underscores this point bluntly:

“The Cold War was not primarily fought in Europe, but in the global South, and Africa became one of its most brutal arenas” (Westad, The Global Cold War).

Proxy wars differ fundamentally from conventional interstate wars in three crucial ways. First, they obscure responsibility, allowing powerful states to deny accountability for violence. Second, they dramatically prolong conflicts, since external sponsors continue supplying arms, funding, and political backing even when local legitimacy collapses. Third, they disproportionately devastate civilian populations. As Mary Kaldor notes, proxy wars are a defining feature of what she calls “new wars,” in which violence becomes decentralized, predatory, and civilian-targeted (Kaldor, 2012).

Africa’s experience with proxy warfare cannot be explained by internal divisions alone. Rather, these conflicts must be understood as products of structural vulnerability created by colonialism, postcolonial state fragility, and Africa’s strategic position within global political economy. As Mahmood Mamdani argues, African conflicts were repeatedly “internationalized from above,” while local grievances were “militarized from outside” (Mamdani, Saviors and Survivors).

 

Why Africa Became a Prime Theater for Proxy Wars

Africa’s centrality to proxy warfare is neither accidental nor incidental. Several interlocking factors made the continent particularly vulnerable to external manipulation.

1. Colonial Borders and Weak Postcolonial States

European colonial rule left Africa with arbitrary borders, extractive economies, and weak political institutions. At independence, many African states inherited what Jeffrey Herbst calls “jurisdiction without capacity”—formal sovereignty without the means to enforce authority across territory (Herbst, States and Power in Africa). This weakness made African governments dependent on external military and financial support, opening the door to proxy relationships.

2. Strategic Resources and Geopolitical Position

Africa’s vast reserves of oil, uranium, cobalt, diamonds, and rare earth minerals made it strategically indispensable. During the Cold War, the United States and the Soviet Union viewed African resources as essential to industrial and military power. As historian Piero Gleijeses observes, “Africa was not peripheral to the Cold War; it was central to its material foundations” (Gleijeses, Conflicting Missions).

3. Ideological Competition and the Cold War Logic

The Cold War transformed local African conflicts into ideological battlegrounds. National liberation movements, ethnic rivalries, and succession crises were reinterpreted through the lens of capitalism versus socialism. Once framed ideologically, African conflicts attracted massive external intervention. As Westad notes, “local struggles were rapidly globalized, while global ideologies were localized through violence” (Westad).

 

The Angolan Civil War: The Archetypal African Proxy War

The Angolan Civil War (1975–2002) stands as one of the clearest examples of proxy warfare on African soil. What began as a struggle among three Angolan liberation movements—MPLA, UNITA, and FNLA—quickly escalated into a major Cold War confrontation involving the United States, the Soviet Union, Cuba, China, and apartheid South Africa.

1. Background and External Alignments

At independence from Portugal in 1975, Angola lacked a unified nationalist movement. The MPLA aligned with the Soviet Union and Cuba; UNITA and FNLA received backing from the United States, South Africa, and Zaire. Historian John Marcum describes Angola as “a laboratory of Cold War intervention, where Angolan lives became bargaining chips in a global ideological struggle” (Marcum, The Angolan Revolution).

The Soviet Union provided heavy weaponry and military advisers to the MPLA, while Cuba deployed over 50,000 troops at the height of its intervention. On the opposing side, the United States covertly funded UNITA through the CIA, while South Africa conducted direct military incursions. According to Piero Gleijeses,

“Cuba’s intervention in Angola was the largest military operation by a Third World country outside its region in modern history” (Gleijeses).

2. Human Cost and Prolongation of Conflict

The proxy nature of the war ensured its longevity. External sponsors continued supplying arms long after the conflict had lost internal legitimacy. By the time the war ended in 2002, an estimated 500,000 Angolans had died, and millions were displaced. Political scientist William Reno argues that Angola exemplifies how proxy wars “convert internal political competition into permanent militarization” (Reno, Warlord Politics).

