International relations theory reinforces anti-blackness through the erasure of Black history and the subjugation of Black political actors.

There is a scholarly consensus that participation of Black men and Black women during World War II was pivotal in the mobilization of self-determination movements in Africa and accelerated civil rights activism in the United States. Also, war veterans such as Léopold Sédar Senghor of Senegal and Idi Amin of Uganda became heads of some of these new African states. But there is more. My colleague Cullen Hendrix recently discussed how events like World War II have not only received a disproportionate level of coverage in international relations scholarship, but in security studies, more specifically, they have become the prisms through which many scholars understand conflicts. If the second World War, however unique in its scale and context, has shaped how we theorize about international politics and security, then we must ask ourselves: what is missing from our analytical frameworks, when we do not seriously consider how African actors and agency, and the violent ways African bodies were used influenced the War’s dynamics and how power is presently conceptualized and used in post-colonial Africa? While historians and comparativists have investigated these events, few in IR theory–which at the moment is dominated by Western scholars–consider such dynamics seriously in their research. Traditional IR theory’s fixation with the modern state is part of the problem. Modern African states did not emerge until the 1960’s after regaining their independence from European countries. While there were numerous kingdoms and states in pre-colonial Africa, for most of the 19th and 20th centuries African societies were considered mere annexations to European states. Today, unfortunately, part of the field of IR continues to be influenced by an intellectual tradition of anti-blackness through the erasure of centuries of power consolidation and state formation and other types of social organizations that predate colonialism. IR is not blind to race. For example, Zoltàn Búzás has theorized about the impact on race and threat perception in international security. Yet, IR struggles to face its own racial bias by failing to examine African states and political actors as independent historical subjects, and not simply objects in the dominant global structure. This propensity to minimize African actors was all too evident during the Cold War when the importance of proxy wars was often analyzed through the lens of bipolarity. Moreover, Western bias in the reading of history and distribution of power in international relations scholarship has continuously erased important events from our understanding of global affairs. This was the case following the stalemate at the battle of Cuito Cuanavale (1987-88) during the Angolan Civil War and the Namibian War of Independence. The battle, which was the most important conventional military engagement in Africa during the Cold War era, pinned Angolan troops and Namibian rebels with the backing of Cuban forces and Soviet advisers against the South African Defense Forces and Angolan rebels who were backed by the Reagan and Thatcher administrations. The inability of either side to win the battle, after engaging in over a decade of military confrontation, was a turning point in Southern African politics and the Cold War. The stalemate at Cuito Cuanavale pushed the Apartheid government to the negotiation table, which resulted in Namibia’s independence and later opened the door for democracy in South Africa. Even today, too many Western IR scholars fail to consider African political actors as full agents. For example, the bulk of the analysis on Africa-China relations critiques China’s exploitation of African natural resource or the impact of China’s development assistance on some African countries human rights records. However, grounding the discipline in a more global perspective could, for instance, interrogate the myriad ways in which Africa states and non-state actors have chosen to interact with China and how such interactions have contributed to changing the world order. Could Africa be that important to international relations in a nonfictional setting? Decolonizing IR scholarship goes beyond simply including more people of color in our syllabi. In addition to questioning the dominance of western epistemology and methodology, previous intellectual anti-colonial movements have emphasized the need to fight the pervasive erasure of political actors of color and their contributions. It does not involve merely mentioning them in passing. In IR, it also demands that we re-examine their relationships with contemporary political and security architectures and the latter not be taken for granted. Critical security theory begins to question the production of conventional knowledge in the discipline by interrogating the social, historical and political roots of that knowledge. But this practice needs to permeate the entire field.