A Great Power in Africa

[spunkychariot]

Out of all the countries created during decolonization of Africa, which country would have had a chance to become a great power on the world stage?

And mind you, I'm NOT asking SPECIFICALLY who had the best chance.

In my opinion it could have been South Africa (including Namibia in union), some country that came united out of Anglo-Egyptian Sudan, Nigeria, or even the Congo.

What are your thoughts on this?

[Alternate History]

South Africa is a definite contender, considering they started their nuclear program in 1948 and actually had a sizable nuclear arsenal for decades. Also, Congo and Angola are good candidates IMO because of their sizable diamond deposits; if they had managed to resist Western economic imperialism after the decolonisation, this could have given them great economic leverage. Other than those, I think only the northern coast could have stood a chance.

[Simon]

Probably Congo/Belgian Congo/Zaire/Democratic Republic of the Congo/Whatever It's Called This Month has the best chance in my opinion. They've got masses of natural resources plus the size and population to possibly make a go of things, of course that's also something of a drawback since you have to spread the resources over such a large area and number of people. Plus the educational levels and governmental involvement of the locals wasn't all that great IIRC. If they could swipe Cabinda for an oil supply as well so much the better.

[Linsanity]

Nigeria. Oil is everything.

[Living in Exile]

Does some kind of Arab union spanning North Africa and into Asia count? That might work if it's done right and early enough.

[The Oncoming Storm]

What would have helped Africa was if decolonisation hadn't happened against the backdrop of the Cold War with rival Superpowers propping up nasty regimes and supporting equally nasty "liberation movements."

As well as the potential regional superpowers listed above, many other African countries should have developed into much stronger states post independence. The one that sticks out for me is Ghana, it became independent in 1957 along with Malaya, it had plentiful resources such as bauxite and gold, was fertile and hadn't been wracked by a civil war. It also had by regional standards good infrastructure, a well educated and efficient administration as well as a budget surplus, many experts at the time gave it better prospects than Malaya. Sadly Nkrumah lost the plot almost from day one and Ghana ended up going down the typical African path of corruption, coups, authoritarianism and economic mismanagement while Malaysia developed into one of the World's most dynamic economies. Ghana has made big strides since democracy was restored 20 years ago but that underlines how much further on it should have been.

[Wolfpaw]

Originally Posted by The Oncoming Storm

What would have helped Africa was if decolonisation hadn't happened against the backdrop of the Cold War with rival Superpowers propping up nasty regimes and supporting equally nasty "liberation movements."

How else could it have happened? Hegemonic competition is and always has been extremely helpful to rebel groups. Decolonization would have been thousands of times harder without the ubiquity of the AK-47. Revolutionaries without suppliers don't tend to win.

[The Oncoming Storm]

Originally Posted by Wolfpaw

How else could it have happened? Hegemonic competition is and always has been extremely helpful to rebel groups. Decolonization would have been thousands of times harder without the ubiquity of the AK-47. Revolutionaries without suppliers don't tend to win.

The writing was on the wall after WW2 and even more so after Suez, simple economics dictated that. The Cold War meant that people like Mobuto and Bokassa were manoeuvred into power and sustained there because they were needed to act as a bulwark against "the other lot," many of those regimes arguably did more harm on their nations than the colonial ones.

[Lord Brisbane]

In terms of potential regional powers there are plenty of contendors. Ghana without Nkrumah, Zimbabwe without Mugabe come to mind but both gutted (like many others) by the catastropihic 'leadership' of a single or few men.

[spunkychariot]

Originally Posted by Living in Exile

Does some kind of Arab union spanning North Africa and into Asia count? That might work if it's done right and early enough.

Yeah, but I think an Arab union spanning all of North Africa and through into Saudi Arabia (which is what I think you would in include in your Arab Union) would constitute not only a great power but a super power because it would by far have the most oil in the world with Algeria, Libya, and Saudi Arabia in the mix.

Yet, I don't know how the union would be pulled off, though they are going to be united by Arab culture, they are going to be splintered by language (Arabic has many different dialects) and by ethnic groups. With oil put into the mix, this is going to create a European Union that is more unstable. And based on the history of the Middle East today, Israel/Western Powers and the Arab Union are going to be at each other's throats all the time, talk about a tense world!

[superjames1992]

South Africa is pretty much the only nation with much of a chance with a post-1900 POD, IMO, and its chances are slim.

EDIT: If you are talking about a Great Power on the world stage, at least. There are many more candidates for regional powers, of course.