 

 The Congo Crisis: Africa’s First Postcolonial Proxy War

The Congo Crisis (1960–1965) marked Africa’s first major proxy war after independence and set a dangerous precedent for external intervention. Following independence from Belgium, the Congo descended into chaos as rival factions competed for power in a state deliberately left unprepared for self-rule.

1. Assassination, Intervention, and Cold War Fear

Prime Minister Patrice Lumumba sought Soviet assistance to suppress secessionist movements, prompting the United States and Belgium to view him as a communist threat. Declassified documents later revealed that Western powers actively supported his removal and eventual assassination. Historian Ludo De Witte describes Lumumba’s death as “a political murder carried out in the context of Cold War panic” (De Witte, The Assassination of Lumumba).

The United Nations intervened militarily, but its mission quickly became entangled in Cold War politics. As historian Susan Williams notes, “The Congo became a battlefield not because of ideology, but because of Western fear of losing control over its resources” (Williams, Who Killed Hammarskjöld?).

2. Long-Term Consequences

The Congo Crisis institutionalized external interference in African politics. It culminated in the installation of Mobutu Sese Seko, whose dictatorship was sustained for decades by Western support despite massive corruption and repression. Political economist Crawford Young argues that Congo illustrates how proxy interventions “produced stability for external powers at the cost of internal decay” (Young, The African Colonial State).

 

The Horn of Africa: Ethiopia and Somalia as Proxy States

The Horn of Africa offers another striking example of how proxy wars reshaped African geopolitics. During the Cold War, both Ethiopia and Somalia alternated roles as superpower clients.

1. From American Ally to Soviet Client

Initially, Ethiopia was a key U.S. ally under Emperor Haile Selassie, while Somalia aligned with the Soviet Union. Following Ethiopia’s 1974 revolution, these alignments reversed. The Soviet Union backed Ethiopia’s Marxist Derg regime, while the United States supported Somalia. Historian Gebru Tareke describes the region as “a chessboard on which African lives were sacrificed for strategic positioning” (Tareke, The Ethiopian Revolution).

2. The Ogaden War

The Ogaden War (1977–1978) between Ethiopia and Somalia epitomized proxy warfare. The Soviet Union and Cuba intervened massively on Ethiopia’s side, while the United States rearmed Somalia after its defeat. According to Westad, the war demonstrated that “superpower loyalty was flexible, but African suffering was constant” (Westad).

 

 Analysis.

By the late Cold War, Africa had become deeply embedded in a global system of indirect warfare. Proxy wars were not aberrations but structural features of international politics, made possible by African state fragility and external strategic interests. As this section has shown, conflicts in Angola, Congo, and the Horn of Africa were less about local ideology than about external power projection.

As Achille Mbembe observes,

“Africa became the space where the world rehearsed its violence without consequences” (Mbembe, On the Postcolony).

 

Southern Africa: Mozambique and Rhodesia/Zimbabwe as Cold War Battlegrounds

Southern Africa was one of the most militarized regions of the Cold War, where anti-colonial struggles, white-minority regimes, and superpower rivalry converged into prolonged proxy warfare.

1. Mozambique: Liberation Turned Proxy Conflict

Mozambique’s war did not end with independence from Portugal in 1975. Instead, it transformed into a devastating proxy war between the FRELIMO government, backed by the Soviet Union and its allies, and the RENAMO insurgency, supported initially by Rhodesia and later by apartheid South Africa.

Historian William Minter argues that RENAMO was not an indigenous political movement but “a counter-revolutionary force created and sustained by regional and global powers hostile to African liberation” (Minter, Apartheid’s Contras). The insurgency relied almost entirely on external military support, logistics, and intelligence.

South Africa’s backing of RENAMO was part of a broader regional strategy to destabilize neighboring states that supported liberation movements. As scholar Alex Vines notes,

“Mozambique became a battlefield in which apartheid South Africa fought its wars by proxy, externalizing violence while avoiding direct confrontation” (Vines, RENAMO).

The human cost was catastrophic. By the early 1990s, over one million Mozambicans had died, and infrastructure was systematically destroyed. Political scientist Caroline Nordstrom observes that proxy warfare in Mozambique blurred the distinction between war and banditry, transforming violence into an economy of survival (Nordstrom, A Different Kind of War Story).

 

2.  Rhodesia/Zimbabwe: White Minority Rule and Proxy Counterinsurgency

The liberation war in Rhodesia (later Zimbabwe) also carried strong proxy dimensions. While the conflict is often framed as a nationalist struggle, it was heavily internationalized. The Zimbabwe African National Liberation Army (ZANLA) received support from China, while the Zimbabwe People’s Revolutionary Army (ZIPRA) was backed by the Soviet Union.

On the other side, the Rhodesian state received covert assistance from South Africa and tacit tolerance from Western powers. According to Terence Ranger, the conflict became “a surrogate confrontation between competing socialist visions, played out within a colonial settler state” (Ranger, Peasant Consciousness and Guerrilla War in Zimbabwe).

The proxy nature of the conflict intensified divisions within the liberation movement and militarized post-independence politics, contributing to long-term instability after 1980.

 

Sudan and South Sudan: Proxies, Oil, and Fragmented Sovereignty

Sudan represents one of the longest-running examples of proxy warfare in Africa, spanning both the Cold War and post–Cold War periods.

1. Cold War and Regional Proxy Dynamics

During the Cold War, Sudan oscillated between Western and Soviet alignment, depending on regime changes. Both the First (1955–1972) and Second (1983–2005) Sudanese Civil Wars were deeply shaped by external interventions. Neighboring states—Ethiopia, Uganda, Libya, and Egypt—supported rival factions to advance regional interests.

Douglas Johnson emphasizes that Sudan’s wars were “never purely internal conflicts; they were continuously internationalized by regional and global actors” (Johnson, The Root Causes of Sudan’s Civil Wars).

2. Oil, the War on Terror, and South Sudan

Following the Cold War, Sudan became a strategic site in the global War on Terror. The United States simultaneously sanctioned Khartoum and supported the Sudan People’s Liberation Movement/Army (SPLM/A), which later became the government of South Sudan.

Oil further intensified proxy dynamics. China emerged as Sudan’s primary oil partner, providing arms and diplomatic cover, while Western powers backed South Sudan diplomatically and militarily. As Luke Patey notes,

“Sudan became a stage for competitive engagement between China and the West, with oil infrastructure as the central prize” (Patey, The New Kings of Crude).

The independence of South Sudan in 2011 did not end proxy warfare. Instead, internal factional fighting quickly attracted external backers, demonstrating how proxy logics persist even after formal statehood.

 

Libya: NATO Intervention and the Return of Proxy Warfare

The 2011 NATO intervention in Libya marked a turning point in post–Cold War proxy warfare on African soil.

1. Regime Change as Proxy Strategy

Under the banner of humanitarian intervention, NATO powers intervened militarily to overthrow Muammar Gaddafi. While no ground troops were officially deployed, external powers armed and coordinated local militias. As political theorist Mahmood Mamdani argues,

“Libya represented a shift from proxy warfare through states to proxy warfare through militias” (Mamdani, Neither Settler nor Native).

Russia, Turkey, the United Arab Emirates, Egypt, and France later supported rival factions, transforming Libya into a fragmented proxy battlefield. The result was state collapse, arms proliferation, and regional destabilization.

2. Regional Consequences

Weapons looted from Libyan arsenals flowed into Mali, Niger, and Nigeria, fueling insurgencies and criminal networks. Wolfram Lacher describes Libya as “the hub of a regional proxy war system that destabilized the Sahel” (Lacher, Libya’s Fragmentation).