[Kidblast]

Originally Posted by The Oncoming Storm

What would have helped Africa was if decolonisation hadn't happened against the backdrop of the Cold War with rival Superpowers propping up nasty regimes and supporting equally nasty "liberation movements."

As well as the potential regional superpowers listed above, many other African countries should have developed into much stronger states post independence. The one that sticks out for me is Ghana, it became independent in 1957 along with Malaya, it had plentiful resources such as bauxite and gold, was fertile and hadn't been wracked by a civil war. It also had by regional standards good infrastructure, a well educated and efficient administration as well as a budget surplus, many experts at the time gave it better prospects than Malaya. Sadly Nkrumah lost the plot almost from day one and Ghana ended up going down the typical African path of corruption, coups, authoritarianism and economic mismanagement while Malaysia developed into one of the World's most dynamic economies. Ghana has made big strides since democracy was restored 20 years ago but that underlines how much further on it should have been.

Fun fact, in 1957 South Korea was actually poorer than Ghana.

[Gunnarnz]

Originally Posted by Alternate History

South Africa is a definite contender, considering they started their nuclear program in 1948 and actually had a sizable nuclear arsenal for decades.

They had nuclear weapons for about 10 years (between 1979 and the voluntary dismantling of the program in 1989), and their arsenal peaked at six deliverable weapons. While it is a very impressive achievement in itself (and even more impressive that they voluntarily gave up their arsenal, the only nation to ever do so), I think calling it "sizable" and saying that the arsenal lasted for decades might be a bit misleading.

[spunkychariot]

Originally Posted by superjames1992

South Africa is pretty much the only nation with much of a chance with a post-1900 POD, IMO, and its chances are slim.

EDIT: If you are talking about a Great Power on the world stage, at least. There are many more candidates for regional powers, of course.

Seems like South Africa is on everyone's mind to be a great power. I still think that if Egypt had held on to Sudan and somehow had some competent leaders, it would have become a great power owning the Suez and oil. But South Sudan would pose a great amount of trouble if not dealt with.

And yes I only wanted to know about what African countries did have a chance to be a great power. Don't really care much about regional powers because they don't have much influence on the world stage.

[Cuāuhtemōc]

South Africa (probably annexing Rhodesia, Namibia, Lesotho and Swaziland), Egypt (annexing the predominately Arabic north of the Sudan), and the Congo.

[Simreeve]

Originally Posted by Gunnarnz

(and even more impressive that they voluntarily gave up their arsenal, the only nation to ever do so)

One of two nations to do so, actually: you're forgetting Canada...

[HeavyWeaponsGuy]

Originally Posted by Cuāuhtemōc

South Africa (probably annexing Rhodesia, Namibia, Lesotho and Swaziland), Egypt (annexing the predominately Arabic north of the Sudan), and the Congo.

SWAPO and ZIPRA/ZANU-PF would make annexing both of those particularly unpleasant for the South Africans. In addition to the rather unpleasant diplomatic consequences (annexing a black African state would only add fuel to the flames of anti-Apartheid sentiment and would complete the regional isolation South Africa worked hard to avoid), the possibility of having to expend the SADF's resources against a very determined guerrilla resistance that would not welcome South African rule is probably not going to do the government any favors.

Lesotho and Swaziland were black homelands, so that would be going back on their promises and would set a bad trend with regards to relations with other so-called homelands. South Africa has the best ability out of anywhere in Sub-Saharan Africa, true, but territorial expansion may simply give them more guerrillas to fight and more land for said guerrillas to hide in as opposed to real economic benefit.

Egypt grabbing Sudan, Libya, or successfully forming the United Arab Republic would work nicely for a more Mideastern power.

[sendô]

To go from a third world/developing country to a world power you need the country to be:

a) physically large
b) have a sizeable population
c) have good natural resources, both in terms of raw materials, aswell as good access to water/food provisions.

Not many african countries have these pre-requisites. South africa are one, the modern DRC is another with the potential, and maybe a third is Nigeria.

It'd take a lot for them to become powers vis-a-vis the US, Europe or China though.

[yourworstnightmare]

If Rhodesia had been unified with South Africa during the colonial era, Apartheid would have a much harder time and perhaps fall earlier. And apartheid was one of South Africa's greatest obstacles anyways.

[Simon]

Originally Posted by Simreeve

One of two nations to do so, actually: you're forgetting Canada...

Canada? I was under the impression that with Canada it was only nuclear warheads for the missiles based in the country that were US owned but loaned to them, so that they didn't have full control. As far as I'm aware Canada never domestically produced and maintained their own nuclear weapons did they?