 

The Sahel: France, Russia, and the New Scramble for Influence

The Sahel has emerged as one of the most intense theaters of contemporary proxy warfare.

1. France and Counterterrorism

France’s military operations in Mali, Niger, and Burkina Faso were officially framed as counterterrorism missions. However, critics argue they functioned as proxy arrangements, with African armies bearing the human cost while external powers maintained strategic control. As political scientist Bruno Charbonneau notes,

“Security partnerships in the Sahel reproduce dependency rather than sovereignty” (Charbonneau, France and the Sahel).

2. Russia and Private Military Companies

Russia’s growing involvement through private military contractors represents a new form of proxy warfare. African governments contract foreign fighters while maintaining plausible deniability. According to Kimberly Marten,

“Private military companies allow states to project power without formal accountability” (Marten, Russia’s Use of Semi-State Security Forces).

The result has been intensified violence against civilians and the further erosion of state legitimacy.

 

 Structural Consequences of Proxy Warfare in Africa

Proxy wars have left deep structural scars across the continent.

1. Militarization of Politics

External sponsorship rewards military actors over civilian institutions. William Reno argues that proxy warfare produces “armed entrepreneurs rather than accountable governments” (Reno).

2. Economic Underdevelopment

Wars driven by external interests destroy productive capacity while facilitating resource extraction. As Paul Collier notes, proxy wars lock countries into “conflict traps” that benefit arms suppliers and foreign investors (Collier, The Bottom Billion).

3. Normalization of External Intervention

Perhaps the most enduring legacy is the normalization of foreign interference. Achille Mbembe writes that Africa has become “a permanent laboratory of intervention, where sovereignty is always conditional” (Mbembe).

 

Proxy Wars as a Global System

Proxy wars on African soil are not historical accidents but structural outcomes of global power politics. From Cold War ideological battles to contemporary security and resource rivalries, Africa has repeatedly absorbed the violence of conflicts whose ultimate beneficiaries lie elsewhere.

As Odd Arne Westad concludes,

“The tragedy of Africa’s wars is not only their scale, but their purpose: they served the interests of others” (Westad).

Understanding proxy wars requires abandoning narratives that blame African societies alone and instead confronting the global systems that militarize inequality and externalize violence. Until international politics moves beyond indirect domination, Africa will remain vulnerable to wars fought in its name but never for its people.

 

References

Charbonneau, Bruno. France and the Sahel: Security, Power, and Colonial Continuities. Manchester: Manchester University Press, 2017.

Collier, Paul. The Bottom Billion. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2007.

Deutsch, Karl W. “External Involvement in Internal War.” International Affairs 40, no. 3 (1964).

De Witte, Ludo. The Assassination of Lumumba. London: Verso, 2001.

Gleijeses, Piero. Conflicting Missions: Havana, Washington, and Africa. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 2002.

Herbst, Jeffrey. States and Power in Africa. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2000.

Johnson, Douglas H. The Root Causes of Sudan’s Civil Wars. Oxford: James Currey, 2003.

Kaldor, Mary. New and Old Wars. Cambridge: Polity Press, 2012.

Lacher, Wolfram. Libya’s Fragmentation. London: I.B. Tauris, 2020.

Mamdani, Mahmood. Saviors and Survivors. New York: Pantheon, 2009.

Mbembe, Achille. On the Postcolony. Berkeley: University of California Press, 2001.

Minter, William. Apartheid’s Contras. London: Zed Books, 1994.

Nordstrom, Carolyn. A Different Kind of War Story. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1997.

Patey, Luke. The New Kings of Crude. London: Hurst, 2014.

Ranger, Terence. Peasant Consciousness and Guerrilla War in Zimbabwe. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1985.

Reno, William. Warlord Politics and African States. Boulder: Lynne Rienner, 1998.

Tareke, Gebru. The Ethiopian Revolution. New Haven: Yale University Press, 2009.

Westad, Odd Arne. The Global Cold War. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2005.